I'm curious what % of photographers have every tried a flash bracket.
It was conventional wisdom for shooting weddings back when I learned in the early 70s but they fell out of use when tilting flash heads allows ceiling bounce and higher ISO digital cameras made ambient lighting and avoidance of flash entirely a favored approach.
I've seen some opine that any flash near the lens was bad lighting technique — at least before the short lived ring flash craze a few years ago — but a bracket doesn't create flat lighting, it creates a butterfly pattern. But then you'd need to try one to understand that.
I've always used one and never leave the house without one. The other night watching the photographer scrum (as in Rugby) at the State of the Union address on TV I noted with interest that about half the photographers were using brackets, the rest shooting ambient only, which works quite well at an event like that lit for TV.
That made me wonder if brackets are making a comeback, hence this poll regarding lighting not put to the side on a pole...
If your answer is #4, tried it but didn't like it, add a comment why. Other constructive comments about experience with brackets also welcome.
Flash brackets are old and outdated and used mostly by old school wedding photographers. Maybe they had their place when flash really had to be used a lot for quality of light due to any film over ISO400 being horribly grainy but really on camera flash looks like on camera flash whether it's on a bracket or not.
You can see the same in the flashes that are available: the big powerful hammerhead style flashes have all died a death.
I personally haven't used one. I think at this point you can use something like a rogue flashbender if absolutely needed to get "just above axis" lighting similar to a bracket.
These days, bouncing is the way to go whenever possible.
For what its worth, the photographer at a friends wedding used a bracket and straight on flash at 5.6 nearly 100% of the time. The photos were AWFUL.
What benee said is what I kind of notice. Regardless if the photos are exposed well or not the bracket-flash shots that I've seen with direct flash seem to have a dated look and lack in aesthetic appeal to me. Maybe that's just a product of the old-school style of the guys who are mostly using flash brackets. I would love to see some flash-bracket shots that defy that description though. Surely there are people with modern aesthetic tastes and photography skills using them somewhere. A lot of the wedding guys use a demb flip-it for on-camera flash these days.
I have seen the results of a flash bracket (both well executed and not) and they don't appeal to me aesthetically. Hence, I would not buy one just to say that I have "tried it".
I think there needs to be another response:
"Used a flash bracket in the past, no longer use it."
None of the above quite fit my situation. The closest, "Tried it, didn't like it, don't use it now." was pretty close, but I didn't quit using it because I didn't like it.
I used a flash bracket for weddings and event photography, but that was over 25 years ago. Back then, color negative film (CPS, then VPS) was relatively slow. Even though VPS was rated ASA (ISO) 160, testing coordinated with my lab showed ~110 settings on my meters and flashes gave better results. Shooting available light extensively was out of the question because film was slow and rated for daylight (which included flash).
The average wedding photographer shot with flash because there was really no other practical way to shoot. I shot with Mamiya 6x4.5 and used a Stroboframe so I could flip from vertical to horizontal and keep the flash centered over the lens. I augmented the flash on the bracket with another flash on a monopod, held by an assistant, as the key light.
Now that I'm a happy amateur shooting mostly digital I don't use a flash bracket because the type of photography I do now doesn't call for flash. The few times I do shoot flash, I just use an extension cord and hand hold the flash unit. Autofocus makes that easy.
If I was still in the wedding photography business, I'd take advantage of fast lenses and high ISO and shoot in a different style than one that would call for a flash on a bracket. I'm a fan of Jeff Ascough and a number of photographers who post on the wedding forum here. It's a matter of preference. I prefer a more documentary style to a more formally posed style.
benee wrote:
These days, bouncing is the way to go whenever possible.
So what is it about light that has changed such that "These days" bouncing is the way to go whenever possible?
Bounced light vs. direct light are too very different animals ... that was true 1,000,000 years ago and will remain true 1,000,000 years from now.
Depending on the distance to your 'bounce' surface and it's reflectivity ... you can lose a considerable amount of your illumination and contrast. Sure, there are things you can do, i.e. higher ISO and wider aperture to compensate for this regarding illumination levels, but it comes at a cost today, the same as it did yesterday and will again tomorrow.
Without getting into a full blown lighting tutorial as to why ... I don't ascribe to "whenever possible" as being a prudent answer. This is essentially saying that "soft light" should be used for every subject, without regard for modeling, contrast or subject matter ... or whether you are using it for key or fill.
You can still use a bounce card or bounce from a bracket mounted position. The use of the bracket is primarily to change the position of the lighting relative to the axis. It doesn't dictate whether or not you use direct or indirect light ... that remains at your discretion.
RustyBug wrote:
So what is it about light that has changed such that "These days" bouncing is the way to go whenever possible?
Bounced light vs. direct light are too very different animals ... that was true 1,000,000 years ago and will remain true 1,000,000 years from now.
Ok, I'll clarify, for my aesthetic (specifically people shots at events) bouncing is the way to go whenever possible. Since flash brackets are typically used at events (wedding receptions, press coverage etc) I answered the question with that milieu in mind. With today's technology, it is easier to bounce (higher isos etc). Are there times when you need direct flash for fill or even as a key light? Sure. But my most prudent answer is for events photography, I try to bounce whenever possible.
No one is claiming that the properties of light have changed. Geez... And yes, I understand that there are limitations to bouncing light.
I see the issue not limited to "event" photography, while acknowledging it is strongly related to non-studio application ... +1 @ if it works well for your aesthetic.
I'm a fanatic of shooting in available light but there are situations when I need flash. So, in non pretentious situations or when the time is critical, when I have low ceilings or other easy ways to bounce the flash, I simply keep the flash on camera and bounce it. But for more pretentious situations and especially in very tall reception or conference halls I prefer a bracket, no matter if I use the light to fill or as a key. I found that this way I get better results. Even better results I get with the flash on a bracket and a secondary flash on a light stand. Nikon CLS works as a charm for me.
Mishu01 wrote:
I'm a fanatic of shooting in available light but there are situations when I need flash. So, in non pretentious situations or when the time is critical, when I have low ceilings or other easy ways to bounce the flash, I simply keep the flash on camera and bounce it. But for more pretentious situations and especially in very tall reception or conference halls I prefer a bracket, no matter if I use the light to fill or as a key. I found that this way I get better results. Even better results I get with the flash on a bracket and a secondary flash on a light stand. Nikon CLS works as a charm for me. ...Show more →
Chuck; I used in the 80s and into the 90s, then started using some off camera monos at weddings with a quantum wireless, then 285s and pws and now use a mix of 580s off camera and packs and heads, off course off cam.
I once finished photographing couples at a prom w/ a 285 bounced into a photogenic eclipse umbrella on a strobo frame. Had a drunk teenager knock over my mono and fall on the stand and break it. Worked pretty well. Always carry gator and gaffer tape.
Tried it liked it for a time, then found a better solution for me.
Well... as a non-native English speaking guy I often pick words that does not describe well what am I intending to say My intention was to speak about important and non-important situations, by non-important meaning these situation when you are taking pictures just for your pleasure, in a relaxing time, with friends, family, etc, not acting like the pro who show up always with tons of gear :-)
Let's consider cause and effect and why a bracket is a good thing, or not. Here's how I understand the cause and effect.
Let's start with direct on-axis fill (e.g., ring light). It will cast its shadow straight back and bounce any specular catchlights straight back at the camera. Here for the purposes of illustration imagine this is a gray object shot with a ring light level with the horizon of a dark gray ball and break down the cause and effect.
The flash will create a catchlight reflecting the source. The size with be a function of source size and distance, sometimes referred to as "apparent size" or how big to would look it standing at the ball and looking at the light. http://super.nova.org/EDITS/Flash01.jpg
It will also fall off front > back making creating the gradient that now tells our brains the gray thing isn't a flat disk it is a sphere of some sort. http://super.nova.org/EDITS/Flash02.jpg
Except at night outdoors I see some influence of "spill fill" from the light bouncing off the room and "wrapping" the object like an overcast day. To see and appreciate how much fill spill is contributing shoot a wide shot of the room. The net effect is more "wrap around fill". What you thought it came from the big ass key light you use? It does, some of it. But big source = big light footprint which in a small reflective room = mega-spill fill. http://super.nova.org/EDITS/Flash03.jpg
But with or without the spill fill what are we looking here at folks? Get rid of the funky catchlight and it is shadowless fill light I find ideal for many (not all) lighting scenarios using two lights. For example when a second speedlight slave is added just below and in front of the lens a butterfly pattern is created... http://super.nova.org/EDITS/Flash04.jpg http://super.nova.org/TP/ButterflyCanon2.jpg
A single flash with StoFen, LightSphere, Lumiquest, my DIY with the top flap open, etc. splitting the light into up and forward components will create a similar pattern if you can keep the downward component equal or stronger that what goes forward. What two lights give you that splitting one doesn't is precise control of the lighting ratio /shadow tone/illusion of softness.
Now lets go outside with our two light butterfly set-up. What do we get? We still have a nice front>back gradient from the axis fill, but with no spill fill so the gradient is steeper. http://super.nova.org/EDITS/Flash05.jpg
But because we have two light and separate control of fill we can raise the fill and make the shadows lighter as with the spill fill indoors. http://super.nova.org/EDITS/Flash04.jpg
The one scenario where using a bracket makes the most difference is outdoors where there is no bounce. Without a bracket to lift the flash the flash kills the modeling on a face in shade and also creates a low net ratio if sun is used as key light with overlapping fill. http://super.nova.org/EDITS/Flash06.jpg
All things considered I find flash on the bracket provides more natural supplemental light outdoors because except at sunrise and sunset no natural light is a low an angle as flash in hot shoe in portrait mode.
The take away is: Want more natural looking flash shots? Regardless of the tools you use be aware of and match the angle of the dominant natural light and fill direction and match those angles with the flash, indoors or out. Keep the brighter modeling Key component (bounced or direct from bracket) above the head, but not so high the eyes are shaded.
I find a bracket does those things more or less automatically when shooting with one flash, which I why I always use one with speedlights.
Outdoors I pose a face (and eyes) up into skylight for the pattern I want to wind up with the flash before adding the flash. That way natural and flash work together. Sort of like lighting with flash with God holding a big softbox behind your puny flash to remind you how inadequate it is. then add the flash.
Indoors high ISOs made near total darkness feasible but there isn't a dial on the camera to change the direction of the lighting to make it flattering or not shade the eyes. If I can't find a POV that make the light flattering I use two flashes to improve it. It's all artificial anyway, no? What wind up in the photo matters most to me so use controlled (by me) flattering flash rather than unflattering artificial ambient when possible, with gels as needed to handle color temp differences.
All things considered I find flash on the bracket provides more natural supplemental light outdoors because except at sunrise and sunset no natural light is a low an angle as flash in hot shoe in portrait mode.
Agreed Chuck as long as flash is 1 stop or 2/3 below ambient, if you over power, even on a bracket, the light becomes too harsh, imho. Esp true the further you are from subject, of course the light source becomes smaller subject distance is increased.
Tom Dix wrote:
Agreed Chuck as long as flash is 1 stop or 2/3 below ambient, if you over power, even on a bracket, the light becomes too harsh, imho. Esp true the further you are from subject, of course the light source becomes smaller subject distance is increased.
Excellent tutorial!
I use two flashes outdoors when feasible. The first near axis as "fill" to lift the shaded side to the point shadows look "normal" with detail (no clipping) in flashed foreground. That kills modeling. That's why the second flash is needed, at the same angle as skylight in front...
Above is direct flash on bracket (role of fill) and slave to right at 45° for a test.
Everything typically looks darker than an indoor shot on the front in backlight. Here sun lit white highlights are just clipping to about 1/3 under clipping in the backlight (Zone 9-10). The front flashed highlights darker about 2/3 stops under clipping (Zone 8 - shaded white). I adjust ratio / fill to taste in the shadows. Anything over clipping in a backlit shot like that works OK for me. If shadow detail is critical I boost fill more as needed to see the detail in the JPG playback which matches what I see final small JPGs in my workflow.
I often use 2 flashes, one on camera and the other off on a light stand or mounted on a monopod. I tried a few flash brackets, but I find that I prefer using a Rogue Flash Bender to bounce the light instead of using a cumbersome flash bracket.
Mark_L wrote:
Flash brackets are old and outdated and used mostly by old school wedding photographers. Maybe they had their place when flash really had to be used a lot for quality of light due to any film over ISO400 being horribly grainy but really on camera flash looks like on camera flash whether it's on a bracket or not.
You can see the same in the flashes that are available: the big powerful hammerhead style flashes have all died a death.
Well I guess I now know everything there is to know about flash
My intention was to speak about important and non-important situations, by non-important meaning these situation when you are taking pictures just for your pleasure, in a relaxing time, with friends, family, etc, not acting like the pro who show up always with tons of gear :-) 