photographic philosophy

I always use available light. Nomatterwhat. It’s not even a financial decision, really. It’s just me. Sorry, I guess that did NOT answer your question. Am I missing something here, cuz it seems obvious that it’s cheaper to use available light. Unless of course you need a new lens to make the hole as big as you need it. Or if it costs more on the back-end to fix the contrast and overall tone of a picture because the lighting was no good to begin with. But for me, if I can’t get it with available light, then I don’t really want it that badly.

Well, I find myself wondering where the point of diminishing returns is where you can’t really spend any more money to get better results. There probably is no such place, if you can afford it, but..

I lean towards available light as well – my photographic purchases so far have been an exercise in getting faster and faster primes.

But, when you look at the price of lenses like the 50/1.2L (over $1300), which I could maybe afford if I sold everything I owned including a kidney, you have to wonder if I should just suck it up and buy a flash and diffuser and stuff.

Don’t do it. Fight the urge to flash. Um, you know what I mean.

Besides, you only really need one kidney, right?

Besides, you only really need one kidney, right?

This is quite true. ;)

donate plasma… that kept me drinkin through college

Depends if you prefer taking portraits or landscapes :)

Chris, buying a bigger hole costs a lot more than a flash and it doesn’t offer much in the way of control i.e. direction or light temperature, etc. I prefer available light (when it’s good, always) but it has a life of its own. With the flash you at least have the option of recreating it (plus, with a little practice it can also used to break up a fight or signal airplanes ;-)

As Scavenger says above, it depends on what and where you’re shooting. Grand Canyon or the crap you’re trying to pawn off on E-bay? Your cousin’s wedding or a lingerie catalog?

My experience is mostly in shooting people, so I’ll put in my two cents about that.

Sunlight: Cheap, plentiful source of light. Too plentiful, in fact. Great if you’re shooting at 6am or 8pm in the summer, have a cloud cover and are under some shady trees. I’ve heard of some people, though, constructing white gauze tents to simulate a giant diffuser.

External Flash: Speedlites run between four and five hundred bucks. Perfect for shooting parties. Okay for shooting individual models as long as you’re bouncing off the ceiling, but be prepared to wrestle with lots of lighting deficiencies in Photoshop.

Studio Strobes: Expensive. Throw in other necessary items like a spot light meter, soft boxes and an infrared sync device and you’re hemorrhaging money. But the difference in the quality of the photos is MASSIVE. And that quality is consistent over all the photos. No more throwing out half your labors because the light didn’t do what you were expecting.

Apart from the cost, the main thing to take into account is that, in general, studio lighting tends to keep you anchored to your studio, so you are often limited by whatever ideas can be realized with props inside those confines. Of course, the focus in portraiture and glamor photography is on the beauty of the individual model, with everything else considered a distraction. In “spontaneous” work like that of Cartier-Bresson, Doisneau, Brassai and Weegee, however, importance is placed on the variety of subjects and their interaction with their surroundings. That type of picture can only be found by hitting the streets and being fast on the shutter release.