Posted by Mark sellings on December 14, 2006 at 5:13 AM
Hi all
Been a bit quiet on the photography front and if anything have been re-evaluating my feelings about it all in general and frankly struggling with getting the desire back after a baby-enforced absence!
Anyway, I had a thought the other day whilst reading yet another article/column about the use of post processing in PS when I suddenly thought "hang on, isn't using flash exactly the same type of manipulation as bringing up levels etc in Photoshop? if we're honest then isn't flash actually more intrusive to wildlife? its as artifical as working further on an image on a PC for me - you're altering the lighting conditions/environment/possibly behaviour of the subject"
It just suddenly struck me as being really obvious.
I'm not after one of those argument type threads, and this isn't an attack on flash use or a pro-PS opinion, I'm just genuinely interested in seeing what other people's views are on this...
Cheers,
Mark
Posted by Phil Shaw on December 14, 2006 at 6:51 AM
I don't care what people do with their images, as long as they provide details on how the presented image was produced. My own preference is to get the exposure and composition right in camera and to present the image with the minimum of further work.
Posted by David Kjaer on December 14, 2006 at 7:17 AM
Hi Mark
That is so strange I had the very same thoughts this morning when reading one of the threads, however my position is still the same - I agree with Phil that as long as you are honest and up front about how you achieve your image that's OK.
David
Posted by Rob Ashton on December 14, 2006 at 8:53 AM
Using flash is similar to doing the post processing you refer to. If we look at photography that way then every single shot is manipulated. Using DOF to isolate the subject from BG isn't "natural", using shutter speeds to blur motion or freeze motion isn't "natural", using focal lengths other than "standard" isn't "natural"..... These (and more) can be said to be the same as post processed manipulation. I'm with Phil Shaw in that anything should be acceptable as long as the author states whatr has been done to accheive the result. Trying to pass off an image as something it is not is wrong.
Rob
Posted by John Lee on December 14, 2006 at 12:23 PM
Mark
I see nothing wrong with using fill flash to achieve a better image. I use fill flash a lot and apart from one fish in the Red Sea which 'jumped' vertically in the water I have yet to see fill flash having any appreciable effect on my subjects.
With regards to image manipulation, all images are manipulated in some way. Rob has mentioned, the camera can not take exactly what the eye sees and therefore by necessity the image produced is altered. However the final image is the final image. It may be good, bad or indifferent. If all the viewer wants to do is look at a picture, then the process of how the photographer took the image (fill flash etc.) is irrelevant. If however the viewer wants to know how that image was achieved then the process is everything.
Regards
John Lee
PS. Mark if you want to go out for a morning or afternoon shoot at some time PM me, the housing work is running down for Christmas and I will have quite a bit of free time from early next week to do some photography for myself. Was also considering Slimbridge for a day if there is anything there.
I'm not sure it's the same, but it certainly shares similarities,in as much as,they're both tools at the photographers disposal to help create the image as we envisage it,or perhaps,as we'd like to see it.
After all,a little burst of fill in flash or careful use of levels and/or the shadow/highlight tool is only really compensating for the difference that can,and does occur, between what we see and what the film/sensor records.A couple of examples would be, excessive contrast,and perhaps any colour cast which may be present,which our eyes don't necasarily pick up.
I also prefer,and gain more satisfaction from getting things right in camera whenever possible,but certainly have no problem with the use of levels,curves or the shadow/highlight tool in place of,or in addition too,using fill in flash.
Discussion
5 repliesBeen a bit quiet on the photography front and if anything have been re-evaluating my feelings about it all in general and frankly struggling with getting the desire back after a baby-enforced absence!
Anyway, I had a thought the other day whilst reading yet another article/column about the use of post processing in PS when I suddenly thought "hang on, isn't using flash exactly the same type of manipulation as bringing up levels etc in Photoshop? if we're honest then isn't flash actually more intrusive to wildlife? its as artifical as working further on an image on a PC for me - you're altering the lighting conditions/environment/possibly behaviour of the subject"
It just suddenly struck me as being really obvious.
I'm not after one of those argument type threads, and this isn't an attack on flash use or a pro-PS opinion, I'm just genuinely interested in seeing what other people's views are on this...
Cheers,
Mark
That is so strange I had the very same thoughts this morning when reading one of the threads, however my position is still the same - I agree with Phil that as long as you are honest and up front about how you achieve your image that's OK.
David
Rob
I see nothing wrong with using fill flash to achieve a better image. I use fill flash a lot and apart from one fish in the Red Sea which 'jumped' vertically in the water I have yet to see fill flash having any appreciable effect on my subjects.
With regards to image manipulation, all images are manipulated in some way. Rob has mentioned, the camera can not take exactly what the eye sees and therefore by necessity the image produced is altered. However the final image is the final image. It may be good, bad or indifferent. If all the viewer wants to do is look at a picture, then the process of how the photographer took the image (fill flash etc.) is irrelevant. If however the viewer wants to know how that image was achieved then the process is everything.
Regards
John Lee
PS. Mark if you want to go out for a morning or afternoon shoot at some time PM me, the housing work is running down for Christmas and I will have quite a bit of free time from early next week to do some photography for myself.
I'm not sure it's the same, but it certainly shares similarities,in as much as,they're both tools at the photographers disposal to help create the image as we envisage it,or perhaps,as we'd like to see it.
After all,a little burst of fill in flash or careful use of levels and/or the shadow/highlight tool is only really compensating for the difference that can,and does occur, between what we see and what the film/sensor records.A couple of examples would be, excessive contrast,and perhaps any colour cast which may be present,which our eyes don't necasarily pick up.
I also prefer,and gain more satisfaction from getting things right in camera whenever possible,but certainly have no problem with the use of levels,curves or the shadow/highlight tool in place of,or in addition too,using fill in flash.