Fill-flash 🤔: The vertical dangling cable next to the hat is not distracting? And why are so few if any digital shooters, not employing the use of fill flash while shooting in harsh...

Spirit Vision Photography Loc: Behind a Camera.

The vertical dangling cable next to the hat is not distracting?

And why are so few if any digital shooters, not employing the use of fill flash while shooting in harsh lighting? It worked beautifully on this hat snap, and during the entire rodeo shoot. I understand that digital processing is easier than the days of film. But can digital software pull shadow detail out of extremely deep shadows?

bebop22 Loc: New York City

works nice.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

In my humble opinion the dangling cable acts as a distraction. Fill-in flash is a technique that softens shadows in harsh lighting.
You are right, many photographers do not use the technique.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Spirit Vision Photography wrote:

The vertical dangling cable next to the hat is not distracting?

Whoops! I thought that was the subject, but I was distracted by the hat.

I use fill-flash very often. That's why I hesitate to buy a camera without a pop-up flash. I bought the Z fc, anyway.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Why do "so few" use fill flash (assuming you are correct)? One possibility: many buy expensive cameras and don't attempt an organized learning program, so they don't know what they are missing.

The more important question is why aren't these types of topics written as thoughtful tutorials aimed at new users, with examples of before/after?

(yes, the cable is a distraction and should be cloned out)

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I thought the cable was some type of rope. At least that's the context my mind put it in.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

If you want a real answer, post in the right section. C&C, photo analysis and the like.

As to the fill flash title and side comment... No comment other than: "It is there only for you to get attention", especially since the same image was posted in the gallery.

Not only that, but it shows that this one was post processed to lighten the shadows as the sky reflects a global luminosity shift, something a fill flash would not modify if using the exact same settings.

User ID

Spirit Vision Photography wrote:

The vertical dangling cable next to the hat is not distracting?

And why are so few if any digital shooters, not employing the use of fill flash while shooting in harsh lighting? It worked beautifully on this hat snap, and during the entire rodeo shoot. I understand that digital processing is easier than the days of film. But can digital software pull shadow detail out of extremely deep shadows?

Spoken like some kinda check list wielding camera club judge.

User ID

Longshadow wrote:

I thought the cable was some type of rope. At least that's the context my mind put it in.

Certainly looks like rope. "Hat and Rope" is clearly the intended symbolism given that the shot was not deleted. Im not seeing the rope as any distraction at all.

OTOH I dont really know anything about the symbolism here and find the whole image boring ... but quite well executed.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Looks like an electric cord more than a rope.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Spirit Vision Photography wrote:

The vertical dangling cable next to the hat is not distracting?

And why are so few if any digital shooters, not employing the use of fill flash while shooting in harsh lighting? It worked beautifully on this hat snap, and during the entire rodeo shoot. I understand that digital processing is easier than the days of film. But can digital software pull shadow detail out of extremely deep shadows?

"But can digital software pull shadow detail out of extremely deep shadows?"

If you shoot raw and use the right software, the answer to that is yes!

User ID

Rongnongno wrote:

Looks like an electric cord more than a rope.

Its really an alien life form disguised as an ordinary common object.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

I suspect many photographers simply don't know how to use fill flash effectively and don't want to take the time to learn it.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

rook2c4 wrote:

I suspect many photographers simply don't know how to use fill flash effectively and don't want to take the time to learn it.

That is certainly one reason. Another reason, of course, is that when many of us are out and about with our cameras during the daylight hours without a built-in flash, we are not necessarily carrying a flash with us. My current walk around camera is the Nikon z fc. Carrying around a flash that weighs more than half as much as the camera for the odd times that I may need a fill flash would be very inconvenient. When I had my Canon 7D Mark II, it had a pop-up flash. Like all pop-up flashes it had very limited use as a flash, however it often came in handy as a fill flash when I was outdoors.

tcthome Loc: NJ

Linda From Maine wrote:

Why do "so few" use fill flash (assuming you are correct)? One possibility: many buy expensive cameras and don't attempt an organized learning program, so they don't know what they are missing.

The more important question is why aren't these types of topics written as thoughtful tutorials aimed at new users, with examples of before/after?

(yes, the cable is a distraction and should be cloned out)

Or in the flash section. I believe someone asked about it & using a pop-up flash recently.