p.6 #1 · Fill Flash for Outdoors. Why? It looks bad.
There's been some discussion @ how the fill light on axis is not optimal for modeling, and for that reason discounting the use of on axis fill.
BUT, if the subject is being lit by indirect / flat lighting without the use of on axis fill, it is going to be EVEN FLATTER than it will be with the ever-so-slight "front-to-rear" modeling on-axis fill affords. In that regard the fill is adding (slight) modeling. In a scenario where the subject is well modeled by the ambient light, fill flash will serve to decrease it somewhat ... i.e. there is a degree of relativity involved based on what your lighting conditions are to begin with.
This of course takes us back to Peter's comment @ reading your light ... and subequently knowing how your tools are going to impact it.
p.6 #2 · Fill Flash for Outdoors. Why? It looks bad.
RustyBug wrote:
There's been some discussion @ how the fill light on axis is not optimal for modeling, and for that reason discounting the use of on axis fill.
Sometimes you're too polite, especially towards those who want to drag every possible lighting situation to fit into their systematic approach - even though it doesn't..
Learn how it might be done with no additional light or even explore the possibility of just one light - when at least two are required in the Mantra?? I don't think so..
p.6 #3 · Fill Flash for Outdoors. Why? It looks bad.
RustyBug wrote:
There's been some discussion @ how the fill light on axis is not optimal for modeling, and for that reason discounting the use of on axis fill.
Those who might argue that modeling isn't optimal with "neutral" fill never seen to be able to define what what optimal fill looks like in the technical sense of its application and cause and effect and confuse the roles of fill with key/accent lights which are used of axis to created modeling.
Part of the problem see is the inability of some to consider how a tool works on a cause and effect level with how they think it should be applied in the creative / artistic sense.
The subject line asks "Why use fill outdoors?" The answer, technically speaking, is to fit scene-to-sensor and record detail everywhere. What is that premise based on? The fact that when the contrast of the ambient lighting does not exceed the sensor, such as on an overcast day, fill is not needed.
Can you, if your artistic preferences dictate choose not to use supplemental fill in ambient contrast which exceeds scene range as the OP suggests? Absolutely, but you image will not have a full tonal range. That circles back to same answer of when fill is needed, when you want to record a full tonal range.
If fill is shaded anywhere will a full tonal range be recorded? No. Thus logically if fill creates shadows the camera sees it is not optimal in the technical sense. That in turn leads to how I define technically optimal fill:
Fill Light: A source which appears shadowless and without any specular highlights from the POV of the lens axis lifting the entire scene, allowing it's contrast to fit the range of the recording medium exactly WHEN KEY LIGHT IS OVERLAPPED ON TOP OF IT.
So by definition, fill, if used for the purpose of fitting scene-to-sensor never acts alone, it must act in combination with an off-axis light, the key light. Can it be feathered / moved off axis to also nuance the modeling of the key light? Of course but that's not it's primary role and when moved off center and creating shadow it will not be creating a full range of tone were fill and key shadows cross.
Fill is the foundation the lighting house the key light creates is built on. The reflected light ratio convention we use in portraiture assumes fill is even over the entire face (i.e. netural).
In a dark room start with a light just under the lens at chin level and you get this:
H:S
1:1 Equal light everywhere - "flat" lighting
Is that light key or fill by definition? Key because fill doesn't work alone. Does the lighting it creates look natural? No. Why? No modeling.
Now take a light of equal strength and put it to the right at 45° at eye level with the subject and you get this:
H:S
1:1 Equal light everywhere - "flat" lighting from the centered "fill"
1:0 Light at 45° overlaps the fill creating "key" highlight pattern.
===
2:1
Does the lighting now model the 3D shape of the face? Yes.
Does it model the faces naturally? No.
Why? The key light angle is too low. The key light also needs to be raised at a 45° angle to match the pattern seen in natural light most of the time (when light is in the eyes).
The necessity for the 45°/45° key light placement relative to the faces isn't an arbitrary rule imposed by the lighting thought police, it's an angle dictated by the shape of human faces and the desire to illuminate the eyes in portraits without the nose shadow hanging down or sideways past the nose becoming a distraction.
If key light is placed higher than 45° and the brow on most faces will begin to shade the eyes. When key light angle relative to the eyes gets too much below 45° the nose shadows start to move sideways instead of falling directly over the nose.
The tools and technique you choose to use start with your goals for your portraits.
1) If a full tonal range is desired in the image for starters you'll need to:
a) add enough fill to record shadow detail
b) add key light to a point just below clipping.
If a full range isn't desired just expose so what is import looks "normal".
2) If a natural lighting pattern is desired you will need to:
a) Set lighting ratio for a full tonal range with (see #1)
b) Place your key light around 45° above the eye line:
1) centered for a full face "noon day" butterfly pattern - catchlight at 12
2) 45° from nose for a mid-day lighting pattern - catchlight at 10 or 2
If a natural lighting pattern isn't desired put your lights anywhere.
It's not rules or any agenda on my part besides trying to teach a logical framework for deciding how to apply the cause and effect the tools create from a baseline goal of recording a full tonal range with natural modeling. If a beginner learns to that, lighting things every other way should be easy to figure out on their own.
p.6 #4 · Fill Flash for Outdoors. Why? It looks bad.
""Why use fill outdoors?" The answer, technically speaking, is to fit scene-to-sensor and record detail everywhere. What is that premise based on? The fact that when the contrast of the ambient lighting does not exceed the sensor, such as on an overcast day, fill is not needed."
I think you're starting off on a false premise. The fill is not to make the scene fit the sensor. It's to improve the light and look of the image. If it happens to better fit the sensor, that's a nice benefit but it's not the main objective. Even on an overcast day, we use shiny gold or silver reflectors because they give an extra pop to the image and help the image look better, even when the original scene completely fits within the sensor's range. The fill makes the quality of light better, regardless.
You may have just nailed the reason that your images are technically correct but lack emotion. By being so analytical about lighting and ratios and sensor ranges, you lose sight of what makes good and compelling images in the first place - images that tell stories without words and images that you want to just keep looking at and not stop looking. It's probably the reason (and Doug can attest to this) that we were never once taught lighting ratios at Art Center. We were taught to look at the light and decide if THAT light was appropriate by the way it looked, not by the specific angle or ratio, and if the light needed modifying, you could decide if you a reflector or fill should be large or small, flat or shiny, mirrored or even black - to achieve the mood and effect you are after.
p.6 #5 · Fill Flash for Outdoors. Why? It looks bad.
Well, if Charles looked at the subject and saw how it was lit and if he decieded to add fill, at least he knows what he wants and how to do it and, especially, how to articulate the problem and the solution. Working with Monte at weddings, I am sure that they both got outstanding, emotional images worth looking at.
p.6 #6 · Fill Flash for Outdoors. Why? It looks bad.
Peter Figen wrote:
It's probably the reason (and Doug can attest to this) that we were never once taught lighting ratios at Art Center. We were taught to look at the light and decide if THAT light was appropriate by the way it looked, not by the specific angle or ratio, and if the light needed modifying, you could decide if you a reflector or fill should be large or small, flat or shiny, mirrored or even black - to achieve the mood and effect you are after.
"We were taught to look at the light...". Maybe that's what set Art Center apart and why it has enjoyed such a good reputation over the years.
We looked at the light, instead of measuring the light. Actually, we did measure the light, but with our eyes and minds. Also, we saw the light in relation to the final product, be it a black and white print or a color transparency reproduced.
While Art Center demanded technical excellence, they were more interested in what we had to say than whether our ratios were precise.
Yet, all of this would be just ancient history if we didn't continue to grow and hone our skills. It was 40 years ago when I was sitting in class at Art Center and 25 years ago I went back to school to get a B.S. degree to change fields and left the world of professional photography. In many ways I consider myself a better photographer now than I was back then. I know I'm having as much fun.
When I received an unexpected bonus, I considered either upgrading to a better scanner or buying a new lens. The lens won out, because I'm much more interested in the photo I'll take tomorrow than the photo I took 40 years ago. Yes, I'll also upgrade the scanner sooner or later, but right now I'm having too much fun creating new images.
We now return you to our feature, "Plan 9 From Outer Space".
p.6 #7 · Fill Flash for Outdoors. Why? It looks bad.
I should add that it wasn't that we never used light meters. We did, and still do on occasion, but as Doug points out, it was never about the ratio per se, only about the final product.
p.6 #8 · Fill Flash for Outdoors. Why? It looks bad.
cgardner wrote:
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. ...Show more →
Agreed on all points and observations. 12 stops...mmmmm, that would be nice!
My point was that, while still not ideal lighting by any means, outdoor fill-flash can certainly make a shot work where it might not otherwise - even if you are stuck in a situation with no other options but the built-in flash (like the casual snaps posted). Typically when out in the field trying to make a shot work - and I'm no pro - I do find fill-flash to be helpful and I'll use my speedlight on a bracket with a lumiquest-style softbox. I think that in addition to general modeling fill, the flash helps fill in areas that the natural light would not have found and eliminate or at least mitigate some "black holes" that would have harmed the shot:
