landon crowly wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 15:29:55 +0000, bugbear
<bugbear@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>
>> aniramca@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>> - Why P&S cameras have relatively weaker built-in flash than the DSLR?
>>> Could P&S cameras be designed to have stronger built-in flash like a
>>> DSLR?
>>> - I noticed that my P&S camera usually is too weak to take picture in
>>> large indoors (restaurant, meeting halls, etc). Could this be improved
>>> by stronger flash? I have always complained in the past that most P&S
>>> cameras have tiny built-in flash, and without a hot-shoe, you cannot
>>> improve your lighting in indoor shots.
>> Unless you have a truly powerful flash, you're doomed;
>> this pretty much means off camera, and BIG (read heavy).
>>
>> On camera-flashes are (IMHO) a nice "get a shot"
>> work rounds, when the alternative is getting nothing,
>> but most on-camera flashes don't give you good shots:
>> just snaps.
>
> I despise use of flash as the main source of light for any and all
photography.
> The on-board flash in any camera is more than enough needed for the
occasional
> fill-flash touch-ups that I'll allow in my photos. Meaning, they are
more flash
> than anyone really ever needs. IF they are a worthwhile photographer
shooting
> real-life scenarios and not working with staged studio shots. Then no
> studio-photographer in his right mind would ever use a flash that near
the
> camera anyway, unless for some garish special-effect.
>
> The only exception I'll allow myself is when trying to do***ent a
subject where
> there is no available light to work with.
I am also a fan of 'available light'. I like to capture what I SEE, and
using flash, disrupts that almost completely. A camera with a good low
light sensitivity (high ISO), and relatively long exposure time, can
compensate for poor flash performance, and avoid all the negative
aspects of using a flash, like reflections, and produce a much better
picture. Of course, I don't take pictures in caves, or dark rooms....
|
