| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/18/2010 12:16:09 AM · #1 |
If this is photography website, forget about the religion or gay people or politics whatever. Let's talk about Fill-Flash.
What the heck is it for real? ...show us some samples from others instead of our work only. I am getting pretty confused and I want you to un-confuse me.
PS: Not for my photo, I have said it in the past for other challenges, I just want to know what I don't know apparently.
Explain... |
|
|
|
10/18/2010 12:29:10 AM · #2 |
| I need some GOOD samples. I think DPC totally goofed up on this one. |
|
|
|
10/18/2010 12:29:55 AM · #3 |
It's really quite simple; wherever the main light leaves shadows that are too dark or too harsh, fill flash can be used to... well.. *fill* the shadows and soften them. For some reason a lot of people in DPC seem to think that "fill flash" refers specifically to fill light in strongly backlit situations, but that's just one, and very obvious, application. In a studio setting, fill light will often be used to soften harsh shadows cast by the main light. There's a whole spectrum here.
Really, there's a lot of times, when fill light has been used effectively, that you can't even tell it HAS been used. Kind of like good, natural HDR, ya know?
R. |
|
|
|
10/18/2010 12:32:03 AM · #4 |
Here's one example, from the challenge, of perfectly-applied fill flash:
R.
Message edited by author 2010-10-18 00:32:14. |
|
|
|
10/18/2010 03:06:50 AM · #5 |
A perfect fill flash sample
Another good sample
Fill flash sample 3
Probably one of the best samples of all.
Now, go back and compare these with the top 20 photos, you decide (again) which ones are actually "fill flash" photos and which ones are not! (Not "CUTE" or flash photography but actual "fill-flash" shots) |
|
|
|
10/18/2010 03:45:02 AM · #6 |
Here are some samples for those people out there talking about "fill flash"...
Check below post |
|
|
|
10/18/2010 03:47:28 AM · #7 |
Fill Flash |
|
|
|
10/18/2010 04:10:27 AM · #8 |
In the other thread on fill flash you state the my entry is flash photography not fill flash and yet here you post a shot of the girl on the beach that is EXACTLY the same technique and label it as perfect fill flash???
|
|
|
|
10/18/2010 04:24:54 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by kevip6:
In the other thread on fill flash you state the my entry is flash photography not fill flash and yet here you post a shot of the girl on the beach that is EXACTLY the same technique and label it as perfect fill flash??? |
They are not the same photos. You said you could make your subject lid more but sky would be blown up, the idea is to have perfect exposure and fill the areas can't see "enough" light. On the beach example below, and my entry, you can see the subject in the shadow and little dark, not totally black like your sample. To lid darker areas "more" there is fill flash used. Could be the whole side (cat sample below), or some of the areas (girl in the pool sample below) of the subject.
Your photo is not fill flash, and I would like to hear other wise from other photographers as well. If I am wrong, I am wrong, but I don't think I am that far off from what I know.
This thread started before the other thread, to make things clearer.
Message edited by author 2010-10-18 04:26:18. |
|
|
|
10/18/2010 04:34:00 AM · #10 |
10th place? Are you kidding me?
This is a PERFECT fill flash photo. |
|
|
|
10/18/2010 04:38:53 AM · #11 |
Too bad, some of you don't like to see boobs, but this one is also an excellent sample for fill flash, and pose.
 |
|
|
|
10/18/2010 04:40:48 AM · #12 |
NOT a fill flash shot... this is using hairlight and a softbox... a regular studio shot.
 |
|
|
|
10/18/2010 04:42:25 AM · #13 |
Using a main light, backlight and a filler light...
I would consider a fill flash photography, since it uses a filler. |
|
|
|
10/18/2010 05:22:55 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
Your photo is not fill flash, and I would like to hear other wise from other photographers as well. If I am wrong, I am wrong, but I don't think I am that far off from what I know.
This thread started before the other thread, to make things clearer. |
The thing is, certain styles of photography have to cross-over and I think you are getting too hung up on the symantics. As far as I am concerned Fotomans, Kevins & a few others all come under the umbrella of Fill-Flash - some more subtly than others, but some such as Kevs shot, have utilised fill-flash as the chief effect in the image. I agree in a Photography exam some of these wouldn`t of passed, but from a challange and real-world point of view they all pretty much nailed the challenge correctly. I am not saying you are wrong, but I am saying your view of fill-flash is a bit old school and maybe you need to look at that techinique with a broader perspective.
Oh, and when it comes to Fotomans images - I personally think his new stuff is very good, but I dont think its dislike of boobs and glamour people dont like, I think people know his style, and whilst there is a old skool contingent of users who are good friends of his, there are others who are not particular big fans of his for whatever reasons and as a result find it hard to vote his images high because they do stand out a mile (but big Kudos to him for having his own style).
Message edited by author 2010-10-18 05:33:31. |
|
|
|
10/18/2010 05:25:32 AM · #15 |
I mostly agree with you, Leo. To my knowledge, "fill light" is a technique that can be used to compensate shadows occurring due to another (main) light source. Your explanations and examples are all very valid to me.
However, "compensate" is a word that can be understood in many ways, hence the different opinions people have about that: when are you only "compensating", and we do you start to "main light"? Would a strongly backlit subject, totally black, then correctly exposed using a light source qualify to this definition? I would say yes, others would say no...
Anyway, these are quite technical considerations, and in the end, people will vote high photos that please them the most, even if they do not perfectly fit some hard to understand technical rule, which can be understood. Aesthetics and interest will most of the time prevail over pure technique, quite logically. |
|
|
|
10/18/2010 06:02:22 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
Using a main light, backlight and a filler light...
I would consider a fill flash photography, since it uses a filler. |
Thank you, Leo.
My 16 year old daughter had just been looking over my shoulder, wanting to know what "fill flash" is. I just finished going through the top shots in the challenge, pointing out the very same thing to her: "cute photo, but NOT fill flash" ........ "this one is actually fill flash, because....." etc. |
|
|
|
10/18/2010 07:41:51 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
In a studio setting, fill light will often be used to soften harsh shadows cast by the main light. There's a whole spectrum here.
Really, there's a lot of times, when fill light has been used effectively, that you can't even tell it HAS been used. Kind of like good, natural HDR, ya know?
R. |
That's really interesting, I never thought about that |
|
|
|
10/18/2010 11:01:12 AM · #18 |
According to some of you, ANY photo taking in the studio is a fill flash... reason: Studio uses backlight for a muslin or a backdrop to lid it and give a nice background scene, then uses a main flash to lid the face. So, since there is a light in the back, in any kind, and main light fills the face, it is a filler... Wrong.
I am doing this business for many years, owned two studios and right now I am dealing with multiple lights every day. Fill flashes are not as powerful in the photo as main flashes or main lights in any kind (such as sunlight), not supposed to be. There is a reason it's called "fill flash"
As some of you mentioned, it's a filler for shadows, or weak sides of the subjects... weak as in, you can see it, but not quite right. You don't want to blow the background, so you use filler. Check the photo without a flash,
Where is the area needs to be filled? I see an object needs to LID... not filled.
So, it is a flash photography, not a fill-flash photography.
By the way, cute kid, nice photo. Nothing against it, my concern is that image might get high vote for Kid's cuteness... not technical worthy of it, which should be. As in Leroy's photo "might" get hammered for some for its nakedness. I am not sure about the others, why such a differences in voting. |
|
|
|
10/18/2010 11:18:43 AM · #19 |
Actually yours is a pretty good example of fill flash. I gave it a 7... probably would have scored it higher if it weren't for the limb cutting cropping.
It has strong ambient back-lighting with flash to fill in the subject.
Message edited by author 2010-10-18 11:20:15.
|
|
|
|
10/18/2010 11:23:08 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
my concern is that image might get high vote for Kid's cuteness... not technical worthy of it, which should be. |
I totally disagree. In my opinion, technique is there only to support the scene, merely just a tool to help you create a photo telling what you want to tell. A perfectly told but boring story is still boring.
Now, of course, not everybody like the same kind of story, and I can perfectly understand your frustration, especially since your shot was way underrated imho (it was one of my highest votes).
|
|
|
|
10/18/2010 11:41:25 AM · #21 |
I am totally honest here, I don't care about my photo, sometimes some photos get hammered for some other reasons... If I know wrong what fill light is, I would fix my knowledge, and so others. However, if not, then we should not be confusing people, just in case there is another fill-flash challenge comes up, and same technique you use doesn't get the same attention because of its subject.
We all (most of us) check the winning photos in the past to get ideas about concept of their technique... Some of us here trying learn photography, and we really should be discussing about all that, since this is the photography website... |
|
|
|
10/18/2010 12:05:00 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
I am totally honest here, I don't care about my photo, sometimes some photos get hammered for some other reasons... If I know wrong what fill light is, I would fix my knowledge, and so others. However, if not, then we should not be confusing people, just in case there is another fill-flash challenge comes up, and same technique you use doesn't get the same attention because of its subject.
We all (most of us) check the winning photos in the past to get ideas about concept of their technique... Some of us here trying learn photography, and we really should be discussing about all that, since this is the photography website... |
In the end, Leo, none of that matters much. Think about it; what's being argued here is a *definition* of a term, it's purely semantic. Whether you're using the "narrow" definition or the "broad" definition, in the end the images show ways of using light to accomplish specific goals, as gyaban has pointed out in his own way. It's not really important that everyone agree on the same definition; just take your lessons from the images that are practicing what you want to learn, and disregard the rest.
R. |
|
|
|
10/18/2010 12:58:51 PM · #23 |
Congratulations to all the winners. It's nice to receive positive feedback from peers. Keep up the great work.
What has been working for me, in a way, is to shoot images to meet the challenge AND photograph with my unique style in a way that makes me proud of my challenge entry. This brings me a sense of accomplishment and I learn something from every challenge. I've sort of "let go" of trying to shoot a DPC popular image. Of course, shooting with that mindset can result in chronically mediocre scores. That's okay. I'm doing my photography for my own actualization of improvement/progress, not to thrill and amaze the DPC voters (obviously).
In theory, the goal of image popularity AND the goal of self actualization in one's own photography can converge at some point in the future.
Message edited by author 2010-10-18 12:59:33. |
|
|
|
10/18/2010 01:12:03 PM · #24 |
There were a number of images in the top 20 that did not fit my definition of fill flash -- by quite a bit.
HOWEVER, what's so great about DPC, is that:
1. This challenge made me really look at the lighting in each of the shots. I had to figure out where the main light source was located, and in some cases, figure out what that light source was. Then try to figure out how the fill was used and where it was placed. Very educational -- I don't usually break things down to that extent.
2. Because of the post discussion, I understand a lot more about people's definitions of fill flash. Anytime you have that type of discussion, it puts possibilities into your mind. Whether or not you agree with those definitions isn't important. Knowledge is power, and it wakes you to possibilities about which you may not have thought.
When a picture of a snake wins in a bird challenge -- that's annoying. When photos that I don't consider fill flash do well in a challenge, I've learned that there's a wider understanding of fill flash, and it's worth looking into.
|
|
|
|
10/18/2010 03:55:34 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
When a picture of a snake wins in a bird challenge -- that's annoying. |
But is it OK if the snake's in the act of EATING a bird? Just need to know... If there's ever a snake challenge, I may enter a mongoose...
R. |
|
