Do cameras Really need flash?

[P3D <Linnstaedt@xxxxxxx>]

Cliff wrote,

<< Subject: My camera might take a flash.
... Anybody have the real story. I'd like to take inside pictures before I'm
 too old to see them.>>

Dear Flash-minded Photog,

Seriously consider Existing-Light Photography.

IMHO, flash photography can look artificial, and the high contrast between
subject and background can present problems viewing in 3D.  Even for indoor
situations, you can shoot very nicely in existing light.  The results are
natural-looking; the camera rendering the scene pretty much as you saw it.

Normally, I use ASA 100 slide film, but if there will be numerous low light
situations, I load 200, but no faster.  The tripod is set up and Kodak Stereo
attached, set on "bulb".  With my SLR and grey card, I meter the scene for a
1 second exposure.  Why?  Because it's easy for me to trip the remote
shutter-release while counting, "one thousand one".  If I need a longer
exposure, I use the second hand of my wristwatch to time the shutter.  Long
exposure permits me to use a small aperture (f16 to f22) for crisply focused
pictures _everytime_.

I did this for my sister's wedding (before & after ceremony, NEVER during)
and found that people, when asked, have no difficulty holding still for a 1
sec. exposure.  It gives you a chance to compose them and get them thinking
about depth (no military line-up, please).

AND, they appreciate not having a blinding flashbulb in their face!  No
red-eye.  No glare on eyeglasses.  No weird shadows.  No shiney noses.
 Persons look the way everyone remembers.

The color of lighting may be a concern if you shoot daylight film, but the
warm tones of incandescent light are usually very acceptable.  If you are
afraid the color will be off, you can use a tungsten film, though I never
have.  My stereophotographs inside dark churches in Israel look beautiful.
 No flash to disturb anyone.  The soft glow of candlelight looks natural.
 There are usually many more details visible in the pictures than one could
see in person, plus the illumination is very even, which would be nearly
impossible without a truckload of lighting equipment.

Existing-Light photography is my preferred method.  Not because I'm too cheap
to buy a flash, but because I choose for my photographs to look this way.
 It's also true of my 2d photography!  Flash tends to make your efforts look
like snapshots.  :-p

IMHO, the only reason to use a flash is when there is _no other way_ to get
the shot.  There are many serious photogs who use flash, and quite
effectively.  I do not.  There are multiple ways to take any given
photograph, but too often amateur photographers do not know all the options.
 I suggest experimenting with existing-light photography and reading up on
it.  You may never use flash again.

Robert Linnstaedt <Linnstaedt@xxxxxxx>


------------------------------