p.5 #2 · Fill Flash for Outdoors. Why? It looks bad.
Namlak wrote:
Here's a couple shots I've taken that I think show fill-flash working well. Both were casual shots of my kids out and about, not engineered photographs, per se.
The flash in both images was with the built-in flash (I have a Nissin 866Di when I'm "doing photography" or know I'll need more power).
Good, better, best are all a matter of comparison.
Do they look good with built-in flash? Yes. But in large part likely due to the natural skylight modeling the face and fill bounced up from below and in the second shot any specular reflection the flash is creating on the skin seem perfectly natural because he is wet.
As mentioned earlier, axis fill doesn't create shadow so the "Hey that's fake" reaction is mostly the result of seeing specular highlights in unnaturally low places on the face when subject and camera are on the same level. In the first shot in the tree the fact the highlights created by the flash are not noticed is probably a combination of is skin not being oily or sweating and the upward angle of the lens and flash relative to the flash.
Would they have looked better if the flash was raised on a bracket? Yes because a bracket creates directional lighting and 3D modeling on faces more similar to natural light. You will not appreciate the difference it makes until you shoot with and without in the same situation and compare the results. I started with flash on a bracket and shots without them to me don't look as good as I know they could be.
What could make them look even better? Being able to own a camera with a 12 stop DR or shooting with B&W film that can be processed to produce that range. Then you wouldn't have needed the flash to record the full tonal range of the scene.
p.5 #3 · Fill Flash for Outdoors. Why? It looks bad.
RE: use of filters with B&W
Panchromatic film spectral response is different than the eye and more sensitive to blue. So if even if you exposed perfectly for a full range of tone on neutral colors the sky will wind up unnaturally dark. Photographers who were aware of this kept a yellow filter on the lens outdoors at all time for "normal" skies.
Orange and red would make sky darker than normal. Green would make foliage lighter and seem to "pop" more in the same way the green bias from light filtering through trees over- saturates foliage in digital color shots (and greys skin tones)
p.5 #4 · Fill Flash for Outdoors. Why? It looks bad.
Peter Figen wrote:
The bottom line is that we, as photographers, have to learn to look at the light and determine if it's of a nature that helps or hurts the image and then decide what to do about it if it's not quite working in our favor.
p.5 #5 · Fill Flash for Outdoors. Why? It looks bad.
This has been an educational thread, and I enjoy seeing all of these opinions on the matter. When I wrote it, I thought my topic title was a bit incendiary. 4 pages later, it looks like I was right, and it looks like it worked! Haha.
RustyBug wrote:
BINGO !!!
As it often is, the best advice is the kind that isn't too specific. I can agree with this.
p.5 #6 · Fill Flash for Outdoors. Why? It looks bad.
"Panchromatic film spectral response is different than the eye and more sensitive to blue. So if even if you exposed perfectly for a full range of tone on neutral colors the sky will wind up unnaturally dark. Photographers who were aware of this kept a yellow filter on the lens outdoors at all time for "normal" skies."
Actually, when shooting panchromatic black and white film with no filter, the skies were rendered too light, not too dark. That's the reason, for normal tonal response, Kodak recommended that you use a light yellow filter, which absorbed a modest amount of blue and slightly darkened the skies.
p.5 #7 · Fill Flash for Outdoors. Why? It looks bad.
Peter Figen wrote:
Actually, when shooting panchromatic black and white film with no filter, the skies were rendered too light, not too dark. That's the reason, for normal tonal response, Kodak recommended that you use a light yellow filter, which absorbed a modest amount of blue and slightly darkened the skies.
Exactly. In addition, color film's blue layer is photosensitive to some ultraviolet. That's why the use of a UV filter can help. Some detergents have brighteners that fluoresce and can wreak havoc because they expose on the blue layer. Older flash heads didn't have built in UV filters and put out prodigious amounts of UV, making the situation even worse.
All of this old school information helps me in the digital realm. NIK Silver Efex Pro has built in color filters that work pretty well. B&W in digital is great because you can apply different filters to different areas of the photo. For instance, you can use a light green filter to lighten up dark foliage and then a yellow or red filter in the sky to darken it up.
The real trick of actually shooting B&W film and using filters is to see in terms of tonality instead of color. Images that look great in color can look dull in B&W since the a mid green and a mid red will render the same gray. It takes some time to learn to see in B&W.
p.5 #8 · Fill Flash for Outdoors. Why? It looks bad.
cgardner wrote:
...Panchromatic film spectral response is...more sensitive to blue. So if even if you exposed perfectly for a full range of tone on neutral colors the sky will wind up unnaturally dark.
Peter Figen wrote:
Actually, when shooting panchromatic black and white film with no filter, the skies were rendered too light, not too dark.
Yep; too dense on the negative meant too thin (light) on the print.
A yellow filter would darken the sky without darkening the clouds as an increase in overall exposure would. An amber filter would darken the skies even more, and a red filter would give a very dark, storm-like look.
p.5 #10 · Fill Flash for Outdoors. Why? It looks bad.
Peter Figen wrote:
John Ford: King of the red filters and Monument Valley
Wow, talk about a coincidence: here we are talking about B&W and John Ford, and I just got home to find The Grapes of Wrath playing on TV. The family is just pulling into a town, out of gas, and the policeman -- played by Ward Bond -- is approaching.
p.5 #12 · Fill Flash for Outdoors. Why? It looks bad.
ukphotographer wrote:
Did they add 'fill' or their own light in that film - or was it all done with natural light?
Ah, back on topic.
Ford and his cinematographers used a lot of added lights; skillfully placed to look natural sometimes, and to create a specific mood other times. Several of his films won awards not just for his directing, but also for cinematography.
p.5 #13 · Fill Flash for Outdoors. Why? It looks bad.
Bruce, that photo of the girl reminds me of another reason I dislike on-camera fill flash; The centred catch lights! (They're SUCH a give away) I can see you feel the same way about it, because you've edited them out in the final picture. I would have done the same. That's a good photo in my opinion, by the way!
p.5 #14 · Fill Flash for Outdoors. Why? It looks bad.
DubiousDrewski wrote:
Bruce, that photo of the girl reminds me of another reason I dislike on-camera fill flash; The centred catch lights! (They're SUCH a give away) I can see you agree with me on that, because you've edited them out in the final picture. I would have done the same. That's a good photo in my opinion, by the way!
The center catchlight drives me nuts. To me is the worst part of using on camera flash. I live with the occasional exposure differences but I just can't get past the catchlight.
p.5 #15 · Fill Flash for Outdoors. Why? It looks bad.
Bruce Sawle wrote:
The center catchlight drives me nuts. To me is the worst part of using on camera flash.
Now thats where filters can really come in handy.. put a horizontal polariser on your flash and compliment that with a vertical on your lens and voila.. no catchlights..
p.5 #16 · Fill Flash for Outdoors. Why? It looks bad.
It's pretty obvious that additional lighting and/or reflectors were used in those old Ford movies, but it's also obvious that he used a red filter in most of the daylight outdoor scenes as well. And in many shots, you could extract a still image not dissimilar to the type of shot I made of Lyle - where the light of the face contrasts against the dark of the sky, creating a more dramatic image. It was also those old black and white films that convinced me to buy a 25A red filter in the first place back in the mid 1970's. I liked that look and wanted to duplicated it for myself. The funny thing is, is that the older I get, the more I go back to a classic, timeless look, that, more and more, is including shooting black and white film. Well, at least for personal work.
p.5 #17 · Fill Flash for Outdoors. Why? It looks bad.
Bruce Sawle wrote:
The center catchlight drives me nuts. To me is the worst part of using on camera flash.
With single flash yes. If the catchlight is dead center the light is too low to model the face. Using a bracket with single flash raises the catchlight to 12 o'clock and models the face naturally.
When flash is used as a second light for fill the trick is using small shallow source with a big footprint. I use a 22" dish for fill, letting it's light spill off the ceiling and walls for a wrap around effect. The dish creates a pin prick highlight that is really easy to remove. I came to use the dish for fill by accident. After buying it I did a comparison test between it and a med. SB as key light, and I swapped the two between key and fill and noticed how small the dish's catchlight was from back near the camera used as fill.
One of the reasons I see fill getting shaded on faces in low places is the photographer putting a big fill source far to the side in an attempt to eliminate the fill catchlight in the eyes. The root cause of the problem is the big fill source, which creates the big catchlight reflection.
p.5 #19 · Fill Flash for Outdoors. Why? It looks bad.
The real conclusion to this thread is that while many cameras have built in flashes and hot shoes, using a flash with a very small surface area very close to the lens axis will often lead to an image that is less than pleasing. But sometimes that image is better than no image at all. This thread has also demonstrated that with some knowledge and creativity, some of the shortcomings of on-camera flash can be overcome, maybe not fully, but often in an acceptable way - not ideally, but perfectly fine for many purposes. So the original poster was partly right in that on camera flash often looks bad, but not completely right in that there are posted example here demonstrating otherwise. All in all, a good discussion.
p.5 #20 · Fill Flash for Outdoors. Why? It looks bad.
Good summation Peter.
I'd just add that over the years I've seen a huge number of photographers who started with in-camera of flash-in-hot shoe jump to the erroneous conclusion that you never under any circumstances want a flash near the camera axis. I've seen professionals say that — at least before the Alien Bee ring flash hit the market for $500
The "Stobist" movement fostered the idea that moving a single flash off camera and to the side so you saw shadows "improved" the lighting. It improved the 3D modeling by not the lighting until the photographer realized that complete control of lighting requires an off camera "Key" light and Fill. If and when they do realize that and employ a second flash, convinced at any flash near the axis is "bad" put it everywhere except near the lens.
Even despite the short-lived ring flash craze most don't connect the dots between flat light and good fill technique. A fill light near the lens is only "flat" when it hits a flat surface as this drawing of four blocks illustrates:
Move one of the blocks closer to the fill and it will be lighter in tone. Axis fill models a 3D face, front-to-back which is way the transition between highlight > shadow is so smooth when "neutral" fill is used in combination with a key light moved 45° higher and 45° to the side if the top of the nose. Move the fill anywhere else but near the axis and unfilled shadows will appear on low parts of the face.
So the other thing the reader of this thread should take away is that ALL single flash solutions aren't as good the same situation illuminated with two flashes with one of them keep centered as "neutral" fill which indoors and out give the photographer total control of both the pattern and the lighting ratio the flash lit parts of the scene they are photographing.
The other is understanding why near-axis flash looks bad. Mostly it's because compared to natural light the modeling clues on the face are different. There are no downward angled shadows and the highlights are lower on the cheeks and often specular (but not always) depending on the texture of the surface the light hits. The specular highlights are the most objectionable.
Few solutions are perfect, but there is usually more than one way to solve a problem. In the case of the unnaturally placed specular highlights near axis flash flash creates there are several: 1) make the source bigger; 2) move the source so the highlights while still specular are placed on the object more naturally (i.e. at 10 -12 - 2 o'clock); or 3) retouch them if noticed in Photoshop with the clone tool in lighten mode.
"Flat" single source lighting and "soft" dual flash butterfly lighting look very similar with light toned shadow transitions front > back as the light falls off away from the lens. But when the flash adds "hard" edged specular highlights that otherwise flat lighting looks objectionably "hard" on human faces.
But specular highlights aren't always "bad" they just don't look "natural" on human faces in most situations here the context or the photo does make it appear the person is wet or oily. Sources the do create specular highlights are a "good" thing for creating a "wet / shiny" look on skin and texture in object that appear soft like hair, feathers, chocolate or white cake in a food shot, etc. but that's a discussion for another day.
If one understands how each tool works in terms of its cause and effect physics, one is able understand why lighting technique performed with the tools wind up looking natural, or not. That informs one how to create both natural and unnatural looks and moods with lighting at will. That's easier done with two flashes, not one. Possible with one flash mind you in some cases, but easier done with two
