Inspired by the anti-flash-photography article in the morning's links dump, this week's Toddler Blogging offers you a choice of two different pictures. Here's one with the flash:
And one without:
(Appa's been feeling self-conscious about SteelyKid's growth lately, and asked for a little forced perspective in the second shot. SteelyKid was too busy reading Dr. Seuss to notice.)
A proper comparison would, of course, use the same composition and framing. No such plan survives contact with a toddler, though-- by the time I switched modes on the camera, she had lost interest in the book she was originally reading, and had to be coaxed back to the couch to get anything vaguely comparable.
I dunno. I agree that the no-flash one is a little softer, but really, I don't think it's dramatically better. A different pose (preferably one without a lamp in the frame) might make more of a difference, but I think they're both pretty good.
Of course, there was also some color correction on the no-flash picture, to make the short she's wearing look the same in both pictures. Here's what it looked like before I tweaked the levels in GIMP:
That's a much bigger difference, but I wouldn't say I prefer that look.
Anyway, opinions from the audience are welcome. Provided, of course, that you acknowledge SteelyKid as the cutest toddler in the universe, as is her due...
- Log in to post comments
It's always going to depend on the situation, quality of the camera, etc, etc. One of the biggest problems for flash is faces -- they get all washed out, you get gobs of red-eye, harsh shadows, etc. So you cleverly avoided that by waiting until Steelykid was looking away. :)
Another flash problem is when you're directly in front of a wall -- you get mondo big shadows behind the subject. Again, your clever use of diagonal sight lines has neatly avoided that. So too with your avoidance of any reflective surfaces square to the camera. In general, you were amazing in your choice of a good flash situation! It does however really highlight the shiny bits of texture in the sofa and jeans, which is not horrid but draws the eye a bit more than ideal.
OTOH, in the natural light photo, your GIMP-leveling has really boosted the white in Appa to the point where he's lost most of his texture. The same is true for the lamp and the stuff beneath it. So by tweaking the levels (which I agree did some decent things for Steelykid) kind of made the non-flash photo look like a bad flash photo. I think you could get away with a slight exposure boost in your levels, and maybe a little color balancing, but really the original looks pretty good.
All in all though, figuring out when and how to use flash is tough. I'll usually try one of each and see which I like better. If it's a straight-on photo ("hey, it's great we could all get together and meet in this bar!") then the flash is going to be a problem. But in more ad-hoc situations it will probably work pretty well.
One other thing to play with. If you dig into the settings, you can probably also find a Flash Exposure Compensation setting (on Canon cameras, it's a square icon with a +/- and a lightning bolt). If you dial that down a bit -- maybe -1 stop -- it'll pull some of the harsh out of the flash. That works nicely sometimes when you've got OK light to begin with... fine to read by, maybe, but too dark for the camera.
Of course, with a subject that cute, you'll never go wrong no matter what....
What I sometimes do is hold a crumpled sandwich bag in front of the flash. You will still get enough extra light but it is more diffused, so there is less washing out and the shadows are less harsh.