[shuttertalk]

Interesting interview on NY Times with a Scottish photojournalist who is big on shooting exclusively with natural light and with no post-processing

http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2010...ht-photos/

I prefer not to use flash because it tends to control and take over the photo. I lose a lot of humanity with flash. I don’t want to use it in a position when I can use my brain instead. Without flash, pictures can take on a grainy feel. And if you take a photo of someone with a light in the background, the light gives a lovely warm tone to the photography.

If you had one tip for taking better night or low-light photos, what would it be?

Don’t be afraid. You’ll be surprised just how good your photos will be. Make sure there is some light on your subject’s face. But be brave about it. The thing about is that I’ve been awakened to see just what digital cameras can do in low-light situations. It digs right into spaces that I never thought a camera could penetrate.

Then again, he shoots with a 1D Mk III and has a 50mm f/1.2.

[Zig]

I also practise this and have done so exclusively since getting the 1Ds2. As a fellow practioner I also have a wry smile here, as if I'm honest I'd confess the following:
Yes: there is a lot of light around if both the right sensor can make use of it and one decides to trust in its ability(a subtlety that is a potential strength of digital); with low contrast raw conversion(and I confess, the occasional addition of some equalisation later)...a good 3 or 4 stops' worth really.
I also have to point out that my "flash laziness" goes hand in hand with my poor practice of it: flash is merely a tool with which one adds the light that one wishes, if one understands it and is confident with it. Some of the better flash pictures around seem to me to be not using flash at all, surely a testimony to their success and the user's mastery. If matey "loses a lot of humanity", then it's down to his(and mine) unskilled understanding and practice of the use of flash.
I, like him, have gone down the lazier route, usually successfully and with better understanding of the more painterly subtleties I alluded to above, yet there is one other thing:
My pictures take on "a grainy feel" too: it's called noise! His sensor, as mine, will do as well as it can, but with longer exposures and in the increased shadows(that's why people use flash, isn't it, to equalise shadows?!) noise will ramp up. The excellent weakness and strength of the 1D/IDs lot is that sensor along with whatever combo of filters they do/don't do in front of it(I'm talking about on the sensor here), does indeed generate a very "film-like" noise and is very pleasing. And yes, without flash to fill things, he and I and you will get noise...mercifully not too aggressively controlled by these earlier Canons as they are now.
So, you can see now also why an f1.2 would appear to be so important...though of course it is not, you can use whatever lens you like: the entire expense of the lens is justified merely on the basis of it being a means of seeing what you're doing. A bit expensive for just a viewfinder, wouldn't you think? Yet, don't get me wrong: that is indeed exactly what I do and for the exact same lazy and flash-unsavvy reasons: I use my 50mm f1.4 as a portrait lens not only because of it's stunning halation with skin tone at f1.4, but also because it's the only way of me seeing what I'm doing in a room where I should be at least using flash as a fill.
I know, I've stretched the polarity of the issue here to make a point...but please let's resist a temptation to hide behind the (arguably) Better Kit Myth, as it's merely a denial-enforcer. The time I've heard on these boards kit-greed being masked by some self-justification as "I need it for nice wedding shots", would make me laugh. Shoot without flash, like I do and the man in the blog does, and expect noise. Thankfully we're only turning a weakness into a strength here and not working a hermetic miracle of which the rite de passage for the practioners and acolytes is the prosperity-key to the kit doorway.

[NT73]

Zig, you have lost me, but you definitely have a way with words.

[Zig]

..yes, I lose myself sometimes...sigh...

[Toad]

Great post Zig - I am loathe to abandon flash altogether and agree with your assessment of lazy flash use. For more stationary scenes, I find my Nikon SB-800 operating in wireless mode can negate a lot of the criticism by providing *some* light from an unexpected non-straight-on direction. This technique provides additional light to process the scene but loses the deer-in-the-headlights look of most flash work.

[nia]

This was interesting Julian, actually I am still learning photography. Zig, it was nice to read you too. All I can say about this, I don't like to use flash! "Without flash, the light gives a lovely warm tone to the photography." I think like that, for example my last photographs (I Love You Baby topic) I took some pictures in the night club and especially I didn't use flash, because I tested and I saw the great difference, the lights in there were so nice with my camera... But sure, I am not a professional one and still I am learning.

Thank you for this nice reading, by the way, I loved this photograph of Hanry Benson,

http://www.harrybenson.com/#mi=2&pt=1&pi...1&a=0&at=0

with my love,
nia

[shuttertalk]

I'm not a fan of flash too but I find it a necessary evil sometimes - especially when shooting people (and children), who tend to move around a bit. If I had to trade off artificial light vs blurry pictures, I'd definitely pick the former.

Then again, if your equipment can support it and you're willing to "push" your photos, then no flash is definitely the way to go!

[peter]

haha yeah i find also flashing to be a necessary evil when doing birthdays and what not in poorly lit environments too.

5dmkII with 50mm 1.2 is pretty sweet too.. and at higher isos the softer characteristics of shooting wide open arent as apparent with the "grain" around..

[Irma]

Much of my decision about using flash or not depends on what kind of pictures I am working on. Product, food and job application portraits, portraits used for magazines, macro photography (this one only in some cases), are always taken with flash.

I enjoyed as well taking pictures with available light, and when the scene is presented in low light and the mood is there, I don't push the light I just try to capture what is there. For this kind of photography, I am not worried about not having a f1.2 lens, and I use high ISO. Let's not forget that this is the point of view of an unemployed housewife, which is keen on photography.

Jules, Now that you commented about taking pictures of children I remembered this post from the strobist blog.

http://strobist.blogspot.com/2007/12/chr...sults.html

[matthew]

I'm with Irma on this one - I'm currently setting up (procrastinating to avoid setting up) for a round of product shots. My apartment has huge north-facing windows, and there's plenty of soft light to work with. Even if there wasn't, I'll be using a D700 and a tripod, so there's always enough light available. But I'm still going to be using three strobes - just because there's available light doesn't mean that it's where I want it, and it certainly isn't mine.

...but most of the time I use available light, because it's that light, and what it's lighting, that caught my eye in the first place.

But I don't get the whole no-post thing, and think some of what he says is disingenuous:

I never do any [post-production] manipulation because most of my career was spent using film.

That might fly with the readers of the New York Times, but the idea that film doesn't allow for post-production modifications is laughable.

Later in that same paragraph:

I might take a scratch out but I don’t adjust lighting — that’s creating something that wasn’t there. When photographers start doing that, it can’t be called artwork.

While some sculptors will argue that they're just removing the rock from a shape that's already contained within it, it's hard to apply the same argument to the millennia of paintings that have been called 'art'. Personally, when photographers insist on recording only what's already there without any influence over the scene, I'd call that 'documentary'. (I suppose it's fortunate that it's impossible for a photographer to be expressively neutral.)

[shuttertalk]

Thanks for the link Irma - that's an awesome idea - set up some strobes if you know there's going to be entertaining in a room. Now, to get some more flashguns / strobes...

[jChoiPhotography]

Hey guys

I do a lot of indoor low light work, and sometimes I do projects entirely without flash in very low light conditions.

http://lastphotographer.blogspot.com/201...tills.html

I took these shots with a simple kit lens! one of those 3.5-5.6 in-the-box lenses without flash in a candle lit room. You can still take great photos without flash with just basic lens!

Ofcourse, I still like the effects I can make with flash in night clubs, some really cool effects can be made.