A few months ago Strobist actually tried ETTL and discovered it works pretty well, especially if you want to use wide apertures outdoors... Apparently he also discovered neutral fills works too about the same time...

http://strobist.blogspot.com/2008/10/on-axis-fill-introduction.html

Stay tuned... next month he may discover the flash bracket!

cgardner wrote:
A few months ago Strobist actually tried ETTL and discovered it works pretty well, especially if you want to use wide apertures outdoors... Apparently he also discovered neutral fills works too about the same time...

http://strobist.blogspot.com/2008/10/on-axis-fill-introduction.html

Stay tuned... next month he may discover the flash bracket!





Can we expect another condescending post here 2 months after that?

Sorry you took it as condescending... I just found it hilariously funny when I stumbled across it with Google.

For a long time Hobby total dismissed TTL flash and optical wireless largely out of ignorance of having never actually tried it to the point of understanding how it is designed to work. He's been the main source of the disinformation about the Canon and Nikon wireless systems, claiming incorrectly they are limited by IR as a means to make radio triggering with cheap flashes seem to be the better approach. But there are far more advantages to modern TTL flash systems: remote control, high-speed sync, etc.

One of the better ways to use a single flash is to put it on a bracket over the lens, something wedding shooters discovered about 50 years ago. So you figure in all the time he's been using hot shoe flash he might have simply tried that approach

So in that respect it was hilarious for me to see he's finally discovered axis (neutral) fill, when most cameras come equipped with it and I've used and recommend it for over 35 years. I also consider neutral fill to be one of the technical fundamentals of lighting, especially with digital, due to the technical limitations of the recording medium.

A digital sensor can't record record the full range of detail seen by eye in most scenes. Digital most also exposed for the highlights. That means some shadow detail is always lost. The only way to get it back is to add fill. The only place to add fill and have it not make its presence known is for it to come from the direction of the camera. So if the goal is "natural" lighting (i.e. as seen by eye) the simplest way to overcome the technical limitation of the recording medium is to add fill over the camera. When used skillfully its not even apparent that it has been use, the photo just better matches what is perceived by eye than what the camera (film or digital) will record without it.

Yet some people, not really understanding the technology or limitations of the photographic process, will steadfastly refuse to put any light including fill near the camera thinking it is somehow less creative or a less pure or less"ethical" form of lighting. I get that kind of blow-back all the time here whenever I suggest beginners start with a neutral fill / key light configuration.

So in that respect it was quite funny to learn that Hobby as finally recognized the advantages too. Hopefully now with his endorsement it will now be less difficult to convince people to try it and also discover how well it works with digital

I don't think that I ever saw David denying the advantages of CLS or (E)TTL but rather found them outweighed by the disadvantages for his particular applications. As a result, he devised an alternative using manual exposure and wireless triggers and became so familiar with that setup that he used it in situations where CLS might have been a more efficient approach for someone who doesn't share his level of experience with the strobist techniques.

For example: how would you use IR or a master flash to trigger slaves which are on the opposite end of a basketball court? The range would render IR either useless or unreliable, and multiple flashes in the audience will not allow the flash itself to trigger the slaves.

Just read the blog post, does seem like a revelation to him.

Chuck is jealous his blog didn't take off like strobist...

It is kinda funny. I see his website recommended to more newbies than any other source for lighting information and it's not really full of helpful information. One thing it does do is teach people to get the flash off of the camera. But as far as how to light someone or something, it really lacks. Almost every "strobist" picture I see has the light placed almost completely to the side of the subject. There are much better books and websites for learning how to light.

Well Chuck, if you truly studied Hobby's Blog, you would be aware that he has promoted off camera lighting and recommended lower cost and DIY solutions that can bring home some outstanding images. All without the need of a large investment for those new to the concept to acquire multiple CLS and ETTL wireless components. Like recommending the purchase of a handful of SB-24s and Cactus wireless triggers for less than the price of one SB800 to young photographers struggling with budget limitations.

He also has invested considerable space to the use and capabilities of CLS/ETTL, Radiopoppers, PWs, and any other numerous more expensive wireless solutions.

You would also be aware of his posts on how to accomplish high speed sync with and without CLS/ETTL.

If you were truly well-informed of his personal work .... over 24 years as a full-time PJ ( you know ... an actual "working" pro) ... you would note he has used axis fill (neutral) quite a bit. If you were more familiar with his writing style you would be aware that much of what he writes is a bit tongue in cheek humor with a bit of satire on top of that. (note the reference to Joe McNally ... another "working" pro) If you had read the entire series, you would note that the installment you linked to, was an attempt at humorously breaking the ice to open the reader's mind to accepting on-camera/axis fill when so many recommend, "getting the flash off camera."

If you honestly believe that David only "discovered" axis fill in October of 2008, after nearly three decades as a working pro, you may not be as knowledgeable on the subject as you believe you are. Yes indeed, you will not find his techniques or advice in textbooks from decades ago, but is based on considerable time in the field actually creating works for daily publication in a major newspaper.

To sum it up, it would be akin to me or others forming a lasting and solid negative opinion about you based upon one or two forum posts.

Harry T wrote:
Just read the blog post, does seem like a revelation to him.

I read the post weeks ago, when he posted it, and I took it in a completely different way than Chuck did: rather than using the technique to champion flat, uninteresting lighting, Hobby was throwing it out there as a way to create dramatic, interesting, highly-dimensional portraiture. By bringing the fill as much as 4+ stops under the main exposure all you're doing is barely lifting the shadows into the realm of lowlights, giving you a depth and richness that isn't usually associated with "fill light" at all.

Yes, I understand that the technique is valid either way, but I do believe that the context and example/illustration images matter. You show me a dead, lifeless, flat photo to validate a technique and I'm not running to try it. You show me an interesting, sophisticated, nuanced image and I'm all ears.

Besides, the technique obviously wasn't news to Hobby...I think that Hobby thought it would be news to his (legion of) readers.

shatterkiss wrote:

Besides, the technique obviously wasn't news to Hobby...I think that Hobby thought it would be news to his (legion of) readers.

Indeed ... all you have to do to judge David's abilities is view his works ... granted some are mundane family/around the house shots, but the vast majority are quite well done published works.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidhobby/

cgardner wrote:
A few months ago Strobist actually tried ETTL and discovered it works pretty well, especially if you want to use wide apertures outdoors...


Dude, are you serious with your strobist trolling, I think there may be some truth to you being jealous.

Per what I've seen from watching the strobist video, he only endorsed any use of TTL if you're doing something where you have to keep moving such as events or weddings otherwise he likes to do everything manual most of the time. So to be fair Chuck is somewhat correct IMHO.

chuck just likes TTL because he doesn't have a creative bone in his body, so he relies on his camera to do the thinking for him. It's OK chuck... the sooner you come to realize this, the easier it will be for you to recover.

Oh boy, it's the battle of Strobist villagers with their torches and the the Fans o' Chuck!

Time to pop some popcorn

What ever happened to the "lighting and studio forum" being the "civilized forum"? This is ridiculous. No matter what your opinion is there's a decent way to present it.

I'm a young guy... (29 this January). I never shot film, never went to school, yet I have a growing, small wedding/portrait business and follow both Chuck's work / posts, and the Strobist blog / work.

I use what I need, when I need it. I fill flash when I need to on a bracket. I also, likewise use off camera lighting to my advantage when needed.

They're both good... let's not bash either one.

-Tim

Micky Bill wrote:
Oh boy, it's the battle of Strobist villagers with their torches and the the Fans o' Chuck!

Time to pop some popcorn

I am not a strobist fan nor a follower of Chuck but I advise that those who are quick to discount Chuck just may find themselves shorting a good source of information. I am no champion of Chuck but do recognize he has a wealth of information, even if he does deliver is in a pretty vanilla way.

To sum up...Chuck is old school (he's old ..sorry Chuck ) his style is old too but proven in building basic lighting techniques so if you don't like his postings just ignore them, there are many newbies that can be helped by his postings.

Peace

John

Here is my take.

I've read every word on Chuck's site.
I've read every word on Hobby's site.

It's painfully obvious both are very knowledge and frankly will go down in "internet history" as contributing to the growth of amateur photography.

It's painfully obvious both have been around photography a long time and know oodles about photography.

Anyone who makes a post or comment in poor taste about Chuck is way out of line and frankly loses a lot of respect.

Anyone who makes a post or comment in poor taste about Hobby is way out of line and frankly loses a lot of respect.

I just lost a lot of respect for Chuck.....

There really isn't much discussion beyond this ...