Jbp 130402

[ckiang]

Originally posted by Tweek


in that case, what is the definition of fill flash? All along to me, fill flash has been a supplementary or secondary light source to remove shadows and add eye-twinkle etc, while taking the shot at the exposure of the ambient light. In the case of the hornbill, it seems like the flash is the primary light source, so do we still refer to it as fill flash?

mpenza, if ambient light is enough, fill-flash will not overexpose the pic if fired at an appropriate amount. Many of Edmund's, Darren's and megaweb's bird/animal shots at ambient light are taken with fill-flash and exposure is excellent too.

No, if ambient light is enough, the flash will not overexpose. All the pros use fill-flash. The trick is to throttle the flash power down to like -1 to -2 stops (I use -1.3 to -1.7). It will open up shadow areas. Used correctly, it will not even look like flash is used!

Fill flash is much easier with TTL units.

Regards
CK

 

[Jed]

I'm with Tweek's definition of fill flash, he's got it spot on. It's when the flash is the secondary lighting source and used to fill harsh shadows.

In the examples here, put properly, the flash is providing the key light with -1 stop of exposure compensation dialled into the flash.

I'm not meaning to lower Simon's efforts here and elsewhere, because it can be a very effective tool indeed, but I just want to caution against this turning the background black idea floating around. It is not the solution to every wildlife shot (Tomshen). Used indiscriminately it becomes very mundane, and turns the shot into nothing more than a record shot of the animal. Light has a very importantly part to play in photographs, and good lighting and backgrounds are the additional elements which you will eventually want to cultivate, neither of which throwing the background black will solve.