dhphoto wrote: PhilDrinkwater wrote:
Flash has its place, but generally fill flash wont look like the original scene lighting. Ask me which I\'d prefer, and this is the order:
* push the subject in post
* expose for the subject and let the rest go
* add fill flash
There are cases when fill is the right thing to do and I do use it, but it doesn\'t produce the same result.
-1
I completely disagree.
Well executed fill-flash is almost or completely un-noticeable and grossly manipulating a file is the very last thing I want to do.
Get it right in-camera if you can is always the best policy IMO.
You\'re welcome to disagree. I know many do. You\'ll notice that I didn\'t say fill flash was the worst choice all of the time but for my work I use it as a last resort.
In many of the cases where I\'ve discussed this with people in the past, shots have come forward and I\'ve pointed out the little things that people don\'t seem to notice, so firstly it depends if you have the time or environment to get it totally right and, if you don\'t, which is the better compromise - fill flash which you can see is fill flash or a pushed exposure.
Ill give one example by the way. A wedding photographer friend of mine sent me a shot during a fill flash discussion claiming you couldn\'t see. I pointed out the little specs of light in the eye and the unnatural shine on the skin. He retorted that he liked those and I said, that\'s fine, but don\'t tell me you can\'t tell. At they point it\'s personal taste.
Weddings are a special case for these kinds of things since you don\'t have the time to setup a perfect shot for everything you might want, especially with a documentary style.
On the get it right in camera point, I agree to a level - the level being where it costs me more time to get it right before post than after.
YMMV
Feb 23, 2013 at 11:18 AM
Previous versions of PhilDrinkwater's message #11369178 « Dynamic Range »
