[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!