> Using a flash properly can and does lead to a better photograph, but it takes a lot of practice.
I recognize that my P&S camera isn't fast enough to take pictures in low light without the flash, but are there other situations where I should be using a flash?
Generally, using a flash makes my pictures look "cheap" (better than blurry, I suppose). Even when there is strong backlighting and I need to use the flash to balance it out, it still looks wrong.
Much to my wife's consternation, I usually tend to push the no-flash as much as possible (I've missed quick-moving children and other shots because of this). I suppose if I used the flash I would have actually captured the moment, but I don't think I've really seen a picture I've taken with the flash that I've found to be remarkable looking.
Because direct flash makes things look terrible. If you want flash, you need to buy a flash that can bounce off the ceiling or something similar. Besides, modern SLRs have such great low-light performance that buying a fast prime pretty much removes the need for a flash at all.
> Flash photography is a balancing act between the light that comes from the flash strobes and the light of the environment. It's very popular these days to take portraits where the background is blurred, often significantly, but the subject is still in sharp focus. Background blurring is a product of the physical aperture of the lens and the distance to the subject. Opening the lens up to create more blur in the out-of-focus areas requires that the shutter speed be increased to compensate for the additional light entering the camera. A typical sunny day outdoor exposure might be f/2.8 at 1/3200s. This is far beyond the typical sync speed of a focal plane camera.
I found this to be a very helpful explanation of why I would want to use a leaf shutter. TFA explains it in terms of your flash "competing with ambient light", and shows a lot of sample pictures of a properly exposed subject over an underexposed background. While visually interesting, it's probably not an effect I would want to go for when taking pictures of my kids.
Putting it in terms of being able to use the largest aperture possible in broad daylight makes more sense. There have been plenty of situations where I have been shooting in harsh daylight at f/1.7, and would have liked to use my pop-up flash to soften the light a bit, but the camera doesn't allow it due to max sync speed limitations.
Unfortunately it doesn't sound like leaf-shutter lenses are the solution for me, as the $1800 minimum for a single leaf shutter lens is more than I am willing to pay for an entire camera + lens setup.
> Take tons of photos, they change a lot very quickly.
Speaking of photos, make sure you have an SLR/interchangeable lens camera with a good fixed ("prime") portrait lens.
The image quality of large sensor cameras is way ahead of compact cameras (not to mention camera phones). Given that young babies spend most of their time indoors, you need a fast lens to use natural light and avoid using the flash.
Certainly, but the point is still very good and balanced either way. Good advice.
My example comes from using a point-and-shoot pocket camera, not my phone. Very little control over shutter speed and aperture and such, but I've used it with great success for landscapes in good-to-low light. I've probably sold more prints from the P&S than my SLR, all because I had it in my pocket when the light was right.
It's very easy to think that gear is important, but the progress in recent years is towards quicker photo taking, which is actually the opposite of what helps me take better photos. I find that a decent quality manual focus camera without a light meter slows me down enough for me to get into the right frame of mind to understand what i'm looking at.
I use aperture or shutter priority a LOT, and don't feel bad about it, particularly in environments with rapidly changing lighting.
Until fairly recently, you couldn't get an APS-C or FF sensor with fast glass without D-SLR (or M4/3, which is essentially the same concept), so I have no problem with using it on auto mode for snapshots, too.
I don't disagree as a general rule. It's good advice, as people tend to go a bit nuts when they discover their camera's drive mode settings. That said, the weekend I was thinking about was about 3-1/2 days of competition. A lot of that was shot in bursts due to the nature of the subject and environment (high motion sports with a lot of movement relative to the sensor plane with crappy lighting and no flash). In that situation, I'm perfectly fine with a low keep rate because I know going in that I'm dealing with a situation that's going to be tough for even modern AF sensors. Doing the same for a wedding reception or something similar would quickly become a bit of a nightmare, though.
In my personal work, that's not an issue as I shoot almost exclusively with manual focus glass (Loxia lenses, adapted glass, etc.). With focus magnification and peaking, it's very rare to ever have to reject a photo for blatant focus issues even when I'm using a lens with a razor-thin DOF at f/1.2.
I take casual snaps of people in daylight with fill flash a lot. I used to have an interchangeable lens camera (which is limited to roughly 1/200 sync speed) but I sold them all to switch to Fuji's X100 camera line because of its leaf shutter. The X100's leaf shuter allows you to sync at 1/1000s at f2. That's a 2- to 3-stop advantage over a focal plane shutter in the typical interchangeable lens camera so you can have a much smaller and portable flash and still have the same illuminating power.
The best thing you can do is learn how to shoot mostly on the Nikon 50mm. Learning to move the camera instead of just use more glass makes for better photos. (its also your fastest (meaning lets in the most light) lens)
Ektar is really forgiving, and you an over or under expose it by a couple stops and still get decent pictures.
And yes, for nature in good light, 100 is more than enough, consider that most of the classic Nat Geo stuff was shot on Kodachrome ISO 64 (or slower) film.
I'd also tell you that one of the things that looks really really cool on film and is much harder to do without a much more expensive digital camera is long exposure low light stuff (IE, stop the lens all the way down to its smallest setting, and expose for 30 seconds or longer) - but it requires a Tripod. https://leho.blastpuppy.com/~aloha/photos/carls.jpg is an example of this technique.
Film to me is much easier to make good pictures with - because other than light exposure correction, what you get is what you get, and the color profile and many other details are decided by just what film you pick to expose.
Its a matter of opinion, but I dont think any (currently produced) slide film looks better than negative films do, Kodachrome is the exception, and if it was available again, I'd be looking for another EOS-1 to go shoot it with.
Also yes I'm a Canon guy, but like, its personal preference really - and the first SLR I shot with was a Cannon AE-1, and I really like the Cannon EOS series cameras. I'd also strongly suggest shooting in Program mode - the Zone System was great for the B&W file when introduced, but it doesnt really make for great color photos - and frankly the engineers at Nikon or Canon are smarter than you or I, and you'll get fantastic looking pictures on Program Mode, allowing you, the photographer to focus on the thing that takes real artistry - image composition.
Turning auto off and making your own, deliberate, choices is indeed the way to build up some intuition on how to capture the same scene in different ways. Shooting digital is easier. But often reviewing what you shot is hard on tiny screens in full sunlight.
Depth of field is one of the more obvious things you control with the aperture. But another thing it impacts is sharpness. Depending on your lens, it likely is a little fuzzier wide open than it is stopped down a little. Basically, you are covering part of the lens and controlling the way it distorts the light a little. Wide open it diffuses the light a bit. And it will do so differently in different parts of the photo. Knowing how your lens performs under different conditions is something you need to explore through trial and error. Another thing it impacts is color and contract. Just how, depends on the lens. Some lenses have a clear optimum, others are better across a wider range of apertures. People spend a lot of money on glass to get these effects.
In the same way, the shutter speed is not just about controlling the amount of light it is also about motion and motion blur that can both mess up your photo or be something you use creatively. The best tip you can give a beginning photographer to not too slow. Your camera might be able to handle it and you might have steady hands. But stuff still moves in your scene and it will introduce blur.
Some types of photography you want to have fast shutter speeds to capture really crisp moving subjects (e.g. sports photography, moving kids). Even on a bright day you might want to shoot at higher ISOs just so you can shoot a little faster. A zoom lens stopped down focused on a fast moving subject will do a lot better if you can shoot at 1/2000s of a second rather than getting a blurry thing at 1/30th. But sometimes that kind of effect is what you want when shooting e.g. a static subject against a waterfall.
The ISO dial basically allows you to compensate for loss of light by pretty much multiplying the signal. This is something you can easily do in post as well if you are shooting raw. It just gives you more wiggle room with aperture and exposure. Of course the issue is that you end up boosting the noise along with that as well. More sensitive sensors can be pushed a little further for this. But mostly, lower is better in terms of noise. Basically, you pick the aperture and exposure that produce the effect you want and the iso control allows you to get away with it when that is pushing the limits a bit too far. With some cheaper cameras, you end up trading off noise against creative control. Easier to shoot at night with the lens wide open at a low shutter speed that still works hand held. But less chance of blurry photos if you shoot a bit faster at a higher iso.
Then there are different focal lengths that not only "zoom" in the subject but also change the perspective. Using a very wide or zoomed in perspective and compensating with your feet can produce very different photos even if your subject ends up being roughly the same in the picture.
Might benefit the casual snapshot photographer, but pros use flash more for fill-in lighting when there are sharp shadows and for freezing motion e.g. in sports photography.
Pretty good article, covers all the basics. Some key points I cannot stress enough, from the article and me.
* Built in Flash = Badness. Never use this. But if you really must, put a white piece of paper in front to diffuse the flash.
* 50mm f/1.8 or better. It's a must!
* DoF Preview. Use this feature!
* Get optical filters for all your lenses (keep the lens front element from scratching, UV doesn't really make a difference in Digital), specially when travelling and outside. Remove this for night shots (internal reflections more visible due to many point lights).
* Circular Polarizers, they do wonders for sky, water, or various reflections from subject/items.
* Use center AF only and get used to aiming at subject, AF hold, and shoot. Kind of painful, but less painful than having the camera guess the wrong AF point for a great moment.
* Auto (Bad), Tv (Sports, Action, Fast things), Av (still, portraits), Program (Keep on this by default).
* Join a photography forum or community and post photos to be critiqued and people to give you feedback.
In a "normal" room (i.e., a room of normal ceiling height), using the ceiling is a solid bet. If your camera has TTL flash metering (and which self-respecting DSLR doesn't?) that'll help you take "perfect" pictures, every time.
(Note: "perfect" means people will ask you how you did it, and be suitably impressed at your photography skizzles)
Firing flash along the axis of the lens is a poor idea almost always. Also, your pop-up flash has an effective range of ~10 feet (depending on camera), so popping it beyond that range (which I see many people do) is basically pointless. In fact, if there are objects near, what the camera will do is expose for those objects, leaving your main subjects, who are too far away, in shadow.
This is why you'll see those crazy pictures where everyone is real dark and has glowing eyes.
But all in all, the solution is to get a faster lens - there are many point and shoots that have premium, fast lenses. Going for those will allow you to skip the flash for a lot more occasions, making better pictures overall.
I find that the biggest factor in getting great pictures is my bounce-able external flash on my 7D (and 300D before it) - and the only reason I haven't stepped down to a micro 4/3 already.
I didn't mean the entire image would be in focus, just that your subject would be clear.
A faster aperture will let in more light, so you will not need as long an exposure to get the same amount of detail. It can make a meaningful difference in low light shots.
Adjust your aperture to get the appropriate amount of bokeh, of course; but generally I prefer as wide an aperture as possible in most situations, as long as the focus is appropriate.
Totally agree about available light being the most important thing, though. I think it even trumps having a good subject in many cases.
reply