Lowlight Photography with and without flash

[Shadowman]

Always waiting for the golden hour, then suddenly the night is upon us. What do you normally do, put the camera away, utilize flash, fast lens?

I created this thread to discuss lowlight shooting with and without flash. What are members opinion, what are your standard techniques, settings? Do you prefer or anticipate subject movement? Black and white examples are not necessary.

f/4.5, 1/160sec, ISO 1600 90mm, Jul.7:40PM with flash, Nikon D60


f/2.8, 1/30 sec, ISO 3200, Oct 7:00PM, no flash, Nikon D5200


both handheld

[DanK]

I'm not very good at this type of photography, but in my mind, it is as much a matter of the quality of light as the amount of light. One reason that I routinely use flash indoors is that the available light is usually not very good, e.g., leaving eyes shadowed, providing no catch light, etc. Your second shot has some strong horizontal light that brings out detail, not just on the person in the foreground, but also some of the others, e.g, the face farthest to the left. In contrast, the available light in the first one is bad, it seems to me, providing some detail on the clothing but leaving the faces almost entirely shadowed.

My simple approach to candids in lousy lighting will strike some people as primitive, but it works pretty well indoors. I use a bounced flash, often with a diffuser, and a large bounce card (standard Demb Flip-It). Demb says to use the card mounted on the short edge of the flash so that you can bend it 90 degrees for portrait mode, but I sometimes mount it on the long edge to allow me to alter where the bounced flash goes. If you do that and want to be able to turn it for portrait mode, you need to add a bracket, which I occasionally use.

Outdoors is tougher: usually no surface on which to bounce. I don't usually end up doing outside candids in low light. I think you might be able to do semi-direct, that is, aim the flash at an angle, but I'll leave this one to someone who does more of it.

[shreds]

John,

I like the second one, you really caught his action.

I like available light wherever I can, with whatever reflectors can be used to assist, but invariably if it really is too dark, then I will strategically position some Speedlights to bounce some light into the scene, mounted on Pocket Wizards, but carefully positioned out of shot. Quite a lot depends on the event and what effect you are attempting to achieve?

[Shadowman]

I'm not very good at this type of photography, but in my mind, it is as much a matter of the quality of light as the amount of light. One reason that I routinely use flash indoors is that the available light is usually not very good, e.g., leaving eyes shadowed, providing no catch light, etc. Your second shot has some strong horizontal light that brings out detail, not just on the person in the foreground, but also some of the others, e.g, the face farthest to the left. In contrast, the available light in the first one is bad, it seems to me, providing some detail on the clothing but leaving the faces almost entirely shadowed.

My simple approach to candids in lousy lighting will strike some people as primitive, but it works pretty well indoors. I use a bounced flash, often with a diffuser, and a large bounce card (standard Demb Flip-It). Demb says to use the card mounted on the short edge of the flash so that you can bend it 90 degrees for portrait mode, but I sometimes mount it on the long edge to allow me to alter where the bounced flash goes. If you do that and want to be able to turn it for portrait mode, you need to add a bracket, which I occasionally use.

Outdoors is tougher: usually no surface on which to bounce. I don't usually end up doing outside candids in low light. I think you might be able to do semi-direct, that is, aim the flash at an angle, but I'll leave this one to someone who does more of it.

Dan,

Thanks for the suggestions. In a lighting situation similar to the first image I will sometimes try to minimize the flash intensity to be able to get some degree of sharpness and acceptable exposure, but it was getting so dark and there was very little artificial light, so it was a choice of using flash to capture a moving subject or accept motion blur. High ISO on the D60 was not much of a help, ISO 1600 was the maximum I could set with acceptable noise.

[Shadowman]

John,

I like the second one, you really caught his action.

I like available light wherever I can, with whatever reflectors can be used to assist, but invariably if it really is too dark, then I will strategically position some Speedlights to bounce some light into the scene, mounted on Pocket Wizards, but carefully positioned out of shot. Quite a lot depends on the event and what effect you are attempting to achieve?

Hi Ian,

The available light was what really helped me capture the second image. I could have increased ISO up to 6400 or used Hi ISO setting but doing so and then using in-camera noise reduction limits the number of shots I can take consecutively. With the settings I used for the second image, I was able to take at least three images without waiting for the camera to fully capture the exposure.

[Shadowman]

f/2.8, ISO 640, 40mm, 1/60s no flash, 7:10pm, December. Handheld

[Manfred M]

f/2.8; 1/60th sec ISO 3200 70mm focal length with and APS-C sensor

[chauncey]

Your own IQ standards coupled with your gear's ISO ability are the only factors to consider...
sans external lighting.

[Shadowman]

Your own IQ standards coupled with your gear's ISO ability are the only factors to consider...
sans external lighting.

I've been reading Lance Keimeg's "Night Photography: Finding Your Way in the Dark" and according to him, if it moves and you don't have adequate lighting, "forget about it".

[Shadowman]

f/2.8; 1/60th sec ISO 3200 70mm focal length with and APS-C sensor

If the sky is blue, we've still got a chance. Nice image.

[rpcrowe]

...and my flash is always available!

[Shadowman]

...and my flash is always available!

As a last resort of course, unless the use of flash was your original intention

[lukaswerth]

I never use a flash. Any picture which would necessitate that would not be worth exposing for me. Natural light or nothing.

Lukas

[chauncey]

I've been reading Lance Keimeg's "Night Photography: Finding Your Way in the Dark" and according to him, if it moves and you don't have adequate lighting, "forget about it".

There are those that would disagree, but IMHO, unless it's a learning experience, if I won't print it, I won't shoot it.

[Shadowman]

I never use a flash. Any picture which would necessitate that would not be worth exposing for me. Natural light or nothing.

Lukas

Lukas,

It may not be natural but it's not unheard of to use other light sources in still or motion picture capture. Soem photographers use multiple light sources, multiple technicians just for a series of photos.

[Manfred M]

I never use a flash. Any picture which would necessitate that would not be worth exposing for me. Natural light or nothing.
Lukas

All I can say is that you are limiting your photographic opportunities by sticking with existing light, but of course that is certainly your choice.

I generally do a decent amount of flash photography because, it is difficult to produce a good image without quality light. Much of what I use flash for is fill light, rather than as the main light source. I guess my use of flash goes back to my early days of film shooting where film speeds ran between ISO 25 and 400, so "adding more light" was more important than with the ludicrously fast ISO speeds available now.

[Shadowman]

There are those that would disagree, but IMHO, unless it's a learning experience, if I won't print it, I won't shoot it.

William,

He did offer methods to achieve the shot, it just involved elaborate setups. And his idea of movement is more than just slight flinch, he was referring to deliberate movement. And yes it is a learning experience and I would like to print it.

[dabhand]

I never use a flash. Any picture which would necessitate that would not be worth exposing for me. Natural light or nothing.

Lukas

Lukas,

I've just been reading an article about Timothy Allen - current Travel Photographer Of The Year - and he has very much the same view as yourself - I find that easy to agree with when I'm shooting landscapes but I think I'd be pushed when shooting fine technical detail.

Regarding John's comment re "Some photographers use multiple light sources, multiple technicians just for a series of photos" - in another magazine there was an article about a shoot for a new car which used 24 technicians and 4 lighting rigs, a body double, 4 different locations and stacks of post processing to make a composite image - not photography as my limited means understands it.

steve

[jcuknz]

I never use a flash. Any picture which would necessitate that would not be worth exposing for me. Natural light or nothing.Lukas

For years with film and 100 ISO it was flash or nothing .... now with high ISO and adequate results its a whole new ball game.

[jcuknz]

Lukas,

#18 - not photography as my limited means understands it.

steve

I have been aware for some time it is mainly my laziness and lack of innitiative that prevents me from emulating such activities as resort deprived amateurs for years have been doing comparable things. The problem is myself not my lack of equipment