I took two photographs of a room at the Alhambra Palace... one has a flash and the other doesn't. Which do you prefer?
The image without the flash actually looks very close to what it really looked like in the room with the dim ambient lighting in there. But the image with the flash shows sharper details. So which is better? Which is more correct?
If you take a photograph of just the room (without any people in there), the image without the flash gives the truest representation of what your eye actually sees in that room. It's a very warm light in that room and while the image is definitely darker, it's a true representation. But the flash does fill in a lot of details that may be lost with just an ambient light image.
If you add people to the room, a "no flash" photo of them will make their skin very reddish-orange. Not flattering at all. Plus, they would be just as dark as the room. So pulling out the flash would yield nice photos of the people, but it would also make the room brighter as well.
What's the best solution?
The answer would be fill-flash set to match the light intensity of the room. Unfortunately, I did not have the opportunity to do this and so I don't have an image to show you. But essentially, what you would get would be people lit to give natural skin tones, but the background would remain the same as you see in the "no flash" room. Yes, this is advance photography and requires a good working knowledge of how to use your camera in "manual mode." No "auto mode" or "program mode" for this kind of photography!
I promise to take a photo like this in the future to show you!
No comments:
Post a Comment