Hitler's birthday isn't until April.

I'm more interested in any farkettes wanting to flash their ornaments for a camera.

Dwight_Yeast: Hitler's birthday isn't until April.

Got there before I could. In one!

I'll also recommend Stop Shooting Auto (new window) if you got a new DSLR.

Gots me a Nissin Di866 on my Canon 5D mk II, the most powerful on-camera flash... in the world.

On full power it's like a tactical nuke detonating.

Lord Summerisle: On full power it's like a tactical nuke detonating.

So bright you have to put the lens cap back on to properly underexpose?

One of the best pieces of photography advice I ever received: "Flashes are for children."

That might have been a good blog but the summaries on m iPhone were all the first sentence of the article but cut off before the end. None of those articles looked interesting because the summaries made no sense.

I'm more old school. Like shooting in B/w and if I can get away without any artificial light inputs, I'm good. It's just how I roll, and over cook the film in the developer. Yes, people do still use darkrooms ya know......digital is the way, but some things cannot be done digitally that you can do with pushed b/w and shadows. There is some satisfaction to seeing what you planned come up in the tray under a safe light instead of shooping your mistakes. It's almost like how some people still prefer the 'warmth' of LP's and tube amplifiers...It's what you know and like.

Tobin_Lam: That might have been a good blog but the summaries on m iPhone were all the first sentence of the article but cut off before the end. None of those articles looked interesting because the summaries made no sense.

You had two choices

1) Read the blog when you have a computer handy

2) Whine

Maybe it isn't as classy, but I'm more of a celebrate Hitler's death kind of person. In a ditch, covered in petrol, on fire, etc, etc

Whatever you do, NEVER use a flash in relation to Phil Spector's trial.

All I can say is: I wish I had two off camera flashes and two shoot through umbrellas.

Did not get this Christmas.

etherknot: Lord Summerisle: On full power it's like a tactical nuke detonating.

So bright you have to put the lens cap back on to properly underexpose?

I've only ever used it to startle the cat.

ozebb: Jonderson: One of the best pieces of photography advice I ever received: "Flashes are for children."

They are nice for shooting children, among other things...

But seriously, with a little knowledge (as offered in subby's link) a flash can open up a whole world of possibilities for pictures you'd never have been able to take otherwise. An example from my own archives, taken with a cheapo manual flash:

[aaronhipple.com image 300x198]
And larger (new window)

I never would have been able to get that moth on my window and the moon in the same picture without a flash. The right tool for the job, and all that.

With regard to the link, subby might have done better to link directly to the introductory instructional section: Lighting 101 (new window)

Oh, I didn't mean to say that you shouldn't use artificial light. I don't mean that at all! By all means, you have to have the right light for the task at hand and sometimes that means artificial light. But using a flash (or any strobes, for that matter) is akin to using "Full Auto". It is taking the easy way out, and will never give you the precision or control of a constant light source (LED panels, for example), even if it is just for "fill". Of course there will always be shots which demand the use of strobes/flashes (action shots in the dark, ultra high speed photos, etc.), but not many people do a lot of those.

So I would disagree with you that you couldn't have gotten that shot of the moth against the moon (great idea, btw!) without a flash. A constant light source would enable it to be done, and multiple constant light sources would enable you to have even more control over the shadows.

Sample:
Shot using two diffused LED panels

Suede head: I've only ever used it to startle the cat.

I used to flash people point blank in the darkroom.

/When it was safe
//But evil!

Lighting 101 and 102 FTW. I've been using speedlights off-axis and try not to use it on camera unless I absolutely have to (events, family stuff).

/just picked up an Alien Bee B800 from CL
//diggin' it!

Love the flash, I'm not saying it's RODS ... but I did take this picture with a flash on my porch.

I knew which blog it was before clicking the link. Great resource. Check out the Flickr group too.

MadAmos:
Continuous light has its place, though I'd argue you're better off with tungsten. The emission spectrum of CFL and LED both have undesirable spikes, though LED is less so since its blue which the sensor in cameras are less sensitive to.

Strobes also have their place. Good for freezing action and easy to get your colors right if its the only source or with a gel.

I think the reaction to your post was the implication you made that strobes are either unprofessional or that using them means you are less skilled.

Photography is about capturing light. How you sculpt that light is up to you.

Tungsten vs LED...agreed, though if you are careful about balancing ahead of time and shoot RAW, LED is really non-problematic. Most non-pros do neither.

My implication that strobes are unprofessional or only used by those who are unskilled...well that is not exactly what was meant. Yes, I would say that they are going to be relied on more by those who are unskilled or unprofessional, but that doesn't mean that if you use them you are necessarily one or the other. It may mean that you are simply lazy, or not all that dedicated. It may mean that you simply don't care. Indeed, it may mean nothing more than preference. But...I do stand by the idea that they are appallingly overused, primarily by people who either don't know how to get he shot they want by any other means and don't care to learn, or by people who know how but are too lazy to do so. Flash/strobe use is necessary only in a very limited set of circumstances, and to use them when they are not called for reflects a lack of maturity as a photographer. That is what was meant by the advice I was being given, and it took me a long time to recognize how valuable that advice was. For someone who just wants to take good photographs, it probably doesn't matter. But if photography is what you do for a living, it really ought to.

Photography is about capturing light. How you sculpt that light is up to you.
This is an oversimplification of incredible magnitude. Photography is about much more than capturing light. It is about creating and capturing emotion, through the use of light. The bottom line is that given an identical subject in an identical environment, proper use of constant lighting will allow you to convey that emotion more effectively, more precisely, and with broader range than flash/strobe unless it is one of those particular few circumstances for which flash/strobe are specifically required.

Hitler's birthday is the day before mine, in April. I share a birthday with QEII.

As for flashes, I prefer to take shots with and without the flash and tidy up later in software.

etherknot

"All I can say is: I wish I had two off camera flashes and two shoot through umbrellas."

Depending on whether you have the flashes already, you can get such a rig pretty affordably. Some typical ballpark prices from eBay:

Light stand - $20
Umbrella - $7
Flash/umbrella bracket - $7

If you want to go the wireless trigger route, a transmitter & 2 receiver setup is around $28.

If you don't have your flash units yet, I'd highly recommend variable power units. These let you control the intensity of light coming from the flash. I have a Sunpak 422D that I like a lot that has that capability. I also have an old Focal brand bounce flash with that feature that works very well. You'll also want a flash with a high enough guide number so it will be bright enough to shoot through the umbrella. A guide number of 80 feet at ISO 100 should be enough. The higher the better, though.

Also: and this is VERY IMPORTANT - Know the trigger voltage of your flash if you plan on attaching it directly to your DSLR. Many of flashes have trigger voltages in the several hundred volt range. A trigger voltage of 6 volts or less is in the safe range for most DSLRs. (Check with your camera manufacturer to be sure.) A flash with too high a trigger voltage will fry your camera. Here's a trigger voltage chart for most flashes. (new window)

Other than some of the Sunpaks, the Vivitar 285 is a great, affordable flash with vari-power, but be careful... The older "Made In Japan" ones have a trigger voltage that can top out at 300 volts. Not good. The newer ones are around 12 volts and are safe for a good number of DSLRs. Your best bet is to test the trigger voltage (new window) before you mount the flash to the camera.

If you use a flash with a high trigger voltage with a wireless trigger it won't fry your camera, but depending on the receiver model, it may or may not work.

You could pick up a couple of nice varipower flashes for say, $40 each... Light stands, umbrellas & brackets will run around $70 for two of each, and then the wireless is around $30... That puts your total at around $180. Not dirt-cheap, but affordable. $100 if you already have the flash units.

I'm in the process of putting together such a rig myself. I've never been a big fan of flash, but I think this will open up some new creative possibilities. Should be fun.

Good luck & happy new year,
Gib :-)

Jonderson:

"My implication that strobes are unprofessional or only used by those who are unskilled...well that is not exactly what was meant. Yes, I would say that they are going to be relied on more by those who are unskilled or unprofessional, but that doesn't mean that if you use them you are necessarily one or the other. It may mean that you are simply lazy, or not all that dedicated. It may mean that you simply don't care. Indeed, it may mean nothing more than preference. But...I do stand by the idea that they are appallingly overused, primarily by people who either don't know how to get he shot they want by any other means and don't care to learn, or by people who know how but are too lazy to do so."

Depends on how you use flash. If you're just using the on-camera flash directly, then yeah, it's a snapshooter's shortcut. Get the flash off the camera and start experimenting with what it (or more than one) can do and it's a whole different ballgame that opens up a lot of new possibilities.

In my experience, using a constant light source is actually much easier than using flash because you can see the exact result before you shoot. But studio floods are hot, bulky, require electricity, and can be expensive. Flash is harder to get right, but it's cool, more portable, and less expensive to get into. Multiple flash is something I'm starting to get more serious about & I look forward to learning the tricks of using it to it's full advantage. Personally, I use whatever kind of natural and supplemental light to get the job done. After all, it's the end result that counts, not how you achieve it.

I didn't get a flash for Xmas, but I did get a buttload of camera gear: a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 MkII, Canon 400 f/5.6, Canon 1.4x III extender, and an Induro tripod and gimbal head.

DrPainMD

Drooooooooooooooool.

Tallman: I'll also recommend Stop Shooting Auto (new window) if you got a new DSLR.

I'll have to check this out.

I started with a full manual Ricoh about 1980, but have been using a point and shoot digital for the past 10 years or so.

My wife got me the entry level Cannon dSLR for Christmas, but I have not have much time to play with it.

You'll be flashing people in no time.