Fill-in flash & catchlights

[StuartR]

It was my great-nephew Ryland's first birthday party yesterday (actually a triple event, his mum's 30th and my daughter's 21st!) and I was there to capture the event.

This is a picture of the young man in question taken outdoors using a fill-in flash (a hot-shoe mounted Canon 420EX, fitted with a Stofen diffuser and the flash pointing vertically i.e. not at the subject) with the intention of filling the shadows a little and providing a catch-light in the eyes. (I once watched a pro wedding photographer working this way and she got some really good results so I thought I'd try it).

However, I'm not sure I like the flash catch-light as there is already a natural catch-light visible. Here's 2 versions, one with and one without. Which would you prefer?

[Kurt]

Re: Fill-in flash & catchlights

I prefer the one without, although it may be that the catchlights are at the bottom of the eye, I usually prefer them at the top, emulating the position the sun would have been in.

[Jocelyn Walker]

Re: Fill-in flash & catchlights

I prefer the second shot I think!

[Tinka]

Re: Fill-in flash & catchlights

on viewing side by side, I prefer the natural one, (which I believe is on the left) without flash, the flash one has the catchlight looking like pin holes very near the pupils, Both images however are extremely good and I would be happy to have taken either.

[Stephen]

Re: Fill-in flash & catchlights

on viewing side by side, I prefer the natural one, (which I believe is on the left) without flash, the flash one has the catchlight looking like pin holes very near the pupils, Both images however are extremely good and I would be happy to have taken either.

If I understand Stuart correctly they are both the same Image Tinka, though he has removed the catchlight from one.

Personally I have no strong feelings either way, and I'd be being dogmatic if I said one was better than the other. The fact is the fill in flash has probably made for a better exposed image, certainly more evenly exposed than without. I would have done exactly the same as Stuart. There is some evidence of shadow round the neck area, but this and the catchlight are the tradeoff for me

[StuartR]

Re: Fill-in flash & catchlights

If I understand Stuart correctly they are both the same Image Tinka, though he has removed the catchlight from one.

Personally I have no strong feelings either way, and I'd be being dogmatic if I said one was better than the other. The fact is the fill in flash has probably made for a better exposed image, certainly more evenly exposed than without. I would have done exactly the same as Stuart. There is some evidence of shadow round the neck area, but this and the catchlight are the trade-off for me

You're correct Stephen, it is the same image but I've cloned out the catchlight in the pupils from the flash in the left hand version. I should have been a little clearer in my original post.

The evidence of fill-in flash is elsewhere, in the moist area of the mouth, end of the nose etc., but as you say, that's all part of the trade trade-off. The issue for me (and others at home) was with the two bright points in the pupils which didn't look "natural".

The main reason for the question, if I'm honest, is that I'm still practising techniques for the a big family wedding I've been asked to shoot in October- not that I'm at all nervous about it

I think I've made the decision to buy some better glass for the occasion (yes dear, you definitely need a Canon 100-400mm L series zoom for a wedding! ) but stick with the APS-C sensor in my 350D (or 400D or 40D if it launches in time?) rather than go full-frame.

Although, as the wedding date is getting closer, I guess I don't want to be shooting an important day with shed loads of new gear that I'm not familiar with!?