> Tina posted: "Just say NO to flash."
> And Moose responded: ""Nothing that requires flash is photogenic. :-)"
> And Dean says, "Well, maybe so, but try to take these without flash:"
I am a strong believer that flash has its place. I wouldn't be using
it if photographing in a war zone, for example, but for a cave-dweller
wedding? Sure! Yes, you can shoot at ISO 87 Billion, but then you end
up with the usual schlock of darkened eyes, shiny foreheads, blocked
up shadows and strange colorcasts caused by the mix between candles, a
florescent light, somebody's cellphone and the emergency exit sign.
The ONLY thing you can do to save those pictures is convert to B&W.
Ooooo, look, a B&W wedding album, how Chic. No, it's because the
photographer was an idiot and the only thing possible was to pretend
like B&W was the intent. Unfortunately, it usually looks like cr*p
because B&W needs to be the intention WHEN shooting, not the fallback
save-you-rump thing afterwards.
That said, I tend to not use flash very much, now. But some things
really demand having a bit of your own lighting. A wedding ceremony is
one of those things that really can stand the help. It's important
because you really do need to control the contrast and the quality of
the light. Even a tiny bit of on-axis fill flash is enough to make the
eyes look normal. I've seen too many wedding albums, lately, where the
faces look like empty skulls because of the harsh overhead lighting.
But, these aren't Tina's photos. She has the inhuman ability to get
portfolio-grade images out of nothing.
--
Ken Norton
ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.zone-10.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|