Spotted fawn

[Tom Barry]

IMG_1017-web by tombarry975, on Flickr

[Shadowman]

Nice shot.

[Manfred M]

Tom - the chief issue I have in shooting wildlife is that I am stuck with the lighting that mother nature happens to provide at the instance and knowing what to do about it. In this shot, the side of the fawn is largely in shadow and your camera's metering system gave you an average exposure, which unfortunately underexposed most of the body.

In camera exposure compensation lets you fix this type of issue at capture, The second best approach is to do this in post processing to open up the areas in shadow to give the shot better and more even lighting.

[Tom Barry]

Manfred, my approach is different. On my monitor, your rendition is almost shadowless, which is not what I wanted.

[billtils]

I find Tom's original the more attractive of the two.

[Manfred M]

Manfred, my approach is different. On my monitor, your rendition is almost shadowless, which is not what I wanted.

Tom - if that effect is what you wanted, I can't argue with your personal taste and processing decisions.

What I can do is to suggest that you look at how well established wildlife photographers handle composition, lighting and exposure and see how your work stacks up against it. If you like their work, use that as a benchmark for your own. Look at the lighting that they use and how it impacts the image.

[rpcrowe]

IMO. fill flash could be a compromise in many instances. About 30 years or more ago, Canon had a TV show that aired early on Saturday morning about the various aspects of photography. I distinctly remember one episode, in which I saw a Flash-Xtender used for the first time. It was shooting birds in a Costa Rica and the difference between the flash and non-flash pictures convinced me that flash was the way to go.

Even when you don't need fill flash, a small flash (like the Canon 270EX or 270 EX II) will provide the all important catchlights in the eyes of your subjects.

I have now rigged up both my Manfrotto Gimbal and the DIY shoulder mount to accept my Streaklight 360 TTL flash head. It's powerful, yet by using a separate battery pack the 360 system helps the distribution of the weight...

[Manfred M]

Richard - as a portrait photographer, fill light (flash or reflector) pop into my head as well. That is how we handle this type of lighting.

That being said, neither are techniques that intuitively jump to mind for wildlife work.

[billtils]

That being said, neither are techniques that intuitively jump to mind for wildlife work.

Exactly! (Except for the insect etc macro wildlife world).

[rpcrowe]

However, there are a lot of wildlife photographers who do use fill flash to reduce harsh shadows and also just a low power flash to get catchlights in the eyes of the animals they shoot.

But there are some animals, Gorillas I am told are one example, who are quite sensitive to the bright light from a flash. However, I interpret this to mean; when the flash is used as a primarily light source.

Step off twenty or thirty feet or more from your flash unit and fire it towards you in the bright daylight or even in open shade and IMO, you will notice very little light emanating from the flash tube - especially with the flash unit dialed down to a relatively low power. Diffuse that flash in one way or another and it should be even less bothersome to an animal (or to a person for that matter).

This is when HSS is really needed because we often shoot wildlife at faster shutter speeds than our max sync speed, so that we can use a wider aperture for more shallow DOF. This, in effect, also reduces the power...

If a person wanted to get some information on "fill-flash for wildlife" a google search with that topic in quotes will return lots of information. The same thing is true in doing a YouTube search for that same subject.

IMO, the two major problems with fill flash for wildlife are:

1. Too much flash on the subject - just a bit of dialed down (either manually or in TTL) flash will be enough to open the shadows a bit and to achieve catchlights in the eyes. . Too much flash gives that "deer in the headlights" look Using a diffuser of some type could also help. Long before commercial diffusers were readily available, I would often diffuse my flash by placing a single layer of facial tissue over the front of the flash This is not always true for fill flash with people. Overpowering the sun is a technique often used by people photographers outdoors. However, that technique would not look good (IMO anyway) with animals...

2. Along that line, a bracket that elevates your flash significantly over your lens will also help produce more natural looking results. With a flash on a hotshoe, the distance between the camera and subjects makes the angle of the flash right along the axis of the lens. The relative distance of the flash to the lens decreases with the distance between camera and subject. With a bracket that raises the flash, the light should be more natural.

IMO... Many photographers are reluctant to use flash even when flash will achieve better results. The reason given most often is "Flash won't give natural looking results!" However, In interpret this to really mean, "I don't know how to use flash to produce natural looking results"

[Tom Barry]

This is an interesting and worthwhile conversation. When I started photography in the 1950s, it was, for a young man without large amounts of money, pretty much do-it-yourself or accept lousy results. At university, I took photography courses as part of my journalism training, and got better at darkroom skills. I seldom used a meter for ordinary work, simply interpolating from the "sunny f/16" rule for the most part. Flash was, however, necessary a lot of the time, especially with 4"X5" baseboard "portable" news cameras. But the math involved was easy enough for a supple young mind. For my own work, it was for years monochrome film developed and printed in my tiny home darkroom. When I got a bit more prosperous, I got a Leica M2 and an M3 and several prime lenses and started using Kodachrome. I found it a bit of good luck when digital came along and I realized that I could successfully use my "expose-for-the-highlights, let-the-shadows-fall-where-they-may" technique for transparencies on digital as well. My basic exposure starting point for most digital work has always been -1/3rd stop from whatever either I or one of the camera's metering modes or an incident meter suggests and adjust as needed. I use both hot-shoe and studio flash (the latter very seldom, as my interests have shifted to nature photography) when I think it will help. My flash technique for hummingbirds in decent light is usually purely manual at anywhere from 1/16th to 1/32nd power so I can get the fastest possible "blip" that produces a well-exposed and motion-frozen subject. But my favored hummingbird and other bird photo mode is to go without flash for what I consider a natural-appearing result. That also applies to other, larger wildlife, but of course not always. Sometimes fill-flash or even dominant flash is what works. I try, in nature photography, within the limits of my equipment and skills, to present what I see as I see it, realizing that all photography is not truly representational, but interpretive.

[Manfred M]

Richard - I know a number of excellent wildlife photographers and none of them use flash just because it will spook the animal and at the range that they are shooting at (with a 500mm - 800mm lens) it is an impractical approach. The light of direct flash, even for fill flash is not my favourite type of lighting. I personally find that an overcast day gives me the best results as the texture of fur and feathers are preserved, but then I have not done any serious wildlife work in well over a year, so I am definitely a bit rusty right now.

Macro and hummingbird photographers might be the exception here. Freezing a hummingbird is not an easy task. My success rate with the ones that visit our hummingbird feeder is exactly 0, but have seen some excellent work by some members of my photo club. Bugs I can't speak for as I have not done any macro work at all with insects or spiders.

[DanK]

I have to agree with Manfred. The eye is drawn to what is bright and high-contrast, and that is the left side of the head and the grass. I assume that isn't where you want people's attention to go. I'd go a step farther than Manfred did and burn the left of the head and the grass a bit.

[Tom Barry]

To each his own. My eye instantly went to make a composition with a leading line being the light-lit side of the neck leading right to the head, where, for me, the greatest interest, the alert expression, lay. When I saw that, it is what I attempted to present, along with the mood created by the natural contrast of slanting morning light.

[FootLoose]

Part of the charm of the original image is produced by the low angle of light. The shadows of early morning light - the new day (I assume) - enhance the innocence of the fawn. The harsh light of the brightened version does not evoke the same feeling. By banishing the shadows it offers the subject up to the forensic of the scientist.