Do Not Use Flash
Monday 6th February
(Note - fill-flash is another issue to be discussed later!)
For several years now, I’ve been experimenting with flash-free (or available light) photography. You’ll notice the SimonG meet photos are mostly free of the harsh lighting that flash gives. Unfortunately, a compromise must be met, and therefore I use a very fast film speed which introduces a lot of grain.
The disadvantages of flash - especially camera-mounted - are:
- The scene is lit brightly from the front which removes all traces of natural shadows and therefore texture.
- A bright light close to the lens reflects back from the blood-vessels at the back of the eye causing our well-known enemy, red eye
- If the flash is just off-centre from the lens (as is usually the case), you see a harsh shadow of your subject on the wall behind
- Flash glares off reflective objects in a most distracting manner
The photo here shows all these undesirable features.
Another problem with flash is the ‘inverse square’ law of light. Light falls off at an initially great rate as distance increases, and slows at greater distances. Therefore, someone three metres from the flash will receive four times the light of someone just six metres away. The foreground is bright, the background vanishes.
If you examine the Eggheads photo - you’ll see that a flash would have brought the head in the bottom-left into prominence - when in fact, we want that to be missed completely. Kouros (the guy nearest the camera - for those who don’t know him) would be completely washed out, and Rich in the background would have been horribly underexposed.
Natural light doesn’t care about distance. The difference between 93,000,000 miles and 93,000,000 miles plus three metres is pretty insignificant. The only effect we see here due to natural light are the directness with which it hits the scene. The table in the background is more illuminated than I would have liked, but sometimes you just have to take the best shot you can given the circumstances.
With flash, the picture of Sam would have rendered a ’startled bunny’. Without flash, the natural window light, and room lighting are allowed to play on the contours and give a sense of depth.
So… give it a go… turn off your flash. Don’t worry if you badly underexpose your digital shots, they can be brought up in photoshop giving a high-contrast, grainy effect. I still think it’s an improvement over the alternative - flat, featureless lighting and demonic expressions!
Good advice, Stu! I must flash less often! Seriously.
Lois
6 Feb 06 at 11:46 pm
yes yes yes!
this is what i want to be doing.
and seeing as how i have a little tripod there’s no excuse not to do some playing around and seeing what happens.
thanks for the spur.
henry
6 Feb 06 at 11:50 pm
Fascinating stuff, Stu.
I’m certainly going to have a go at it. Thanks for the advice!
Rich
7 Feb 06 at 7:35 am
Another advantage of flashlessness is it preserves an even colour balance across the whole picture. I keep the flash off as much as possible.
Of course, you can always double-up on your pictures - one with, one without - and see which you prefer.
Gottle
7 Feb 06 at 8:05 am
There’s another good reason for not using flash - it saves the batteries of your camera! I always try not to use flash when I can - or, at least, try taking the photo twice with flash and without.
Sam
7 Feb 06 at 8:13 am
There’s a very good reason for not using flash when taking pictures of me…
I have a very shiny forehead.
I had to chuckle at the flash picture… “Here’s a really bad photo, but I didn’t take it… See?”
Seriously though, why do you seem to make so much sense sometimes?
Kouros
7 Feb 06 at 8:32 am
Kouros: There are plenty that I’ve taken like that, I was just happier putting a picture of me up, than an arbitrary friend who might complain.
Gottle: Partly true. Colour balance is saved for another time.
Sam: Good point! Although long exposures can eat more battery than flash.
Henry: Go for it! Tripods are great, because even if the people are moving in the long exposure, you get a nice sharp background to prove the camera was held steady.
Lois, Rich: Have fun playing
stu
7 Feb 06 at 9:15 am
*makes note to get tripod out
Lordhutton
7 Feb 06 at 10:54 am
On the flash picture…never mind the flash effect - WHAT ABOUT THOSE CURTAINS IN THE BACKGROUND?
Kika
7 Feb 06 at 11:12 am
heheh, if you don’t like the curtains, it’s a good thing you couldn’t see the rest of the house!
sweavo
7 Feb 06 at 11:25 am
I very seldom use flash. I occasionally do what Sam said about taking one with and one without, although it can get a bit silly as I’m usually taking one digital and one with film as well! Another of my hobbies is laughing at tourists taking photos of things a long way away at night, like landscapes, and using their flashes.
Fluffy
7 Feb 06 at 4:20 pm
Bring back the goats!
KronA
7 Feb 06 at 6:41 pm
I try not to use flash, but invariably do because I’ve forgotten to switch the flash off. So usually I take one with and one without! And I always prefer the non-flash one
I wonder if there is a better way of having it turned off permanently unless asked for.
Kate
9 Feb 06 at 10:25 am
On my 20D, you have to explicitly pop the flash up (or plugif you want to use it - that way you can be sure whether the flash is going to fire or not.
On a compact, I guess it’s not that easy!
stu
9 Feb 06 at 10:38 am