dmacmillan wrote:
Jeremy,
I agree it's a silly thing to argue about, but to quote the OP: "I know flare is not for everyone, but I see it as a creativity thing and like to give it a try." The "smartass" comment didn't slam the technique or those who use it, it questioned whether following trends (and the use of flare sure seems like a trend on FM) could be classified as creative.
I think flare can add drama to a photo and I've seen some great examples of its use by posters on FM.
Peace
No worries, we can disagree. To me, it was
Direct Question: How to get more flare?
Answer: This isn't an aswer to your question - why would you want that? People who do that are followers.
Joanna: You know what, Stan, if you want me to wear 37 pieces of flair, like your pretty boy over there, Brian, why don't you just make the minimum 37 pieces of flair?
Stan, Chotchkie's Manager: Well, I thought I remembered you saying that you wanted to express yourself.
Joanna: Yeah. You know what, yeah, I do. I do want to express myself, okay. And I don't need 37 pieces of flair to do it.
[flips off Stan]
I for one, and for what it is worth, would like to learn how to add flare, and how to make it work for me.
As for the creativity, well that can come later, yes i want to learn flare so i can be more creative. I find it hard to believe that people confuse tools and techniques for creativity. The more techniques and tools i learn along the way, will help me to be more creative. Learning how to do something should not cramp some one, on the contrary it should free them and allow them to branch out and view things differently.
we all learn how to do "basic" lighting. we all learn basic posing. we all learn how to use DOF... and the list goes on. I am not sure why this is any different, other then it is a style that some like and some do not. But for those that take the time to learn it, they will have more knowledge, and i hope will one day, use it to break the "rules" and be creative with it.
just my 2 cents...
craig
I've been experiementing with how to add flare to my images lately and I've discovered that many times you can actually see it in the viewfinder so you know you have it and can control where it is in the frame to some extent by varying your angle slightly. The other thing I've discovered is that I'm finding it much easier to get my 50 1.4 to flare than my Tammy 28-75 or the canon 70-200 2.8 zooms. I haven't really touched my 17-55 since i got the 5d2 a few weeks ago but I did shoot that lens for a while often wide open and never really got any flare from it. The 10-22 doesnt' really seem to want to flare easily either. Now the question is does the 50 1.8 flare better or worse than the 1.4? That's if you can even get it focused.
@ trybul - Yeah... what he said... I am not very good at expressing my ideas...
@ NotoriousPTG - Ha ha! Yeah, the problem is I can't focus... But, a few here have suggested just manual focus, or use the assisting beam from flash...
doode on ur shot thats a flare right there, wat are you looking for specifically? You want perfect lens flare with green and magenta circles? those are hard to find, its like looking for treasure. You have to be at the right spot at the right time, i don't even know the formula for that. You just have to look for it, everywhere.
as far as technique goes, you can use any lens, any aperture, any camera. Dialing it in is the hard part, and that is a lot of trial and error.
There seems to be a unannounced debate on what flare even is. I say the the circles or at least beams are nessesary to call it flare. Otherwise its just a nice picture of the sun.
you CAN NOT get that every time, trust me, i tried. Its very dependent on many variables, on this one i block the sun with the opening in the wall and I had an additional 2x4 bar of wood blocking the lens. This was also next to the ocean so there are no buildings or anything to bounce the lights around. Shot with 16-35
I think the photos are gorgeous; she uses a lot of flare, it's her style. It looks like it's best to have subject backlit, expose for foreground, and move around until you see the light.
I've never been very successful with it - but like you - would love to practice it in case someone wants it.
4honor wrote:
@ JmsWms - Well, it's more new than creative... But, I don't see it in my area yet, so maybe I can make it "creative" here... Also, there might be paying clients that would like this, so the more styles I can have, I think the better. Thanks for the kind words though!
--------
The more styles comment is unlike any of the really successful photogs. One style identifies them and only one. So multiple styles, even though successfully done will always be a new identity for the viewer to see. Is that what you want? Every well-known shooter is instantly recognized for THEIR style. Don't you want that?
@ bubbag2000 - Haha, nice one... I think my current style will still be my primary style, but just like to explorer new things for myself.
@ Pfiltz - Heh, I like to be a follower. I let others test the waters so in case they fail, I won't... As for the wide open thing, I tried that, but my lens can't seem to focus... I know the above is a pretty good shot, the client is happy with it, but just want something different... Thanks!...Show more →
To me, it was 
