fivemack: (Default)
Tom Womack ([personal profile] fivemack) wrote2008-12-28 04:31 pm

Why you should use bounce flash

Which of these loaves looks more appetising?




My apologies to those of my readers for whom both loaves look irritatingly toxic.

Err, yes, I went out this morning and bought the camera I'd been contemplating for months.

[identity profile] pseudomonas.livejournal.com 2008-12-28 04:43 pm (UTC)(link)
#2

[identity profile] atreic.livejournal.com 2008-12-28 05:02 pm (UTC)(link)
The second one. Which loaf is supposed to look more appitising?
ext_8103: (photos)

[identity profile] ewx.livejournal.com 2008-12-28 05:12 pm (UTC)(link)
I ♥ bounce flash.

[identity profile] ex-robhu.livejournal.com 2008-12-28 05:30 pm (UTC)(link)
Loaf B.

[identity profile] ceemage.livejournal.com 2008-12-28 06:08 pm (UTC)(link)
I was about to say "They're both exactly the same, except the second one is better lit." But, erm, that was the point you were trying to make, I guess. {facepalm}

[identity profile] dd-b.livejournal.com 2008-12-28 06:54 pm (UTC)(link)
Bouncing the flash does two useful things and one unfortunate thing (the unfortunate thing is it wastes some power, and no flash is actually powerful enough). It makes the light softer, of course; that's what it's famous for.

It also moves the apparent light source away from the camera. In addition to ceilings, consider light neutral-toned walls as possible bounce surfaces. Lots of people seem to overlook this second use of bouncing, just pointing the flash up and not thinking about it.

In the second bread photo, the benefit is mostly from the light not coming from the camera position; by having the light come at an angle from above, the surface texture shows up a lot more clearly, and you're not getting those little specular reflections off the surface, either.

However, your example #1 looks better than most direct-flash shots I've done. I seem to have a curse on my preventing me from getting even semi-decent direct flash shots to work out.

[identity profile] stevegreen.livejournal.com 2008-12-28 09:23 pm (UTC)(link)
By a slight margin, the latter image.

[identity profile] kaberett.livejournal.com 2008-12-28 11:05 pm (UTC)(link)
Er, the former to me, I'm afraid - the latter looks like it has the texture of a crumpet, which is fine in crumpets but less good in bread :p Apparently I am odd, however...

(Hello! Prodding [livejournal.com profile] atreic's flist accidentally, seems as good an excuse as any to add you, feel free to ignore me/angsty postings/etc :)
darcydodo: (Default)

[personal profile] darcydodo 2008-12-29 07:12 am (UTC)(link)
Well, to me the first one looks like nice shiny sourdough, and the second one looks rather dry, so I'd say the first. I realize this is probably not the correct answer.

[identity profile] ptc24.livejournal.com 2008-12-29 12:19 pm (UTC)(link)
The first one... could be really tasty, or it could be a disaster. The second one, well, it's just bread.