[clgladiator]

I was wondering how important flash guns are climbing photography. is it going too be limiting if i dont have a flashgun, if so how by how much?

[dave]

Flash is great for some shots and useless for others. A decent flash in general is a good investment for all-round photography. An equally important investment is in the time spent learning to use it right.

[SA Chris]

Wot dave said. If you are going to buy, buy a decent one and some capability to use it off camera.

[Paul B]

I found the Strobist blog a week ago, its pretty good and might be a good place to start. I haven't had chance to implement much of it but I'm keen when my equipment arrives. There seems to be some pretty reasonably priced Manual and TTL flashes made by a Chinese manufacturer if you don't want to spend too much. Originally these appear to have had a bad rep but now they've sorted that out. I hope.
The other thing I stumbled upon was One Light DVD by Zack Arias, explains a lot and is easy to follow, the price tag however is huge at $250...
Most of it is portrait stuff so I'm concerned at how easy it'll be to use with a climber who may or may not be able to do the problem over and over while I get everything right.

[JamesD]

I would say pretty important, but thats considering that 85-90% of all of my photography involves a minimum of 1-2 flashes.

Pretty much the only time I allow myself to be at the mercy of the ambient light, is when shooting at really high iso's at Dark events, E.G. the dance at the wedding, or a live gig etc, but generally I use a lot of flash in varying forms, from hotshoe on camera flashes with really lightweight portable modifiers (rayflash ringflash adapters, baby softboxes, light spheres etc) at weddings/events, to lightweight studio lighting when shooting on location (including location portraits at weddings).

Although looking at the portfolio shots on my wedding/events site, its a fairly even split, but thats just the current shot choice I guess.

20 using one on camera flash or multiple off camera units

15 ambient only.

Every flash used was fitted with a modifer of some kind, not a single bare flash was used.

[dave]

Lets be clear, the original guy was on about climbing not wedding/studio etc.

[Johnny Brown]

I don't think flashes are 'important' for climbing photography at all. Fun to play with sometimes, but it certainly won't limit to you not have one. I can't think of any of my published shots which have required flash.

Perhaps the most liberating thing of all can be to carry nothing but a body and a single prime lens.

[Yossarian]

Perhaps the most liberating thing of all can be to carry nothing but a body and a single prime lens.

Johnny Brown's Photographic Masterclass (Additional Equipment)

1x handgun / stout knife / tincture of strychnine
1x guide to the caves of the North Welsh coast
1x bottle of amyl nitrate
1x single prime suspect

[Johnny Brown]

Yeah, the body does get heavy but I'm done with live models - bloody primadonnas.

[Stu Littlefair]

What Johnny said. Flashes are a fun toy; and very fashionable in bouldering photography at the moment. Totally unnecessary, as indeed is most kit. What's more, heading out with one lens and a camera will help you focus on composition and timing - both of which are more important than the ability to operate lots of fancy kit.

OTOH, playing with fancy kit is a motivating factor for lots of photo nerds, including me. So if you do get a flash make sure you've got a way to get it off the camera, otherwise it's a bit of a waste...

[Yossarian]

On the subject of flashes, my girlfriend and I spent over two hours last night doing portraits of yours truly for a new project - messing with angles, relative flash powers, isos, etc, etc, and the best picture out of the whole lot (of about 500 images) was the one where the bloody background fill flash had miraculously not recharged enough to catch up with the main octabox thing.

My advice to anyone considering getting properly anal with flash or strobes would be that life's too short...

[cofe]

The simpler you make things, the richer the experience becomes.

[Johnny Brown]

Exactly! Add it all up, and the sum IS zero.

[Norton Sharley]

Go and take a look at some of the mountain bike mags, e.g. WMB.  To me they are at the point where the bike shot could have been done in a studio and then superimposed over a heavily Photoshopped background.  It looks ridiculous compared to a good old fashioned well composed shot that is then fully worked in the darkroom computer.  I don't see why climbing shots should be any different unless they are taken in the back of some grovelling cave in which case they shouldn't be published anyway. 

[cofe]

Good point. A lot of mtb stuff now is bullshit.

[dave]

Hopefully the current fad of unsympathetically executed off camera flash in all genres will pass, (probably HDR IR circular fisheye will be the next thing) so that it can remain a useful tool in the box, as it was for years before it got trendy. Fuck, galen was doing this shit back in '94 better than most today.

[Bubba]

Surely even mediocre off-camera flash is better than most on-camera?

[Johnny Brown]

Usually, yes. But not always better than no flash.

For fill reflectors are worth considering first, and under-used in climbing photography.

[Paul B]

anyone care to share some good/poor examples of flash being used in climbing/MTB ing for reference?

Have to say Stu's point about the geekery rings true in my ears...Dicking around with new stuff is fun.

[clgladiator]

they are at the point where the bike shot could have been done in a studio and then superimposed over a heavily Photoshopped background. 

I guess this is an example of what you mean? To me, this is an excellent photograph, much more alive than something with flat natural lighting that would most likely be available in the situation.

[JamesD]

Lets be clear, the original guy was on about climbing not wedding/studio etc.

It is photography at the end of the day, it requires the same tools for you to make photo's whether you're in a studio/on location/wherever.
When I said shooting on location, I wasn't just talking about shooting at weddings or events, for instance you could quite easily liken shooting a someone climbing a boulder to a typical outdoor location shoot for advertising/commercial purposes they both require the same tools.
Speaking from experience, there are occasions when ambient only shots look amazing, but there also occasions when having the ability to tame the ambient, knock it down, and add back in your own precisely controlled light is invaluable.....like anything, it all depends how it is done, however 9 times out of ten, i'd take the added control that flash lighting offers over "ambient only" any day of the week.
There are pro's such as Joe Mcnally, who blend flash so seamlessly and beautifully with the ambient, that its almost difficult to tell where the ambient ends and the flash begins, some people prefer that.... others prefer a completely artificial/heavily staged, almost cartoon like look to their photo's more akin to an incredible piece of graphic art, like Dave Hill for instance.
Whatever "style" you're into I would say that flashes like any other photographic piece of equipment, are an essential tool in the box, of course they are not the be all and end all of photography, but they give you the ability to capture shots that just might not be possible with only ambient light.

[Johnny Brown]

it requires the same tools for you to make photo's whether you're in a studio/on location/wherever

That's not the approach I take. I use tools that fit the location, rather than making the location fit the tools. No flash can light a landscape, most climbing takes place in a landscape, therefore unless you want to ignore that the sun/ sky will always be your most important light.

[JamesD]

  Well done for completely inventing a statement based on an assumption rather than what I actually said.....
To elaborate further on my point, I said that by saying it requires the same tools I was simply implying that just because you're shooting someone climbing it doesn't suddenly mean that all the normal items, E.G. A Camera, flashes, reflectors, poly boards etc etc, could not be applied to shooting climbing, just as you would shoot on location professionally or as an amateur, the techniques and applications of said techniques don't suddenly change because the subject matter is different.
Undoubtedly the style in which you shoot may change, but that varies according to the photographer, and thats a different debate.
At no point did I come out with any crap about the flash lighting a landscape, or state that flash was more important than the ambient, and for the record, shooting someone within a landscape, is worlds apart from shooting a landscape on its own, assuming you actually want to control how the subject looks within the landscape, so comparing the two is about as redundant as comparing photographing a mountain, and photographing a snowboarder boosting a huge kicker on a mountain.

[JamesD]

Well...

[cofe]

well...he's at work.

i think he'll argue, and i'll agree, that very often shooting someone within a landscape is hugely comparable to shooting a landscape. it's all about context, and therefore composition, and that's how you control how the subject looks. you did imply flash was more important than ambient, by stating you'd use it on 9/10 occasions.

i tried to find one of JB's pics online to illustrate the point, but couldn't find one. If you've got the current Stanage guide on the bookshelf, regard the front endpaper.

[SA Chris]

What cofe and JB said. Plus you would need to carry all the shit, who can be arsed?

[cofe]

which is precisely JB's point about the right tools for the job.

[JamesD]

well...he's at work.

i think he'll argue, and i'll agree, that very often shooting someone within a landscape is hugely comparable to shooting a landscape. it's all about context, and therefore composition, and that's how you control how the subject looks. you did imply flash was more important than ambient, by stating you'd use it on 9/10 occasions.

i tried to find one of JB's pics online to illustrate the point, but couldn't find one. If you've got the current Stanage guide on the bookshelf, regard the front endpaper.

I put Well... because for some reason I tried to edit my original post to include some extra information, but the website kept crashing, and then finally it wouldn't let me edit it, after trying 3 times?
weird, so I just put well.... because I couldn't be arsed to write it out for a 4th time lol.

Cofe I agree with several of your points, great composition is essential to a great photo, but is not the only means by which you control how the subject looks, far from it, you're forgetting depth of field...lighting...whether ambient or artificial, both essential factors to a great shot.
However you don't seem to be understanding my points, for the last time I never said or implyed that flash was more important than ambient (do I really need to keep repeating myself on this one?), I use flash 9 times out of 10 for many reasons:
Control over how the subject matter is lit within the scene
Time constraints
Because I am constantly shooting people both in the studio and on location
I can't wait for the perfect/ideal ambient light to work under, so sometimes I have to make my own light, or sometimes the ambient light just looks crap and makes the colour palette of the subject you are shooting look awful, flurosecent lights for example!

If however I was just looking to shoot landscapes then I wouldn't bother touching a flash, shooting landscapes is about great composition, great use of ambient light, and relentlessly turning up to the same spot until the weather/light/time of day is just perfect, then maybe...just maybe you might get that elusive immensely beautiful landscape shot.
But....this is so far removed from shooting people within a landscape since, when doing this, you are having to make the subject matter look good within that landscape which very often requires you to expose your backdrop/landscape how you want it, and then use artificial lighting to seamlessly blend, or expose your subject matter within that backdrop/landscape to suit the aesthetic you are trying to achieve.
Have a look at Joe Mcnallys portfolio for some incredible shots, shot within stunning landscapes, that WOULD NOT have been possible without the aid of flash, reflectors, or some kind of artificial lighting aid... and you'll see what I am trying to get at here.

http://portfolio.joemcnally.com/

Hotshoe flashes for instance are powerful enough, and so portable these days that its possible to walk around with a 2-4 light set up, camera and multiple lenses, and even a couple of modifiers, all within a relatively lightweight backpack.
This is certainly enough to produce professional quality images that might require flash, it all depends what you want to achieve, how serious you want to get with these photo's you wish to make etc etc.
To the OP Sometimes you only need one light, sometimes you need 2, 3, 4+, sometimes you don't need any lights, just make sure you are not limiting yourself unecessarily, great lighting is sometimes something you have to create but not always.
The only thing that will ever truly limit you in your photography is your imagination and your creativity.

[slackline]

I thought this was going to be all about the increasing prevalence of adobe's flash applications on the web (soon to be replaced by AIR) 

[cofe]

you wish 

[cofe]

9 times out of ten, i'd take the added control that flash lighting offers over "ambient only" any day of the week.

i can't see how my point isn't implicit in that?

McNally's stuff is very good, but it's commercial portraits of people, which is what the bulk of your work seems to be too so I can see why you find is stuff inspiring.

But i think the landscape/backdrop is irrelevant in many (not all) of his shots - you learn nothing about it. whereas with climbing photography i'd say the context/backdrop/landscape is often very important, and tells the viewer a lot about the image and what's going in.

surely time constraints are a solid argument in favour of ambient light. you save valuable time as your light source is already above you, somewhere. I'm also well aware that DOF, composition and lighting are key to a great shot. thanks. I still don't think you need to lug a lot of gear around to get a great shot. Just read an interesting article at lunchtime about a british pro MTB photographer who rarely uses artificial light unless it's for very commercial jobs or product shots etc. he rides with a M8 and a handful of primes. I find his shots are much more real than the artificially lit stuff usually found in the mtb press.

your last sentence is very good advice for the OP. I personally still think he should keep it simple, and by all means experiment with a single light as he'd clearly like to.

the rest of this stuff is   

[Jim]

quality, first the homeopathy thread, then the 4x4 offroading and now this.
keep it coming 

[Tris]

I thought this was going to be all about the increasing prevalence of adobe's flash applications on the web (soon to be replaced by AIR) 

Muppet 

To the OP:
For me, the best climbing/bouldering photos are the ones that look natural... I doubt a flash gun is a necessary tool for 99% of these shots. Most bouldering is done in the daytime and unless you want to try and make places like Parisella's (or other low light venues) look amazing with funky shots using an off-camera flash then I wouldn't bother buying a flash gun. Spend your money on a better lens if it's burning a hole in your pocket 

[SA Chris]

This was an interesting dicsussion.

Once.

[slackline]

Clever use of flash

[Paul B]

Tonnes of those in the Strobist pool and some videos with similar things from a user called Gavtrain over on youtube. I agree though, funky dory.

[Fj]

Just read an interesting article at lunchtime about a british pro MTB photographer who rarely uses artificial light unless it's for very commercial jobs or product shots etc. he rides with a M8 and a handful of primes. I find his shots are much more real than the artificially lit stuff usually found in the mtb press.

Do you have a link to this?

[Paul B]

I noticed flicking through the Northumberland guide that a lot of Mark Savage's shots seem to utilise off-camera flash. Any opinions peeps?

[dave]

my opinion is i didn't need to see his url on every page. And the general look of the guide is a bit "shit someone went apeshit with the flash" from what i remember of it. A bit in your face.

[Johnny Brown]

What Dave said. And the colours are always very cold. Whether that's intentional I don't know, but I think its makes the flash even more obvious. I've tried a fair bit of this stuff and mostly it'll be staying on the hard drive, not cos its all shit, but cos its not really saying what I want to say about climbing.

[SA Chris]

I like some of the pics where it is done well, but otherwise what JB and dave said, way way too much of it.

[Paul B]

And the general look of the guide is a bit 'shit'

Amen to that. I guess when I first looked at the guide the photos all stood out as a bit different but being unaware I didn't have a clue why. The odd one I like. JB i'll show you mine if....?

If anyone is interested (and on a budget) HK based yongnuo have stepped up their game and produced this:
http://speedlights.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Yongnuo-YN4682.jpg

I've got a 465 and a 467 both of which I think are amazing for the amount they cost, with that they're looking ever closer to Nikon/Canon equivalents. I think the original models (460) had a bad rep but these are pretty consistent. I know Bubba bought a 465 on my reccomendation and seemed pretty happy with it.

[dave]

How much do those things cost paul?

[Paul B]

That ones not out yet, soon for Nikon end of April for Canon.

They're on Ebay from Honkers.

45 notes ish delivered for the 465
60 ish for the 467

slightly more if you get them from inside the uk. The RF-602 triggers they make are also dynamite. I'm not sure how good the slave modes are as I've never tried. They've got a comparison somewhere of all the models they make.

[dave]

For manual use you can get older generation Nikon flashes like the SB24 for 60 bananas or thereabouts with a guarantee from a dealer if you're canny. Assuming you don't trash it will still be worth 60 notes when you're done with it (if not more since their value rose when the strobist blog got popular). Of course this info is no use to you now.

[Paul B]

For manual use you can get older generation Nikon flashes like the SB24 for 60 bananas or thereabouts with a guarantee from a dealer if you're canny. Assuming you don't trash it will still be worth 60 notes when you're done with it (if not more since their value rose when the strobist blog got popular). Of course this info is no use to you now.

these have 12 months warranty, 2 sec recycle time using Nimh and are E-TTl compatible should I be lazy. The prices of second hand Nikons seemed pretty high, I did look at SB24-26 vivitar 285 etc. but these were/are more expensive.

[dave]

SB24s recycle like hugh fearnley whittingstall and cost £0 or less in the long run - thats FUCK ALL to you or I. No brainer etc. True they can't help you with canon TTL but thats your funeral.

[Paul B]

Strobist blog has made Time magazine's top 20 blogs:

http://su.pr/2FsCm4

The others on there might be worth a look as well although I haven't bothered as of yet.

[sevyanfellow]

flashgun  is require for improve quality of picture

[Johnny Brown]

  Nice one seyvan!

[Paul B]

flashgun  is require for improve quality of picture

This might be of interest to you then:

http://beastmakerblog.blogspot.com/2010/07/ivan-dobsky-lupino-lane-pics.html

I think I can guess JB's reaction?

[Johnny Brown]

They're good pics - be nice to see the middle one bigger tho - especially given the effort required taking the kit out and turning bad conditions around. How often to you see a softbox at the crag? Definite step forward from the ones in the Northumberland guide too, good to see people honing their methods and developing a style.

[tomtom]