To flash or not to flash?
Many years ago, newspaper photographers frowned on using flash to shoot pictures because it was adding light to a situation in which there wasn't much light. To keep from using flash, we used special film normally used to photograph star tracks (recording film), 'pushing' film to extraordinary and coarse, grainy depths.
But let's back up a step or two. The higher the speed of film (or digital ISO for that matter), the 'grainer' it gets. That is, 100 ASA film is terrific for larger pictures. The grain grows as the speed increases. At 3200 and 6400 (some claimed even higher) It looked like beach sand sprinkled on a photo. If we didn't use flash, we had to increase, sometimes dramatically, the film speed. Light-- or the illusion of light-- had to come from somewhere. Digital imaging has improved some of that, but just substitute 'noise' for 'grain'.
We used special developers, heated the water, agitated the solution a particular way. Some probably even danced over the stuff, hoping to give it magical powers. Looking back on those days, it's almost comical now...
Because we didn't want to use flash, we sometimes got awful pictures. A very good photographer here about 1980 (her name was preceded with "Dr.") used flash only when it was too dark to focus. That is, if it was too dark to see, only then would she allow herself to crank up the light.
The results were varied. Some 'used' the grain to make it art. Some increased it to make an almost pen-and-ink or dappled photo. Remember too, most gymnasiums didn't have the state-of-the-art lighting that most do now. The old Central York High School was awful, and during the stretch that it dominated state volleyball, we were banned from using flash by some referees. It was a nightmare trying to get photos of the state's best teams for our readers without flash. The football fields were as bad-- or worse. Most newer gyms now are lit well enough today, and we could shoot without flash.
But just because we don't have to use flash (or because YOU don't have to use flash for family outings), doesn't mean the best picture comes with no flash. Flash can set the scene, making it a relaxing, quiet day or highlight a particular part of the scenery, like these geese. These two photos of geese were shot within moments of each other, but have two entirely different feelings. Flash eliminates harsh shadows, or creates depth WITH shadows. It stops motion that otherwise might be a blur.
In the center of a gymnasium or football field, the light might be terrific. But the next time you're at an event there, check the location of the lights. Usually, there's no light coming from behind the basket or the end zone, and that makes for a backlit, and often poorly exposed photo. We're not talking the NFL or NBA here, where lights are everywhere and bright enough to get a good sun tan.
Probably everyone who lives in Columbia has taken a picture like these by now-- sunset at the bridge. Which picture of the geese do you prefer-- the one with flash, highlighting the geese, or without flash? Yep, it might depend on your mood.
Kristin Murphy · March 5, 2008 8:58 PM
Not to flash! although you probably already knew I'd say that. I like the darker geese... My eyes wander to the intense sky in that one. But in the image with the flash, my eyes don't wander away as much. They're stuck on the bright geese.
Jen · March 7, 2008 3:06 PM
I like both photos but agree with Kristin.
Jo Ott · March 16, 2008 3:05 PM
Please explain why the flash effected only the ducks and not other aspects of the photo.