# Flash photos



## sactown024 (Aug 13, 2012)

I am getting ready to have my first baby and want to shoot newborn photos. I noticed the best photos are done with some source of light indoors. 

My question is what would be the best starting point for newborn photos, speedlite? Continuous light? Both? 

Just need a starting point, I'm sure all are good to have but what will get me the best results on the lowest budget?


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 13, 2012)

you cannot post others photos here. You can post a link to them.

I shoot newborns with 2 speedlites, 1 large softbox and one small, narrow softbox on location.
In my own space I shoot with 2 strobes, 1 large softbox and 1 strip box.

Low budget you are looking at about $200. Might be able to get super cheap crap stuff from ebay for about $150


----------



## MK3Brent (Aug 13, 2012)

Beauty dish.


----------



## Stradawhovious (Aug 13, 2012)

Not continuous light.

They get really hot.

Use a speed light, or strobe with whatever modifier meets your needs.  

And like Mleek said, you can't post picures here that aren't yours.  You might want to tend to that before someone does it for you.


----------



## sactown024 (Aug 14, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> you cannot post others photos here. You can post a link to them.
> 
> I shoot newborns with 2 speedlites, 1 large softbox and one small, narrow softbox on location.
> In my own space I shoot with 2 strobes, 1 large softbox and 1 strip box.
> ...



$200 is fine but a speedlite alone is $250 plus softboxes etc.... 

how do you set up multiple speedlites?


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 14, 2012)

Low budget.. you can go with 3rd party flashes. Full manual mode is the most accurate in flash use.. you just have to learn to use it that way. It is really easy.

Good
Amazon.com: Yongnuo YN-560 Speedlight Flash for Canon and Nikon: Camera & Photo

Better
Amazon.com: Yongnuo YN-560 II Speedlight Flash for Canon and Nikon. GN58.: Camera & Photo

There are lots of others.. but these do work well and are inexpensive. The Yongnuo's have optical slave triggers so will go off when they see another flash go off. I would start with one... and get another after master that one.

Light modifiers.. you can get a cheap set to play with and upgrade later if you want... umbrellas do work well, and are the cheapest.

These are good!
Amazon.com: Westcott 2332 43-Inch Collapsible Umbrella Flash Kit: Camera & Photo

These are Junk, but would work....
Amazon.com: CowboyStudio Single Flash Shoe Swivel Bracket Kit with 1 Mounting Bracket, 1 Umbrella, and 1 Stand Stand: Camera & Photo

I would stay away from constant light kits.. they are cheap, usually junk, and they do not provide enough light for people photography (require long exposures).... unless you spend major bucks!


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 14, 2012)

sactown024 said:


> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> > you cannot post others photos here. You can post a link to them.
> ...




You can get an awesome education here: Strobist
On the right hand side start with the drop down for Strobist 101 Archive and go from there.


----------



## sactown024 (Aug 14, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> Low budget.. you can go with 3rd party flashes. Full manual mode is the most accurate in flash use.. you just have to learn to use it that way. It is really easy.
> 
> Good
> Amazon.com: Yongnuo YN-560 Speedlight Flash for Canon and Nikon: Camera & Photo
> ...



will these still work off camera with a wireless trigger like this Amazon.com: Yongnuo 2.4GHz Wireless Flash Trigger/Receiver and Shutter Remote for Canon 1D/5D/7D/10D/20D/30D/40D/50D DSLR: Camera & Photo


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 14, 2012)

Yes.

StudioLighting.net may be of use to you as well. 

I'd order at least one speedlite and trigger to start with now. You can use a reflector as well, but you are going to want 2 if at all possible. I know your wife has to be due soon, so if you can only order one and one modifier it's doable, just not ideal. Don't forget the stand and modifier. 

This is just my opinion, so take it FWIW-and we all know how much you value my opinion... The speedlite option will be more flexible and useful to you down the line. Buying a cheap-o set up of lights off ebay may or may not be useful for you AND you can get just as much light from a speedlite as any of those cheap-o setups and it will be easier to do more with.


----------



## paigew (Aug 14, 2012)

do you have a window? That is what I would use  You don't NEED all that stuff to take a decent pic. Especially since it is your baby and you will have all the time in the world to wait around for perfect light! Rather than spending $$$ on lighting I would invest in a nice lens with ability to use a wide aperture. 

These aren't the best examples in the world but I have only done one newborn shoot at it was months ago. Taken using window light:


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 14, 2012)

This one was shot with one 150WS Strobe and one speedlite


I believe this one is windows. I was also at ISO 2000 on it. It was in front of a window that the Arizona sun was really beating into with a white sheer curtain to soften a bit.


----------



## sactown024 (Aug 14, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> Yes.
> 
> StudioLighting.net may be of use to you as well.
> 
> ...



that first pic you posted is amazing.....

when you say "You can use a reflector as well, but you are going to want 2 if at all possible." do you mean 2 flash or 2 reflectors? 

how do you feel about the third party speedlite listed above? should i just spring for a 430ex instead? big difference? I don't know if this is relevant but I will be shooting the photos with a 50mm 1.8 or my 50-200mm f/4. 

so starters grocery list:
speedlite
modifier (reflector or softbox) 
modifier stand
speedlite stand


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 14, 2012)

Sorry... working too fast again. 2 flashes.
Your modifier is not a REFLECTOR or softbox, that would be an umbrella (probably shoot through) or a softbox. A reflector is for pushing some light back opposite your light source. 
You'll want one of those as well. It doesn't have to be anything labled PHOTOGRAPHY. It can be something as simple as a piece of white foam core board or even one of those things kids use for science fair projects. 

It's not a modifier stand but a light stand with a bracket to mount your speedlite on. 


Are you thinking you are going to order these items from Adorama or B&H? Or somewhere we can give you a grocery list from?


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 14, 2012)

When is the baby due?

And have you purchased the required teddy bear and stuff already? If you have something of the sort they make an awesome model for you to practice on and for us to help get you a little more education before baby comes.


----------



## sactown024 (Aug 14, 2012)

I am going to order them from basically wherever someone tells me is the best place to, B&H or Adorama would be fine since my local shop kinda sucks. Speaking of which... I just went down there and they had a Nissin speedlite and they told my Nissin makes canon and Nissin brand is much better.... do you know anything about this?

the baby is due thursday haha C-section due to breached position.

I have bought photo outfits like the cute hats nd diaper covers etc, and some cheesecloth wraps, no teddy bears : / I plan to get some baskets/crates and faux fur this weekend and some sort of floordrop weather it is a fluffy blanket or an actual floordrop.

so 2 flash is out of the question right now since I am buying a 50mm also. 

so it sounds like i would need a setup like this:

speedlite
wireless trigger
reflector (stand for reflector?)
softbox or umbrella to shoot through
stand for my speedlite and softbox (does one stand do both?) 

list is probably wrong again haha... let me know if i got it right


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 14, 2012)

sactown024 said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Low budget.. you can go with 3rd party flashes. Full manual mode is the most accurate in flash use.. you just have to learn to use it that way. It is really easy.
> ...



Wireless triggers would work great... sure... but as I mentioned, they have Optical Slave Trigger capability also! Make one go off... they all go off! The wireless are more convenient though... I would recommend that!


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 14, 2012)

paigew said:


> do you have a window? That is what I would use  You don't NEED all that stuff to take a decent pic. Especially since it is your baby and you will have all the time in the world to wait around for perfect light! Rather than spending $$$ on lighting I would invest in a nice lens with ability to use a wide aperture.
> 
> These aren't the best examples in the world but I have only done one newborn shoot at it was months ago. Taken using window light:



Natural (AMBIENT) light is nice when you have it.. but what about shots at night? Or on a really cloudy day, when it is DIM inside? Flash allows shots ANYTIME!


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 14, 2012)

sactown024 said:


> I am going to order them from basically wherever someone tells me is the best place to, B&H or Adorama would be fine since my local shop kinda sucks. Speaking of which... I just went down there and they had a Nissin speedlite and they told my Nissin makes canon and Nissin brand is much better.... do you know anything about this?



Not sure if Nissin makes Canon or not.. but I do know that Nissin IS NOT BETTER!  lol!

Adorama, B&H, Amazon (usually the better stuff is from Adorama or B&H through Amazon, anyway!)


----------



## sactown024 (Aug 14, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> sactown024 said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...



yes but if i didnt have a trigger and used the optical slave trigger i would need at least 2 flashes right? and one would have to be on the camera.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 14, 2012)

sactown024 said:


> I am going to order them from basically wherever someone tells me is the best place to, B&H or Adorama would be fine since my local shop kinda sucks. Speaking of which... I just went down there and they had a Nissin speedlite and they told my Nissin makes canon and Nissin brand is much better.... do you know anything about this?
> 
> the baby is due thursday haha C-section due to breached position.
> 
> ...


I'll go pull you a list from Adorama in a minute. I happen to know their stuff better than B&H, but either one is going to be the same. 
You have the right list so far here. The YN speedlights are probably out of the question seeing how they usually come from outside the US and you aren't going to get them in time to do newborns. It can take up to a month.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 14, 2012)

What camera brand?


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 14, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> sactown024 said:
> 
> 
> > I am going to order them from basically wherever someone tells me is the best place to, B&H or Adorama would be fine since my local shop kinda sucks. Speaking of which... I just went down there and they had a Nissin speedlite and they told my Nissin makes canon and Nissin brand is much better.... do you know anything about this?
> ...



many places stock the Yongnuos.. including Amazon (in stock with free 2 day shipping for prime members!)


----------



## sactown024 (Aug 14, 2012)

I have a canon T2i

It would be nice if I can get the Yongnuos, then i could buy 2 and they sell a double trigger set pretty cheap.


----------



## jaicatalano (Aug 14, 2012)

That first photo ROCKS. It almost makes me want to have another baby. Almost. 



paigew said:


> do you have a window? That is what I would use  You don't NEED all that stuff to take a decent pic. Especially since it is your baby and you will have all the time in the world to wait around for perfect light! Rather than spending $$$ on lighting I would invest in a nice lens with ability to use a wide aperture.
> 
> These aren't the best examples in the world but I have only done one newborn shoot at it was months ago. Taken using window light:


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 14, 2012)

These are cheap options. If well cared for they will last a long time, but be aware they are not top of the line.

To mount your speedlite to the stand Adorama Universal Swivel Holder - Umbrella Bracket 781404 This will also hold your shoot through umbrella
Stand Adorama 7.5in Chrome Kit Light Stand w/ 1/4in Thread STAND8
Shoot thru Umbrella Adorama U40T 40in Translucent Umbrella U40T
Trigger/receiver Flashpoint 4 Channel Radio Remote Control, 65ft Range MT04

Total on that $78.10 Plus shipping/tax

Still need to order a speedlite.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 14, 2012)

This amazon seller says the YN to you on Wed 8/15 if ordered in the next hour or so
Amazon.com: Yongnuo YN-560 Speedlight Flash for Canon and Nikon: Camera & Photo


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 14, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> This amazon seller says the YN to you on Wed 8/15 if ordered in the next hour or so
> Amazon.com: Yongnuo YN-560 Speedlight Flash for Canon and Nikon: Camera & Photo



That is the older version of the Yongnuo.. they redesigned it to make it easier to use.. the 560 II. Highly recommend that one... (in my post above!)


----------



## sactown024 (Aug 14, 2012)

wow thats fast shipping on those speedlites, are they good flashes?

thanks for the list thats really cheap for all that stuff, tempted to order it now lol! how does this trigger compare to the one you listed, only asking cause it comes with 2.
Amazon.com: CowboyStudio NPT-04 4 Channel Wireless Trigger for External Speelights with 1 Trigger and 2 Receivers (NPT-04+extra receiver): Camera & Photo


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 14, 2012)

Those are the Yongnuo speedlites we have been talking about all along here.
The trigger set you found is fine!


----------



## sactown024 (Aug 14, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> Those are the Yongnuo speedlites we have been talking about all along here.
> The trigger set you found is fine!



do you think a boom arm is necessary at this point or can i afford to hold off on that, assuming I would buy 2 of those flashes.


----------



## kundalini (Aug 14, 2012)

paigew said:


> do you have a window? That is what I would use  You don't NEED all that stuff to take a decent pic. Especially since it is your baby and you will have all the time in the world to wait around for perfect light! Rather than spending $$$ on lighting I would invest in a nice lens with ability to use a wide aperture.


I strongly disagree. A kit lens is perfectly fine IF you have good lighting. The problem with relying on ambient light is you have absolutely no control if it decides to be shy. You also can't count on it to be there when the newborn is in a good mood for a session. Having a very basic lighting kit and knowing how to use it will yield more consistent results. 

I've seen too many here trying to shoot wide open with poor results. A good aperture range for portraiture IMO is f/4 to f/9.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 14, 2012)

I agree with Kundalini up there about the kit lens, however... I encourage anyone to purchase that 50 f/1.8 while learning for a multitude of reasons.


----------



## sactown024 (Aug 14, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> I agree with Kundalini up there about the kit lens, however... I encourage anyone to purchase that 50 f/1.8 while learning for a multitude of reasons.



yeah I have a kit lens and getting the 50mm 1.8 along with a 55-250 (assume this is not a good portrait lens) and a 8mm fish eye. I hear the 50mm is very sharp and gives a much stronger background blur than the kit lens (true?) If I am shooting with flash is there any reason to use the 50mm over the kit lens?


----------



## kundalini (Aug 14, 2012)

I find the 50mm f/1.8 to be boring, even on a FF camera.  The bokeh (rendering quality of the OOF background) is disappointing, by and large, because of the square aperture blades.  But, for a buck and a quarter, it's not a bad investment.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 14, 2012)

sactown024 said:


> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with Kundalini up there about the kit lens, however... I encourage anyone to purchase that 50 f/1.8 while learning for a multitude of reasons.
> ...


The 50mm will always be sharper and crisper than the kit lens. That's not really the only deciding factor in whether you use it or not. If the 50mm doesn't fit the shoot, it's kind of a waste to use it and sacrifice the images because it's too tight.


----------



## paigew (Aug 14, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> paigew said:
> 
> 
> > do you have a window? That is what I would use  You don't NEED all that stuff to take a decent pic. Especially since it is your baby and you will have all the time in the world to wait around for perfect light! Rather than spending $$$ on lighting I would invest in a nice lens with ability to use a wide aperture.
> ...



If it is rainy she can do it the next day...its her own newborn. I think it is so backwards for people to try and learn flash/studio lighting before they master natural light. How do you know what lighting you are trying to create if you haven't experienced shooting in that situation?


----------



## sactown024 (Aug 14, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> sactown024 said:
> 
> 
> > MLeeK said:
> ...



point taken, if i had the money i would buy the 50mm 1.4 usm but that aint happening right now. I am actually trying to sell my fish eye and kit lens so i can get the 50mm 1.4


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 14, 2012)

paigew said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > paigew said:
> ...



Good ambient light is only available a couple of hours of the day... unless you use large diffusers. I think most people prefer to shoot when they want to... rather than relying on the vagaries of so-called "Natural" light! You really seem to have a bias against flash... do you even use flash?


----------



## kundalini (Aug 14, 2012)

paigew said:


> I think it is so backwards for people to try and learn flash/studio lighting before they master natural light. How do you know what lighting you are trying to create if you haven't experienced shooting in that situation?


Learning flash photography is like reciting the multiplication table.  Yeah, it's confusing in the beginning, but the further along you get, the easier it is to understand the concept.  Ambient or natural light is throwing in algebra, trig and a bit of calculus in the mix.  Once you understand how to control the light in a controlled environment, the easier it is to control it under less than ideal situations.  So IMO, you have it backwards.


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 14, 2012)

kundalini said:


> paigew said:
> 
> 
> > I think it is so backwards for people to try and learn flash/studio lighting before they master natural light. How do you know what lighting you are trying to create if you haven't experienced shooting in that situation?
> ...



I agree with this totally! It is much easier to control flash... AMBIENT light (all light is NATURAL) can be a PITA unless you are prepared for it. And based on photos I have seen.. most "Natural Light" photographers don't have a friggin clue!  lol! (and they don't know how to use flash either! WOW!)


----------



## paigew (Aug 14, 2012)

kundalini said:


> paigew said:
> 
> 
> > do you have a window? That is what I would use  You don't NEED all that stuff to take a decent pic. Especially since it is your baby and you will have all the time in the world to wait around for perfect light! Rather than spending $$$ on lighting I would invest in a nice lens with ability to use a wide aperture.
> ...



if she got a 1.8 she could shoot at 3.2 which is plenty narrow for a novice. When beginners use flash usually it looks horrible. Beginners using natural light generally looks better. I'm thinking if it was my newborn I would want them to look better


----------



## sactown024 (Aug 14, 2012)

paigew said:


> kundalini said:
> 
> 
> > paigew said:
> ...



I am a guy.... but i was going to get the 1.8 either way and i want to learn flash so i was going to use the newborn for that, if they come out bad it is still good practice i can then always go back to no flash and use the 1.8 aperture.


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 14, 2012)

sactown024 said:


> paigew said:
> 
> 
> > kundalini said:
> ...



Uh.. no.. you really DON'T want to use that 1.8 aperture. One of the biggest issues we see with people complaining about out of focus photos... is that they are using a 1.4 or 1.8 aperture without understanding the limitations involved. Your depth of field at those apertures makes it difficult to get good shots... at least until you understand the why and how of it.


----------



## sactown024 (Aug 14, 2012)

okay, well then 2.8 aperture, i just want a indoor lens that wont break the bank. can you explain or link a "how to" for shooting at low aperture?

correct me if i am wrong but the lower the aperture the better the background blur right? but can create out of focus photos?


----------



## o hey tyler (Aug 14, 2012)

sactown024 said:
			
		

> I am going to order them from basically wherever someone tells me is the best place to, B&H or Adorama would be fine since my local shop kinda sucks. Speaking of which... I just went down there and they had a Nissin speedlite and they told my Nissin makes canon and Nissin brand is much better.... do you know anything about this?



I know that it is not true.


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 14, 2012)

sactown024 said:


> okay, well then 2.8 aperture, i just want a indoor lens that wont break the bank. can you explain or link a "how to" for shooting at low aperture?
> 
> correct me if i am wrong but the lower the aperture the better the background blur right? but can create out of focus photos?



Best link in the world for this question!  Online Depth of Field Calculator

Here is your T2i at 3ft. from the subject at 1.8 on a 50mm




Please notice that the DOF (depth of field = Area of sharpness) is .07 feet (.84")  so less than ONE INCH of sharp focus area..... at 3ft from your baby. Which partial inch do you want in focus?


----------



## kundalini (Aug 14, 2012)

Sorry sactown024, don't mean to highjack your thread, but I would like to make a point for paige.

Was flash used in this photo?  If so, does it look horrible?  Does it look unnatural?  How would it be improved with regard to lighting?








Here's another.  Same questions apply.







And one last example.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 14, 2012)

Oh, come on man...seven one-hundredths of a foot is like, what...I mean, that might as well be a country mile's worth of DOF...whaddaya' tryin'a be...some kinda' alarmist!?


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 14, 2012)

Derrel said:


> Oh, come on man...seven one-hundredths of a foot is like, what...I man, that might as well be a country mile's worth of DOF...whaddaya' tryin'a be...some kinda' alarmist!?



hahahaha... sure! A sharp nose here..... a blurry ear there... it doesn't matter at all, as long as you get that killer bokeh, right?


----------



## paigew (Aug 14, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> I think most people prefer to shoot when they want to... rather than relying on the vagaries of so-called "Natural" light! You really seem to have a bias against flash... do you even use flash?



I also think people want to shoot when they want to. So if my baby is sleeping on the couch I want to know how to use the lighting in that room. If he is about to stand up in the kitchen I don't want to have to run and get my studio lighting kit so that everything is 'perfect'. I want to know how to take a nicely lit photo where ever I am. Plus 'real life' isn't perfectly lit and I don't always want 'perfectly lit' photos. I think it is so intimidating when people come here to learn how to take a decent photo and people tell them they need ALL.THIS.STUFF to do it. You don't need all that crap to take a good photo. That is all I'm saying. I am glad I figured that out before I bought the backdrop stand, the backdrop, the props, the seamless papers, the lights, etc.

As for my 'credentials', I have a speedlight, and have watched neil van niekerk webinar about it. I experiment with it, but not nearly as much as I would like to. I have gotten shots I love that I couldn't have gotten without it. Are those my favorite photographs...no. I am excited to learn studio lighting in the future but I do not think it should be the first thing you learn.


----------



## paigew (Aug 14, 2012)

sactown024 said:


> I am a guy.... but i was going to get the 1.8 either way and i want to learn flash so i was going to use the newborn for that, if they come out bad it is still good practice i can then always go back to no flash and use the 1.8 aperture.



well if you want to learn flash then by all means learn it! But obviously you have so much to learn that your photos would probably be tons better if you concentrated your efforts on learning how to shoot in manual first.


----------



## paigew (Aug 14, 2012)

kundalini said:


> Sorry sactown024, don't mean to highjack your thread, but I would like to make a point for paige.



my novice guess would be: 

1) flash. I think it looks unnatural. A completely lit foreground with a dark (night) background. The light just ends , there is no depth or light wrapping around the subject. Not sure how you can fix this, this is the main reason I don't like flash. (really hoping this is flash here and I'm not going to be embarrassed later )

2) no flash; you have some depth/shadows although they seem a little harsh. Main light source (sun? window?) coming from image left. I suppose you could have bounced flash here to try and trick me. I really think using a stuffed animal is completely different than using a person. Fuzz is not the same as skin. 

3) flash. Looks nice! I don't have the pleasure of having my models 'hold still' in order to use off camera flash (which I am guessing this is)


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 14, 2012)

paigew said:


> sactown024 said:
> 
> 
> > I am a guy.... but i was going to get the 1.8 either way and i want to learn flash so i was going to use the newborn for that, if they come out bad it is still good practice i can then always go back to no flash and use the 1.8 aperture.
> ...



I disagree with this also! YES.. everyone should learn to shoot in manual! But until they learn it, it is slow, and babies aren't! You have split seconds to capture expression and such on newborns... that you will miss if you are messing around in Manual. Aperture Priority is the way most PRO's shoot.. and there is a reason for that. It is fast, and it is accurate. For high speed needs, shutter priority is best.. but that is for sports, not newborns. All learning manual does is teach you the relationship between shutter, aperture and ISO in a way that is easier to see, and to learn. Flash.. yes, use manual... anything else, only if you're are trying learn manual!


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 14, 2012)

paigew said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > I think most people prefer to shoot when they want to... rather than relying on the vagaries of so-called "Natural" light! You really seem to have a bias against flash... do you even use flash?
> ...



Cool.. but I made my living with for about seven years... little bit of difference there! 90 percent of the shots I take have flash... I don't use it on landscapes for hopefully obvious reasons!


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 14, 2012)

paigew said:


> kundalini said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry sactown024, don't mean to highjack your thread, but I would like to make a point for paige.
> ...



Flash stops moving subjects better and sharper than shutter speed ever will, off camera or not!


----------



## Derrel (Aug 14, 2012)

Learn to shoot GOOD bounced flash, and also some simple OCF with umbrella...OCF being *o*ff *c*amera *f*lash. A GOOD electronic flash unit is VERY handy...it can bring light to darkness, 24/7, indoors or out...at home, or on the road...with a DIGITAL SLR, it's a pretty easy matter of setting the flash to "X" output, shooting a shot, and then making a correction or two, and getting the right exposure pretty quickly. With the more-costly, $450-$589 priced "top-end" speedlights from Canon, Nikon, or Metz, the evaluative TTL metering is pretty good. With a bit of practice and some study, a new mom ought to be able to get GOOD shots of a baby within a couple of weeks' time.


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 14, 2012)

Derrel said:


> Learn to shoot GOOD bounced flash, and also some simple OCF with umbrella...OCF being *o*ff *c*amera *f*lash. A GOOD electronic flash unit is VERY handy...it can bring light to darkness, 24/7, indoors or out...at home, or on the road...with a DIGITAL SLR, it's a pretty easy matter of setting the flash to "X" output, shooting a shot, and then making a correction or two, and getting the right exposure pretty quickly. With the more-costly, $450-$589 priced "top-end" speedlights from Canon, Nikon, or Metz, the evaluative TTL metering is pretty good. With a bit of practice and some study, a new mom ought to be able to get GOOD shots of a baby within a couple of weeks' time.



Exactly... straight flash is harsh... modify some way, and you can do wonderful things with it!


----------



## o hey tyler (Aug 14, 2012)

cgipson1 said:
			
		

> I disagree with this also! YES.. everyone should learn to shoot in manual! But until they learn it, it is slow, and babies aren't! You have split seconds to capture expression and such on newborns... that you will miss if you are messing around in Manual. Aperture Priority is the way most PRO's shoot.. and there is a reason for that. It is fast, and it is accurate. For high speed needs, shutter priority is best.. but that is for sports, not newborns. All learning manual does is teach you the relationship between shutter, aperture and ISO in a way that is easier to see, and to learn. Flash.. yes, use manual... anything else, only if you're are trying learn manual!



If you are suggesting the OP learn flash, then I don't see why you disagree with Paige. Using flash in manual mode is the only way to do it. As I read it, she was suggesting that they familiarize themselves with manual mode before using flash.


----------



## o hey tyler (Aug 14, 2012)

cgipson1 said:
			
		

> Cool.. but I made my living with for about seven years... little bit of difference there! 90 percent of the shots I take have flash... I don't use it on landscapes for hopefully obvious reasons!



Okay, so you shoot 90% of your shots with flash. Cool. That doesn't mean that everyone needs to. I shoot maybe 20 - 30%  of all my photos with flash. Everyone is different.


----------



## paigew (Aug 14, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> Flash stops moving subjects better and sharper than shutter speed ever will, off camera or not!



Yes but to get the subject to stay where you want so that the flash hits them. It is just not practical for the type of photography I currently shoot. I look forward to learning off camera flash sometime in the near future. My whole point is that you do not 'need' to know studio lighting to take newborn photos of your own baby. It is far more important to spend these months learning how to take a photo.


----------



## paigew (Aug 14, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> paigew said:
> 
> 
> > *As for my 'credentials', I have a speedlight, and have watched neil van niekerk webinar about it.*  I experiment with it, but not nearly as much as I would like to. I have  gotten shots I love that I couldn't have gotten without it. Are those  my favorite photographs...no. I am excited to learn studio lighting in  the future but I do not think it should be the first thing you  learn.
> ...



charlie, that obviously wasn't a brag about my mad flash skills. Congrats to you for 'making your living' by using flash. Can I see some of your newborn/baby/toddler shots since that is what the op is wanting to shoot?


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 14, 2012)

What does it really  matter if Charlie has newborn pics or not? We know from everything he does with flash and shows here regularly that he has the skill with flash to shoot anything. A newborn is incredibly simple compared to much of his lighting work


----------



## paigew (Aug 14, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> What does it really  matter if Charlie has newborn pics or not? We know from everything he does with flash and shows here regularly that he has the skill with flash to shoot anything. A newborn is incredibly simple compared to much of his lighting work



I am not saying that charlie doesn't know how to use flash. I love this forum and how people put words into other people's mouths. I have multiple times for my own learning asked people to post their best flash portraits and have gotten barely any replies. What I have seen isn't my favorite work; it all looks artificially lit. So if I can be proved wrong and converted to a flash loving photographer then go for it! Show me what you got. That is all I'm saying. I personally rarely like the look of flash and when I do like flash it is from a very experienced photographer. Not a newbie with a 50mm 1.8 shooting at 1.8.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 14, 2012)

paigew said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > paigew said:
> ...


Where did I put words into your mouth?


----------



## rexbobcat (Aug 14, 2012)

paigew said:
			
		

> I am not saying that charlie doesn't know how to use flash. I love this forum and how people put words into other people's mouths. I have multiple times for my own learning asked people to post their best flash portraits and have gotten barely any replies. What I have seen isn't my favorite work; it all looks artificially lit. So if I can be proved wrong and converted to a flash loving photographer then go for it! Show me what you got. That is all I'm saying. I personally rarely like the look of flash and when I do like flash it is from a very experienced photographer. Not a newbie with a 50mm 1.8 shooting at 1.8.



Shoot natural light then. It's limited but if that's the look you like then, um, okay, go for it.


----------



## Stradawhovious (Aug 14, 2012)

Personally, I put off learning how to use a flash for the same reason lots of "natural light only" photographers do.  I was scared of it.  Now, in hindsight, I'm kicking myself for all the opportunities I missed.  Do I shoot with artificial lighting all the time?  Nope, but I do when I can because I feel I get a much better result.  Especially when used in conjunction with ambient.

YMMV of course.

At any rate, to the OP and Mom to be (congrats by the way) A speedlight, a lightstand, an umbrella and a reflector can be your best friend in the whole world once you get the basics down.  They can also be thrown into a corner and set up in a moment's notice when you would otherwise have to wait 24 hours for the sun.  Learn the basics, have fun, and take a hundred thousand photos of your baby.


----------



## paigew (Aug 14, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> Where did I put words into your mouth?



okay you got me. I went a little overboard .

 Anyway it doesn't matter. I am just trying to prove a point to the OP that there are plenty of extremely talented photographers (even ones specializing in newborns) that mainly use natural light. You do not need flash. You can get gorgeous photos without it if you learn how to use your camera. Why is everyone so against natural light?? That is what I want to know.


----------



## paigew (Aug 14, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> Shoot natural light then. It's limited but if that's the look you like then, um, okay, go for it.



Its not that at all. I want to love flash. I want it to look natural. I am not anti-artificial light mwac. People say it can be done to look natural,  and that I am doing things wrong but I have yet to see any perfect examples to learn from.


----------



## Stradawhovious (Aug 14, 2012)

paigew said:


> Its not that at all. I want to love flash.




Then learn how to use it.  It will never look natural if you keep it mounted to the camera.


----------



## paigew (Aug 14, 2012)

Stradawhovious said:


> paigew said:
> 
> 
> > Its not that at all. I want to love flash.
> ...



I plan to. But (my point) I want to master my basics first. Not master flash and not know anything about composition, or camera settings. Crawl before you walk people.


----------



## Mach0 (Aug 14, 2012)

Regardless of flash or ambient lighting, if you want your newborn pics to look good, you better start practicing. I personally like flash. You can modify it, control it's output, placement, and aren't limited by the perfect hour of ambient light.  Ambient light can make some amazing photos as can flash. If you go with flash, go with one flash, and try to learn that. If you want to go the ambient route, hopefully your child is on the same cycle as when you plan to shoot so that the baby is cooperative. Of course, if you have tons of time, you can play the waiting game with your newborn and the sun.
Good luck and post pics! Kids are fun!


----------



## Stradawhovious (Aug 14, 2012)

paigew said:


> I plan to. But (my point) I want to master my basics first. Not master flash and not know anything about composition, or camera settings. Crawl before you walk people.



I hate to break it to you, but learning about light _is _the basics. along with the exposure triangle and composition, etc.

Light is easier to learn about it when you can control it.


----------



## MTVision (Aug 14, 2012)

paigew said:
			
		

> I plan to. But (my point) I want to master my basics first. Not master flash and not know anything about composition, or camera settings. Crawl before you walk people.



I doubt there is time to master anything before the newborn comes - in another thread the OP said his wife was due in a week!!

A little off-topic but please....please...don't just try to attempt any ole newborn pose that you've seen online. A lot of people don't realize that a lot of the "popular" newborn photos are composites - like the head in hands pose. I'm assuming you already know this...newborn safety should always come first.


----------



## paigew (Aug 14, 2012)

Stradawhovious said:


> paigew said:
> 
> 
> > I plan to. But (my point) I want to master my basics first. Not master flash and not know anything about composition, or camera settings. Crawl before you walk people.
> ...



okay but what about when you can't control it?? Then what happens is you don't know how to take a photo in difficult lighting situation and you miss the shot.

anyway I am not going to argue anymore. I had (have) a simple point and suggestion to the op. It wasn't meant to turn into a battle of the wills or whatever. Fine learn flash by the time your baby comes, good luck to you. I am sure you will love any images you take of your sweet baby anyway.


----------



## Stradawhovious (Aug 14, 2012)

paigew said:


> okay but what about when you can't control it??




That's why it's important to understand it.  Try to keep up.


Anywhooo, to the OP...... Whatever you do, have fun doing it. And keep the questions coming! There are a whole bunch of folks willing to help.  All you need to do is decide what advice best for you, since some of it will (obviously) be conflicting.


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 14, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No.. she was suggesting using manual for "NATURAL LIGHT PHOTOGRAPHY!" Read it again... she says that the OP shouldn't learn flash.. that Natural light is better!



paigew said:


> if she got a 1.8 she could shoot at 3.2 which is plenty narrow for a novice. *When beginners use flash usually it looks horrible. Beginners using natural light generally looks better.* I'm thinking if it was my newborn I would want them to look better





paigew said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > paigew said:
> ...


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 14, 2012)

paigew said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Flash stops moving subjects better and sharper than shutter speed ever will, off camera or not!
> ...



I have yet to see a NEWBORN move that fast!


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 14, 2012)

paigew said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > paigew said:
> ...



Gee. I haven't shot any in about 20 years.. but guess what, the LIGHT hasn't changed! It still behaves now like it did then!


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 14, 2012)

paigew said:


> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> > Where did I put words into your mouth?
> ...



Yea.. with diffusers, modifiers, reflectors and a large staff to handle all that gear! That way they can shoot in midday sun and still make it look good! You don't get anyone that goes out in really harsh light, and shoots in that harsh light... they use the shade, fill flash, OC flash, whatever it takes to get GOOD pictures..... plus they have LOTS of years of experience.

Without that experience and the gear... you are very limited when and how you can shoot. 

Flash you can do anytime, anywhere...


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 14, 2012)

paigew said:


> Stradawhovious said:
> 
> 
> > paigew said:
> ...



To me... good composition with lousy light looks worse then poor composition with good light.


----------



## sactown024 (Aug 14, 2012)

I think everyone is missing the point, I am not trying to master flash in a week nor am I just getting a flash setup strictly for the baby, I just want to learn it in general and thought since the baby is coming now is a good time.

I always shoot my camera in full manual and although I have a lot to learn some people are acting like I never used a camera before. I am sure flash is hard to learn but I need to start sometime right? 

I personally think flash looks better than natural and that's why I chose to make a thread on how to learn it, if someone else like natural then fine, nothing wrong with that.

Thanks for all the insight and recommendations 

And for the record I am the Dad, not the mom


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 14, 2012)

sactown024 said:


> I think everyone is missing the point, I am not trying to master flash in a week nor am I just getting a flash setup strictly for the baby, I just want to learn it in general and thought since the baby is coming now is a good time.
> 
> I always shoot my camera in full manual and although I have a lot to learn some people are acting like I never used a camera before. I am sure flash is hard to learn but I need to start sometime right?
> 
> ...



Sorry about the drama... If you need help, all you have to do is ask!


----------



## kundalini (Aug 14, 2012)

paigew said:


> my novice guess would be:


Thanks for playing along, I mean that sincerely.  Part of the plan was for you to try and deconstruct the lighting in each image.  Being able to see the light is a most valued skillset, whether you are a naturalist or a strobist.





paigew said:


> 1) flash. I think it looks unnatural. A completely lit foreground with a dark (night) background. The light just ends , there is no depth or light wrapping around the subject. Not sure how you can fix this, this is the main reason I don't like flash. (really hoping this is flash here and I'm not going to be embarrassed later )


Of course it's flash.    However, I will say that lighting up your subject and having an underexposed background is a look that I prefer over having the background blown out.  Well, more times than not.  I'm not sure of your statement of "no depth or light wrapping around the subject", because what I see is a good separation of the subject from the background.  So for my wants, there is no fix.  I would hasten a guess that a vast majority of photographers here strive for that very end.  That's why we buy the f/1.4 primes and f/2.8 zooms...... to separate the subject from the background. 

Here's the setup shot.....









paigew said:


> 2) no flash; you have some depth/shadows although they seem a little harsh. Main light source (sun? window?) coming from image left. I suppose you could have bounced flash here to try and trick me. I really think using a stuffed animal is completely different than using a person. Fuzz is not the same as skin.


Okay, so the scene was backlit by a harsh setting summer sun at about 67° camera left.  I used a 24" softbox camera left at ~45° for Main and a bare bulb flash next to camera for Fill. 

BTW, I strongly suggest to use an inanimate object for practicing, particularly with flash.  Live models will get sooooo bored.  I happened upon my pink monkey, Winston.   


Here's the setup shot.....









paigew said:


> 3) flash. Looks nice! I don't have the pleasure of having my models 'hold still' in order to use off camera flash (which I am guessing this is)


She was a 15yo with plans to be with her friends soon.  I had less than 5 minutes to shoot, probably only 10 frames shot.  That&#8217;s why there is no setup shot.    And this was the red herring.  Knowing my time constraints, I put her in open shade with the sun at ~110-120° camera right with the dark green foliage about 15&#8217; behind her.  I got her mother to hold a *silver & white* reflector on camera right.



It&#8217;s all about light.


----------



## sactown024 (Aug 15, 2012)

Just out of curiosity and way off subject, what is the big difference between a cheap flash trigger like this:
Amazon.com: CowboyStudio NPT-04 4 Channel Wireless Trigger for External Speelights with 1 Trigger and 2 Receivers (NPT-04+extra receiver): Camera & Photo

and a nice pock wizzard like this:
PocketWizard Plus II Auto Sensing Smart Transceiver 801-125


----------



## Stradawhovious (Aug 15, 2012)

sactown024 said:


> Just out of curiosity and way off subject, what is the big difference between a cheap flash trigger like this:
> Amazon.com: CowboyStudio NPT-04 4 Channel Wireless Trigger for External Speelights with 1 Trigger and 2 Receivers (NPT-04+extra receiver): Camera & Photo
> 
> and a nice pock wizzard like this:
> PocketWizard Plus II Auto Sensing Smart Transceiver 801-125



There is no contest. The cheap triggers only have a range of about 30ft, and cant see around corners. The pocket wizards have a much better range, and dont have the same issues with needing a direct line of sight. They can also use TTL wirelessly, can act as transmitter, or receiver, and each one costs about $170 more than the cheap transmitters, and you need one for the camera, and one for each flash. 

Here's the rub.  I have the cheap transmitter and receiver, and really have yet to be slowed down by it. Then again, im nota pro,so take that for what its worth.


----------



## sactown024 (Aug 15, 2012)

So if I got a pocket wizard that $170 I need one for each flash and camera? 

The amazon link was $30 for 2 receivers and a transmitter, haha I guess you prolly get what you pay for


----------



## Stradawhovious (Aug 15, 2012)

sactown024 said:


> So if I got a pocket wizard that $170 I need one for each flash and camera?
> 
> The amazon link was $30 for 2 receivers and a transmitter, haha I guess you prolly get what you pay for



Yep. That is all correct. However, I've been using the cheap ones for over a year now, and they've been fine. 

YMMV, but its an inexpensive way to get into the world of OCF.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 15, 2012)

sactown024 said:


> Just out of curiosity and way off subject, what is the big difference between a cheap flash trigger like this:
> Amazon.com: CowboyStudio NPT-04 4 Channel Wireless Trigger for External Speelights with 1 Trigger and 2 Receivers (NPT-04+extra receiver): Camera & Photo
> 
> and a nice pock wizzard like this:
> PocketWizard Plus II Auto Sensing Smart Transceiver 801-125



In one scenario, one obtains a Chinese-made cheapie that is "somewhat reliable" as long as the unit is within 50 feet and direct line of sight to its receiver, and has about a 60% chance of lasting three years before it suddenly goes +!+$ up in the middle of the biggest shoot of the year. In the other scenario, one buys the product, and wit works flawlessly for 10,000 flash shots every basketball season for two years, then continues to work on a weekly basis shooting family pics, firing from 1/2 of a mile away each and every frame.


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 15, 2012)

maikllinks said:


> I'm sure all are good to ha
> ​



Not really! One is 100% reliable... the other isn't!


----------



## o hey tyler (Aug 15, 2012)

cgipson1 said:
			
		

> No.. she was suggesting using manual for "NATURAL LIGHT PHOTOGRAPHY!" Read it again... she says that the OP shouldn't learn flash.. that Natural light is better!



Maybe you should read that particular post again, she made no mention of natural light. Her other posts, yes. But not that one. As I read it, she is suggesting that they learn manual mode or at least get some mileage with it because it's an important part to flash photography. Critical to using flash, really.


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 15, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My interpretation is different.. she never mentioned using flash.  I do agree that Manual is needed for flash, and I even posted that. But Paige's comments were all Anti-Flash, Pro NL! And not really even worth arguing about really, is it!

If anyone else would like to weigh in on this, I would be curious as to how other interpreted this!


----------



## Stradawhovious (Aug 15, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> And not really even worth arguing about really, is it!



Five and a half pages in this thread would beg to differ.


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 15, 2012)

Stradawhovious said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > And not really even worth arguing about really, is it!
> ...



True... 

So what is your take on the manual / NL / flash thing?


----------



## sactown024 (Aug 15, 2012)

I am a newbie I know but I have yet to see someone post a really good NL pic or at least one where flash wouldn't have turn out better...


----------



## o hey tyler (Aug 15, 2012)

paigew said:


> *well if you want to learn flash then by all means learn it!* But obviously you have so much to learn that your photos would probably be tons better if you concentrated your efforts on learning how to shoot in manual first.





cgipson1 said:


> My interpretation is different.. *she never mentioned using flash.*  I do agree that Manual is needed for flash, and I even posted that. But Paige's comments were all Anti-Flash, Pro NL! And not really even worth arguing about really, is it!



It appears to me that she directly encouraged the usage of flash in that post. I don't know how else you would interpret it. This post seemed pretty pro-flash. "If you want to learn flash, then by all means learn it!" Coupled with the suggestion to get familiarized with manual mode as it is vital for flash photography. 

Yes, her other posts were suggesting the OP use natural light. I'm not talking about her other posts. 

You use a lot of exclamation points, have you noticed that? There's no need to yell.


----------



## sactown024 (Aug 15, 2012)

Another question..... If I wanted to save money could I just buy a speed lite and keep it on the camera and buy a reflector and just turn the flash towards the reflector?  that way I don't have to buy trigger and umbrella and stands....


----------



## o hey tyler (Aug 15, 2012)

sactown024 said:


> I am a newbie I know but I have yet to see someone post a really good NL pic or at least one where flash wouldn't have turn out better...



How would flash have made this better? It's properly exposed, and has minimal reflections. 







How would flash have made this better? It would have negated the effect entirely. 






No flash was used here. She appears to be lit quite well, even without a reflector. No raccoon eyes to speak of, and there is detail throughout her dress. 






I used flash here. Why? Because I had time to set it up, use it off camera and dial in the exposure to my liking. All the other shots I posted, flash was not necessary and only would have made shooting more labor intensive for minimal, or no gain. You can't expect to use flash 24/7 (depending on what you shoot IMO, studio photography is different). 






I used flash here (on camera) because I needed to expose the subjects properly. Had to bump my ISO to 800 to give the flash more carrying power over the room.






The point I am trying to make is, there's no reason to use flash all of the time if you know how to see light. Yes, there are plenty of situations where flash is necessary, but not all images can be improved with the use of flash. When I shoot weddings, I use flash when necessary. When needed to properly expose a photo. I don't bother with it otherwise.


----------



## sactown024 (Aug 15, 2012)

Don't get defensive I just made a simple statement, I wasn't trying to say it can't be done I just said I havnt seen it yet, glad you posted photos. In my opinion I like the looks of indoor flash photography, it doesn't mean you have too


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 15, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> paigew said:
> 
> 
> > *well if you want to learn flash then by all means learn it!* But obviously you have so much to learn that your photos would probably be tons better if you concentrated your efforts on learning how to shoot in manual first.
> ...



hahaha... we are discussing semantics here. This line "*But obviously you have so much to learn that your photos would probably  be tons better if you concentrated your efforts on learning how to shoot  in manual first.*" states to me, that she means manual only as in Natural Light... to the exclusion of FLASH. She says learn MANUAL first... NOT manual and flash first!

Of course, that is my interpretation.. especially in the context of all the other anti-flash statements that were made.  This will be my last reply to this, as it is getting ridiculous. My reading comprehension skills are relatively high... but I won't argue just to argue.


----------



## sactown024 (Aug 15, 2012)

I totally agree, def don't need it all the time, no way. But this thread was about newborn photography which I plan to do inside. I think we just got off topic


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 15, 2012)

sactown024 said:


> Another question..... If I wanted to save money could I just buy a speed lite and keep it on the camera and buy a reflector and just turn the flash towards the reflector?  that way I don't have to buy trigger and umbrella and stands....



Sure.. and get lesser quality shots! But that is your call!


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 15, 2012)

You could get away without the stands-possibly. Putting the flash on the camera really isn't doing anything more than you could already do with your on board flash. Yes, you could turn it or bounce it. You could bounce it off a window, but it really limits you. 

You could "engineer" a setup where you place the flash on a coffee table, floor.... with a trigger. Then "engineer" a diffuser panel of some sort either by way of a curtain, white/translucent tupperware... It can be done, but it takes some ingenuity and "engineering" skills. 
The least I'd want is the speedlight and trigger with at least one receiver. You can fire your speedlight using the camera's flash, but that would be defeating the purpose of getting the light off the top of the camera completely. 
What it boils down to is if you want newborn images anywhere near the ones you had posted originally you need a few things. You can get some great results just with the window. You aren't going to get what you posted, but you will get beautiful images if you wait on the light to play nice with you.


----------



## Stradawhovious (Aug 15, 2012)

Here's a thought..... rather than spending lots of money on modifiers, you could do something like this....

Do-It-Yourself Flash Bounce Card

Not quite the perfect studio lighting modifier, but I use mine as a bounce for chasing the kids around and grip and grin events.  I find it to be invaluable.  Directs lots of light up for bouncing off the ceiling, but the white side also bounces plenty of light forward.  It works splendidly.

The black side also works really reall well as a flag, or use to like barn doors.  Really helps direct the light.  I think I made half a dozen for about $6 from michaels.


----------



## o hey tyler (Aug 15, 2012)

sactown024 said:


> Don't get defensive I just made a simple statement, I wasn't trying to say it can't be done I just said I havnt seen it yet, glad you posted photos. In my opinion I like the looks of indoor flash photography, it doesn't mean you have too



I'm not getting defensive. I'm trying to illustrate that there's a time and place for flash. It's not needed all the time, as I've shown.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 15, 2012)

Indoor. No flash. Yep. Really. NO flash. That's a can light directly over their heads. 


Mid afternoon, Outdoor, No flash


Indoor, 2 strobes


indoor, no flash and a window behind my son to our right


Outdoor no flash. See how green she is? I NEEDED flash


Here's the original of the NB image I posted in B/W 


The point is learning HOW to create what is in your imagination. Sometimes it requires flash. A lot of the time it requires flash. Other times it doesn't. 
Choose what you want to do and what you want to learn now.


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 15, 2012)

Flash Outdoors - BRIGHT sunny day.. very contrasty.. would have looked like crap without flash (unless I used an overhead diffuser, which I didn't have with me that day) She was playing hard, very hot and sweaty which accounts for the flushed cheeks!



hannah by CGipson Photography, on Flickr

Flash Outdoors -  Moderately cloudy day.. just enough for shadows under the hat. Flash fixed that...



KyleJR by CGipson Photography, on Flickr

Flash Indoors - very pale little girl.. limited NL available in the house. Her B-Day!



Katie by CGipson Photography, on Flickr

I don't shoot people that much.. when I do, I usually use flash, indoors or out. It depends on the shot....  But flash does give me options that I don't have otherwise.


----------



## sactown024 (Aug 15, 2012)

Stradawhovious said:


> Here's a thought..... rather than spending lots of money on modifiers, you could do something like this....
> 
> Do-It-Yourself Flash Bounce Card
> 
> ...



this is cool!!


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 15, 2012)

sactown024 said:


> Stradawhovious said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a thought..... rather than spending lots of money on modifiers, you could do something like this....
> ...




Point to all of this ranting and raving is: Flash is an inevitable part of photography if you are truly going to master it.  Does it have to be RIGHT NOW? No.

If you aren't up for ordering the setup yet-don't. As long as you remain on better behavior as in this post we will help you to use what you have to it's fullest potential and to learn how to use your camera a whole lot better than where you are now. 
Now, go pack your wife's bags cuz that baby comes tomorrow. Better yet, take her for a pedicure because after tomorrow she'll see her feet again and they probably deserve a little pampering.


----------



## sactown024 (Aug 15, 2012)

Stradawhovious said:


> Here's a thought..... rather than spending lots of money on modifiers, you could do something like this....
> 
> Do-It-Yourself Flash Bounce Card
> 
> ...


  I would love to see some photos you shot with this!


----------



## sactown024 (Aug 15, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> sactown024 said:
> 
> 
> > Stradawhovious said:
> ...



the setup you made me isnt expensive at all I just want to get the 50mm 1.8 and a speedlight (prolly the cheapo YN650 II) first. In the mean time I think ill just make one of those DIY gadgets! I should have the shopping cart you made me within a few weeks though.


----------



## paigew (Aug 15, 2012)

Okay to set the record straight I am not anti flash. Nor did I EVER intend to come off that way. I spent 300$ on a speedlight, I am not anti flash. The OP (not directly quoted) 'most (good) newborn photos he sees use flash'. I was simply trying to explain to the op that this isn't true. Many are naturally lit. If photographers LOVE flash so much then why do they look for studios with great natural light (windows??). When I first started taking photos here everyone told me I NEED flash. Not one person mentioned I could use window light and get great results. I have a huge sliding glass door in my house and I was looking up on what type of lights to buy. Why would you want to use studio lighting if you COULD use natural light. That is all I'm saying people. Is it that hard to comprehend my point?? Learn how to look for and use natural light. Then you will know when you NEED it and can use flash at those times. For the record one last time; I am not anti flash. Charlie not sure where you got that I was anti flash. I never said I was and when you Pmd me I specifically told you that. If you take a photography course in school is the first thing they teach you flash/studio lighting?? I would guess not, but I don't know because I didn't go to school for photography.


----------



## Stradawhovious (Aug 15, 2012)

paigew said:


> The OP (not directly quoted) 'most (good) newborn photos he sees use flash'. I was simply trying to explain to the op that this isn't true.



I'd like to see the stats on that please. Link? 



paigew said:


> Why would you want to use studio lighting if you COULD use natural light. That is all I'm saying people. Is it that hard to comprehend my point?? Learn how to look for and use natural light.



Ummmm.... Because in a lot of cases it gives you better light?

Nobody is saying not to learn how to use natural light. Nobody. 

All that the people you are arguing with are saying is that flash will allow you to control your light more than relying solely on natural..... which is fickle at best.

Let me ask you this. What do you do when you need to do a shoot in the evening? Or any other time for that matter when the natural light through your large pane window isn't perfect. God forbid it's ever dark due to clouds, raining, or otherwise not the perfect time of day.

Natural light isn't always on your photography schedule. What do you suggest then? Incandescent? 

I will agree that there are many times that flash is impractical.  There are just as many times that natural light is impractical as well.  To dismiss artificial light as a crutch is silly.

ETA



sactown024 said:


> Stradawhovious said:
> 
> 
> > Do-It-Yourself Flash Bounce Card
> ...



No problem. Head over to my Flickr Account. Anything that doesn't look like studio lighting wsa probably taken with that on the camera. Most of the family shots (even outdoor :shock and the grip and grin type shots will give good examples.

I'm no pro though, so don't go judging my photos.


----------



## paigew (Aug 15, 2012)

Stradawhovious said:


> paigew said:
> 
> 
> > The OP (not directly quoted) 'most (good) newborn photos he sees use flash'. I was simply trying to explain to the op that this isn't true.
> ...


Well I am not sure what 'stat's you want me to post. The op said 'the best newborn pics are done with flash'. I said there are plenty gorgeous newborn photos that are naturally lit. What, you want examples? 

If you don't have the natural light, yes use flash. I never said not to. But I think a lot of people here are too stuck on artificial light. Like you NEED that to get a good photo. I am just saying it isn't true. You don't need it. Yes it has its place and can create awesome photos, but why use it if you don't need it. Is it really that hard to understand? 

I'm not sure why everyone is jumping down my throat because I suggested to the op to use a window light to photograph his own newborn.


----------



## Stradawhovious (Aug 15, 2012)

paigew said:


> Well I am not sure what 'stat's you want me to post. The op said 'the best newborn pics are done with flash'. I said there are plenty gorgeous newborn photos that are naturally lit. What, you want examples?



He said _most_ are, you said he was wrong.  I just want to see somewhere where the majority of seasoned photographers use only natural light for their newborn shoots.  Majority being greater than 50% That's all.



paigew said:


> I'm not sure why everyone is jumping down my throat because I suggested to the op to use a window light to photograph his own newborn.




I don't see that happening. I see people arguing with you for saying that artificial light is a crutch.

That and it's fun to watch you get all huffy.


----------



## paigew (Aug 15, 2012)

> That and it's fun to watch you get all huffy.



uh yeah, sorry to burst your bubble there dude. I'm not upset. I feel bad for you all who can only take a nice pic if you have all your gear. Its not the gear that makes the photo. Its the photographer.


----------



## Stradawhovious (Aug 15, 2012)

paigew said:


> uh yeah, sorry to burst your bubble there dude. I'm not upset. I feel bad for you all who can only take a nice pic if you have all your gear. Its not the gear that makes the photo. Its the photographer.




So you think people who use a flash are poor photographers?

Wow. Pretty bold statement.

My feeling is that good photographers will know how to use the gear at their disposal and use it to their advantage. 

To each their own.  Personally I feel bad for those people who don't know how to use the equipment they own.


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 15, 2012)

paigew said:


> > That and it's fun to watch you get all huffy.
> 
> 
> 
> uh yeah, sorry to burst your bubble there dude. I'm not upset. I feel bad for you all who can only take a nice pic if you have all your gear. Its not the gear that makes the photo. Its the photographer.



Then why have a DSLR? Just buy a Holga, right?   

The best Photographers use WHATEVER it takes to get the shot they want... and have the skills to use whatever gear is needed (or not needed). Preferences are allowed... we are all human!


----------



## paigew (Aug 15, 2012)

Stradawhovious, would you mind sharing the link to your flickr? It isn't in your signature. I would love to see some of your awesome flash work (on people). Since charlie has already submitted his best work


----------



## paigew (Aug 15, 2012)

Stradawhovious said:


> So you think people who use a flash are poor photographers?
> 
> Wow. Pretty bold statement.



Yeah bold statement...especially since I didn't make that statement.


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 15, 2012)

paigew said:


> Stradawhovious, would you mind sharing the link to your flickr? It isn't in your signature. I would love to see some of your awesome flash work (on people). *Since charlie has already submitted his best work *



That is not my best work.. those are merely a few of the very few people shots I have. I don't shoot people for the same reason I don't shoot newborns.. I have no interest in them! 

I don't see any awesome work from you in my chosen area of photography.. correct? Or do you even shoot macro?

It sounds like you are being a bit catty and superior... so I will say that I would be amazed if you can post anything that is even equal to the shots I did post.. and they are basically my version of snapshots, as they are candids.

(However, if you are not being Catty with that last remark, then please disregard the third sentence in this post, as it would be irrelevant!)


----------



## paigew (Aug 15, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> paigew said:
> 
> 
> > Stradawhovious, would you mind sharing the link to your flickr? It isn't in your signature. I would love to see some of your awesome flash work (on people). Since charlie has already submitted his best work
> ...



I'm not talking crap about your work. You do awesome work and I have commented on how much I like your work. But seriously, why did you use flash in that first image taken in full sun. You didn't need to. You had a crap ton of light (you said yourself). You could have positioned yourself or your subject differently so flash was not needed. Plus the portraits you posted seem rather flat (from the flash). That is all I am saying. Maybe I should just quote myself so people get the point. Not sure if the man vibes are getting in the way of your ability to read. If you don't need it, don't use it. 

I have had my camera 9 months. I am no professional. Though I study and read a lot and I know a pretty decent amount I still consider myself a novice. I practice almost every single day. I am not trying to appear superior. But the op wants lighting to shoot his child. Since you don't shoot children or even people perhaps you aren't the best one to take advice from.


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 15, 2012)

paigew said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > paigew said:
> ...



*"they are candids!*" By definition, that precludes placing the subject in a certain position to optimize the light. That is why I used flash.. to get a good shot, no matter what the conditions are, and no matter how my subject is placed! Does that make sense? If I had not used flash, she would have been fried, the background would have been fried.


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 15, 2012)

paigew said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > paigew said:
> ...



Maybe you are right.. I only shot children and people professionally for seven years.. but that doesn't count, right? I can promise you I have shot more people, newborns and children than you have even actuated shutters!


----------



## o hey tyler (Aug 15, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> You really seem to have a bias against flash... do you even use flash?





cgipson1 said:


> based on photos I have seen.. most "Natural Light" photographers don't have a friggin clue!  lol! (and they don't know how to use flash either! WOW!)





cgipson1 said:


> Cool.. but I made my living with for about seven years... little bit of difference there!





cgipson1 said:


> And not really even worth arguing about really, is it!





cgipson1 said:


> My reading comprehension skills are relatively high...





cgipson1 said:


> I only shot children and people professionally for seven years.. but that doesn't count, right? I can promise you I have shot more people, newborns and children than you have even actuated shutters!





cgipson1 said:


> I won't be responding further.. as the hardheaded'ness of some people cannot be overcome!





cgipson1 said:


> *It sounds like you are being a bit catty and superior...*



It sounds like you are being a bit catty and superior.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 15, 2012)

paigew said:


> Stradawhovious said:
> 
> 
> > paigew said:
> ...



So... we are arguing just to argue? Natural light can work. Flash can work a whole lot more. 
The OP can either buy a flash and get help down that road or he can stick to the natural light and get help down that road. 
 He's already seen that he can get natural light portraits by example here. 
Pretty sure no one said he HAD to buy a flash to get results. We've been helping him with what he asked for in this thread. _*FLASH.
*_
So, again. Arguing just to argue?


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 15, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > You really seem to have a bias against flash... do you even use flash?
> ...



Why are you on my case again, Tyler? I am sure that you can read well  enough to REALLY see the point here.. or is playing devils advocate just your  thing?


----------



## paigew (Aug 15, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> *"they are candids!*" By definition, that precludes placing the subject in a certain position to optimize the light. That is why I used flash.. to get a good shot, no matter what the conditions are, and no matter how my subject is placed! Does that make sense? If I had not used flash, she would have been fried, the background would have been fried.



It doesn't matter that they are candids. You can still asses and use natural light so that flash isn't needed. Its all about learning to shoot in less than ideal circumstances. But maybe you haven't done that...because you always have your flash...


----------



## o hey tyler (Aug 15, 2012)

I mainly just enjoy calling out hypocrisy. Carry on.


----------



## paigew (Aug 15, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> [
> 
> So... we are arguing just to argue? Natural light can work. Flash can work a whole lot more.
> The OP can either buy a flash and get help down that road or he can stick to the natural light and get help down that road.
> ...



yes they are arguing to argue. They refuse to admit that nice photos can be taken with natural light and you do not NEED flash to take nice newborn photos of your own baby in your own home.


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 15, 2012)

paigew said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > *"they are candids!*" By definition, that precludes placing the subject in a certain position to optimize the light. That is why I used flash.. to get a good shot, no matter what the conditions are, and no matter how my subject is placed! Does that make sense? If I had not used flash, she would have been fried, the background would have been fried.
> ...



Sure... uh huh!


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 15, 2012)

I won't be responding further.. as the hardheaded'ness of some people cannot be overcome!


----------



## o hey tyler (Aug 15, 2012)

[Condescending remark followed by an exclamation point]


----------



## tirediron (Aug 15, 2012)

*and again we hear the "Clang" of a thread slamming shut!  It's a nice day folks, go outside and take a picture.  By CANDLELIGHT!*


----------

