# No one likes my flash photography



## AggieBecky (Jun 3, 2014)

I'm noticing a trend..... When I post natural light pictures of my girls on FB, I get tons of likes and comments.  But when I post pictures I've taken with my speedlight setup, my pictures get absolutely ignored.  In my eyes, they are spot on with my natural light pictures..... just everyday pics of my girls.  In her PJs, just hanging out.  But if this had been done with natural light, I know I would have gotten many more likes/comments.  So, some one tell me why no one likes my flash photography?  Thanks!


----------



## snerd (Jun 3, 2014)

Because they (the viewers) have no class? The first one is gorgeous! I should be so good as to get flash shots like that!


----------



## Msteelio91 (Jun 3, 2014)

First I'd say facebook is a terrible gauge of photographic competence. Second, people tend to prefer softer light on skin.


----------



## Light Guru (Jun 3, 2014)

The lighting in these photos just does not match the subject.


----------



## DiskoJoe (Jun 3, 2014)

Cool story bro


----------



## TWright33 (Jun 3, 2014)

Msteelio91 said:


> First I'd say facebook is a terrible gauge of photographic competence.



This is great advice.

I have to teach myself to ignore FB if a picture isn't popular on there.

99% of the people on my friends list couldn't tell the difference between their a-hole and an aperture.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Jun 3, 2014)

TWright33 said:


> Msteelio91 said:
> 
> 
> > First I'd say facebook is a terrible gauge of photographic competence.
> ...



Technically your @$$hole is an aperture.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Jun 3, 2014)

AggieBecky said:


> I'm noticing a trend..... When I post natural light pictures of my girls on FB, I get tons of likes and comments.  But when I post pictures I've taken with my speedlight setup, my pictures get absolutely ignored.  In my eyes, they are spot on with my natural light pictures..... just everyday pics of my girls.  In her PJs, just hanging out.  But if this had been done with natural light, I know I would have gotten many more likes/comments.  So, some one tell me why no one likes my flash photography?  Thanks!
> 
> View attachment 75860
> 
> View attachment 75861



I'd have to agree with Light Guru here, the lighting isn't complimentary to the subject.


----------



## bribrius (Jun 3, 2014)

harsh narrow light, black backdrop. Little girl.

don't really work for me.


----------



## TWright33 (Jun 3, 2014)

Scatterbrained said:


> TWright33 said:
> 
> 
> > Msteelio91 said:
> ...



:blushing:

That technically just blew my mind. Never thought about my a-hole in such a way.


----------



## pixmedic (Jun 3, 2014)

first, consider two things. 
1) where do you usually shoot in natural light, and where do you shoot with a flash?
2) what sort of people on facebook are doing the "critiquing"? what level of photography experience do they have?

is your FB list filled with people that have kids of their own and could relate more to pictures of kids in parks or doing "kid" stuff? 
do they have any idea whatsoever about "flash" photography? Do they even know when flash is being used?
I know people that get 50 "likes" from terrible cell phone shots just because it is a photo of their kid doing something cute. or their pet.  actual picture quality, focus, or lighting is irrelevant to most FB people.


----------



## TWright33 (Jun 3, 2014)

bribrius said:


> harsh narrow light, black backdrop. Little girl.
> 
> don't really work for me.



Soft light, white sheet, big girl?

Saturday night, 7:00 pm.

Be there.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 3, 2014)

AggieBecky said:


> I'm noticing a trend..... When I post natural light pictures of my girls on FB, I get tons of likes and comments.  But when I post pictures I've taken with my speedlight setup, my pictures get absolutely ignored.  In my eyes, they are spot on with my natural light pictures..... just everyday pics of my girls.  In her PJs, just hanging out.  But if this had been done with natural light, I know I would have gotten many more likes/comments.  So, some one tell me why no one likes my flash photography?  Thanks!
> 
> View attachment 75860
> 
> View attachment 75861



A fascinating observation you've made. I am not sure about your friends and their ages or backgrounds, but to me, *my own personal theory goes like this*: The above two shots have a very "theatrical" and "1950's Popular Photography" type of style and look to them. That type of dark-background, crisp lighting effect was VERY popular for 20+ years in the early to mid part of the 20th Century, soooo you're offering Marx Brothers movies, and I Love Lucy, and Milton Berle to an audience that expects Adam Sandler movies, The Big Bang Theory, and Jimmy Fallon.

Over the last 10 years, the web, Facebook, Instagram, and so on have, as a whole, all managed to create a new, fairly homogeneous culture of lighting that favors soft-light, low-ratio, softbox/octabox monotony. Your photos are using an older, classic type of flash lighting that is very different from what many people today tend to identify as "good lighting". The pervasiveness of nearly identical softbox/octabox/umbrella how-to videos, and the prevalence of available light only picture-taking has changed what many people will give a "Like" to these days.


----------



## KmH (Jun 3, 2014)

In summary - One light doesn't cut it these days, which is why pro photographers do portrait shots with 5 or more lights - main, fill, hair, accent (kicker), rim, background.


----------



## snerd (Jun 3, 2014)

I do agree about the Instagram-look that is so popular today. Man, I just hate hate hate it!! But it seems to be the standard for so many in the online world.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 3, 2014)

These shots really do remind me of the middle of the flashbulb photography era, when people were using single flash units, often with a butt-kicking', thumb-sized flashbulb in a rather deep, polished* parabolic reflector*. I've seen quite a few indoor family photos from the era before multi-light flash was common. Flashbulbs used to be rather expensive, and they are ONE-use only and always have been. Computing the Guide Number for a multi-flash setup was beyond the skill set of many people, and there were no flash meters, and TTL light metering was 20 to 25 years in the future. In the 1930's and to the very end of the 1950's, people shot a LOT of single-flashbulb shots. Usually direct, as in _not bounced_ lighting.

I tell you what: if she were dressed in say, a Shirley Temple type dress, with white tights and old-style shoes, in any of a dozen classic "poses for little girls", this lighting approach would look delightfully retro, and wonderful. If she were seated at a small table with some props on it, like say an old GE electric fan and a vase of flowers, and looking over the top of a kid's book she was reading, this strong, dramatic lighting would look good.

If this same,exact lighting were used on say a 35 year-old woman in elegant evening wear, the effect would seem very much different; this kind of deep shadow, lower-key, dramatic, single-source flash lighting is verrrrry old-school, and it's just not what people today are used to seeing. I recall the "Fifty Years Ago Today in Popular Photography Magazine" columns from five or six years back...LOTS of kid pics in homes, shot this way. Lots of all kinds of subjects, lighted this way.

This lighting looks like old-fashioned, 16- to 20-inch "pan" or "parabolic" lighting that was popular decades ago. If the background were a painted old master's canvas, or a light-painted wall or a cute set, this could work great today, but it's not a modern, popular way to light a little girl.


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 3, 2014)

Scatterbrained said:


> TWright33 said:
> 
> 
> > Msteelio91 said:
> ...



That was en-lightening information ... ok, not really.


----------



## snerd (Jun 3, 2014)

Derrel said:


> These shots really do remind me of the middle of the flashbulb photography era, when people were using single flash units, often with a butt-kicking', thumb-sized flashbulb in a rather deep, polished* parabolic reflector*. I've seen quite a few indoor family photos from the era before multi-light flash was common. Flashbulbs used to be rather expensive, and they are ONE-use only and always have been. Computing the Guide Number for a multi-flash setup was beyond the skill set of many people, and there were no flash meters, and TTL light metering was 20 to 25 years in the future. In the 1930's and to the very end of the 1950's, people shot a LOT of single-flashbulb shots. Usually direct, as in _not bounced_ lighting.
> 
> I tell you what: if she were dressed in say, a Shirley Temple type dress, with white tights and old-style shoes, in any of a dozen classic "poses for little girls", this lighting approach would look delightfully retro, and wonderful. If she were seated at a small table with some props on it, like say an old GE electric fan and a vase of flowers, and looking over the top of a kid's book she was reading, this strong, dramatic lighting would look good.
> 
> ...



Are you perhaps hinting that I like this so much because I'm old and remember the old days?!



























Of course that's why!!!!!! 

:lmao:


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jun 3, 2014)

The lighting seems rather harsh for a photo of a little girl, and the background being black doesn't give the viewer any frame of reference about where she is or what she's looking at. The way she's positioned seems a little awkward the way she's sitting and looking up. 

People might respond more to photos of kids that are smiling or looking at the camera; or if they're looking away from the camera it might help to see what they're looking at or be able to see a scene there to imagine what they might be seeing. 

This makes me think of a photo I took of my nephew that was in B&W with a black/gray background that I shot using existing room light and candlelight; it has a less stark look I think. Something like this might work better in B&W or in a different outfit or with different poses. I think photography takes learning and practicing and trying different things to see what works best for you.


----------



## ArsenPhoto (Jun 3, 2014)

I personally like both; however, I believe that they need some work. My suggestion would be to decrease the saturation in the second picture. You could do the same towards the first picture but black/white would work as well. Overall, I do agree with most that FB is not a place to obtain any feedback towards your photography.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 3, 2014)

For snerd:  http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00c/00cLqb-545208384.jpg

60 years ago from 2014, at the tail end of the Speed Graphic and parabolic + flashbulb era...

As I recall, the flashbulb itself was invented in 1928, and premiered in 1929--at almost the exact, same time as the first Rolleiflex twin-lens reflex rollfilm camera hit the market.


----------



## AggieBecky (Jun 3, 2014)

Thanks everyone for the input!  I usually shoot in natural light so shooting with flash is fairly new to me and I had no idea that I was shooting in an "old fashion" way, although that would explain why my photos aren't gaining any FB popularity.  I took this picture of my little girl watching TV and I intentionally underexposed ( and burned out) the background because it was in taken in my house and I didn't want the background distractions in my picture.  I do need to learn to shoot with multiple flashes but clearly doing so in my house, without the use of a backdrop, isn't the place to take such a shot.


----------



## manaheim (Jun 3, 2014)

People don't tend to like overly dramatic shots of kids, I've found.  I did one with a snoot of my girls and I love it, but I must admit it's a little creepy.

Facebook is NOT a way to judge what is good photography.


----------



## Joefbs (Dec 12, 2014)

KmH said:


> In summary - One light doesn't cut it these days, which is why pro photographers do portrait shots with 5 or more lights - main, fill, hair, accent (kicker), rim, background.




I have seen a lot of portraits that are really good with one light. At least that what they would have me believe.


----------



## pixmedic (Dec 12, 2014)

one speedlight. 




DSC_2014_2001 by pixmedic, on Flickr


----------



## pgriz (Dec 12, 2014)

TWright33 said:


> Scatterbrained said:
> 
> 
> > TWright33 said:
> ...



Which opens up a new way of considering things.  f/1.4 means that you probably need a diaper, and f/128 means that you're severely constipated.


----------



## gsgary (Dec 12, 2014)

KmH said:


> In summary - One light doesn't cut it these days, which is why pro photographers do portrait shots with 5 or more lights - main, fill, hair, accent (kicker), rim, background.


Rankin shoots a lot with one light, the best used to shoot with just one


----------



## Braineack (Dec 12, 2014)

if the people on FB are the ones that will pay you to shoot for them, I'd say it's a great gauge...

one light doesn't have to be harsh/dramatic:




David - 5 by The Braineack, on Flickr




David - 6 by The Braineack, on Flickr


----------



## Stradawhovious (Dec 12, 2014)

What is facebook?

Follow up question now that I've googled facebook... Why would you care what anyone else there thinks of your photos?

People are sheep.

Banana hammock.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Dec 12, 2014)

bribrius said:


> harsh narrow light, black backdrop. Little girl.
> 
> don't really work for me.




LOL! Does this work?


----------



## LCLimages (Dec 12, 2014)

gsgary said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > In summary - One light doesn't cut it these days, which is why pro photographers do portrait shots with 5 or more lights - main, fill, hair, accent (kicker), rim, background.
> ...



I shoot with one light.  Granted, it's in a 48" octobox, but it's just one speedlight camera left.  I have a narrow window in my studio room, camera right, that acts nicely as a fill sometimes.  Does that count as 2 lights?


----------



## D-B-J (Dec 12, 2014)

One light doesn't need to be harsh. As others have said, the lighting doesn't fit the model. Mind showing us one of your popular natural light photos? Maybe you're just significantly better with natural light!


----------



## photoguy99 (Dec 12, 2014)

Wait, what. Could someone PLEASE tell me if one light has to be harsh, maybe with some samples?

TIA


----------



## pixmedic (Dec 12, 2014)

one speedlight, 42" brolly. 




DSC_2013_2001 by pixmedic, on Flickr


----------



## tirediron (Dec 12, 2014)

Can I play too?

Single speedlight driving a 50" SB
(oh yeah, and this thread is six months old)


----------



## pgriz (Dec 12, 2014)

> (oh yeah, and this thread is six months old)



Not anymore, it ain't.


----------



## KmH (Dec 13, 2014)

snerd said:


> I do agree about the Instagram-look that is so popular today. Man, I just hate hate hate it!! But it seems to be the standard for so many in the online world.


Moo!


----------



## Kawaracer (Dec 13, 2014)

KmH said:


> In summary - One light doesn't cut it these days, which is why pro photographers do portrait shots with 5 or more lights - main, fill, hair, accent (kicker), rim, background.


My view, there is only one sun so why should there be more then one light, and on a recent workshop portraits without studio that was confirmed by the teacher. Of course for advertisments and so on they use al those lights. For naturaly looking pics you only need one light


----------

