External Flash- Should I Buy?

[ChristianVirtual]

How is it these days with using tripod in NYC ? Some few years ago I was reading over in dpreview.com that people got trouble with police when using tripod ? how is it today ? still limited ?

An older article: http://411newyork.org/guide/2008/09/11/camera-restrictions-in-new-york/

 

[El Cabong]

How is it these days with using tripod in NYC ?

I haven't tried bringing a tripod to areas with heavier foot traffic such as Times Square (as I generally avoid those areas anyway), but I've seen others do so without a problem. When I've been out with a tripod in other areas (e.g. High Line/Hudson River, along the East River, various places in Brooklyn), the police that saw me didn't care. There are a lot of people with cameras running around the city, so the worst I could imagine from using a tripod, at least in my experience, would be a request to put it away.

 

[someoldguy]

The link you cited is probably still accurate as regards indoor locations . I've used a tripod in NYC many,many times and have never been hassled about it , although , like ElCabong , I've never used one in high traffic areas . The only outdoor area you might get hassled would be maybe Rockefeller Center by the Prometheus statue . You can take pictures , everyone does , but I've seen folks with tripods spoken to by security . Rock. Center is private property so they call the shots . On the street , at most you'd be asked to relocate out of the way.In 40 years the only time I've had any issues was at the Guggenheim , try to take pictures above the lobby level and you'll be approached by security. Anyway , use a little common sense and you shouldn't have any problems .

 

[VI™]

Sure, but trying to get WB "right" on a little 3-inch camera screen can be an exercise in futility, especially since white balance is one of those creative aspects of a photograph that is best set in post, assuming you're shooting in raw format. (I personally shoot using UniWB, which makes my pictures all green straight out of the camera, so I have to adjust WB in post regardless.)

Photographers didn't always have screens on the backs of their cameras that let them see what they shot. That's where actually learning the different color temperatures for different lights and how to correct them comes in handy. I don't trust the little screen on the back of my camera for a lot of things; that doesn't mean that I don't know what I'm doing and that I should worry about fixing everything in post.

And that's an extra step you'll have to deal with with every single one of your photos and I won't. That makes my life that much easier.

The OP is taking his first steps into night photography, and you advised that white balance is "the biggest thing you can learn." I just disagree. For challenging lighting situations, getting the exposure right ought to be the priority, and shooting in raw format is highly advisable if for no other reason than it will allow total freedom to set your white balance to taste when you can actually see the colors on a real monitor.

I guess it was too big of an assumption that the OP knows how to meter and correctly get a proper exposure.

I'm a staunch advocate of making the right decisions at the moment of capture. I'm not disagreeing with that philosophy but with the idea that white balance needs to be one of those decisions. It doesn't.

That's kind of like teaching someone a set of directions for a recipe and leaving out an ingredient with the idea that they can fix it afterwards. If a person learns to shoot and is competent to the extent of being able to shoot well but not knowing anything about properly setting a white balance, then what happens when they start mixing light sources like flashes and ambient light that's not at or near daylight? No amount of post processing can fix that if an individual is ignorant of how to properly correct WB problems while shooting instead of in post.

 

[Phrasikleia]

Photographers didn't always have screens on the backs of their cameras that let them see what they shot. That's where actually learning the different color temperatures for different lights and how to correct them comes in handy. I don't trust the little screen on the back of my camera for a lot of things; that doesn't mean that I don't know what I'm doing and that I should worry about fixing everything in post.

And that's an extra step you'll have to deal with with every single one of your photos and I won't. That makes my life that much easier.



I guess it was too big of an assumption that the OP knows how to meter and correctly get a proper exposure.



That's kind of like teaching someone a set of directions for a recipe and leaving out an ingredient with the idea that they can fix it afterwards. If a person learns to shoot and is competent to the extent of being able to shoot well but not knowing anything about properly setting a white balance, then what happens when they start mixing light sources like flashes and ambient light that's not at or near daylight? No amount of post processing can fix that if an individual is ignorant of how to properly correct WB problems while shooting instead of in post.

I suppose we're just not seeing eye-to-eye. It sounds as though you prefer to shoot JPEGs, and I really didn't intend to get into a raw-vs-JPEG discussion in this thread. Doing your own lighting (selecting lights, gelling them, etc.) is a separate concern from choosing a white balance setting in your camera. You still have to make a decision about your WB on the camera end of things at some point, and all I'm saying is that it's not "the biggest thing" (as you said), nor even the second "biggest thing," nor is it even among the top 10 things I would encourage anyone to worry about at the moment of capture, if they're shooting in raw format. (I think we can spare everyone the posturing about the pre-digital era.)

And is it really that hard to click the "tungsten" option or whatever in Lightroom or Aperture or camera software when you get the files onto your computer? You make it sound as though setting white balance on the computer is some onerous task. At least with your raw software you can finesse the WB for creative reasons by adjusting sliders while seeing the results on a proper display.

 

[El Cabong]

White Balance

For someone who was considering attempting to take snapshots of buildings at night aided solely by a single camera-mounted flash, white balance is a separate issue, at best. No amount of color correction will sharpen a blurry photo, while auto WB does a decent enough job for most people, and raw files can cover for mishaps in post. I think shooting raw and sticking to auto WB would be the best choice for this excursion.

 

[VI™]

I suppose we're just not seeing eye-to-eye. It sounds as though you prefer to shoot JPEGs, and I really didn't intend to get into a raw-vs-JPEG discussion in this thread.

You're making assumptions and everyone knows that's bad. Besides, WB can be corrected on JPEG images as well, it's not something that' limited exclussively to RAW files.

Where did I ever allude to shooting JPEG and not RAW?

Doing your own lighting (selecting lights, gelling them, etc.) is a separate concern from choosing a white balance setting in your camera. You still have to make a decision about your WB on the camera end of things at some point, and all I'm saying is that it's not "the biggest thing" (as you said), nor even the second "biggest thing," nor is it even among the top 10 things I would encourage anyone to worry about at the moment of capture, if they're shooting in raw format. (I think we can spare everyone the posturing about the pre-digital era.)

Like I said, I like to get as much right in camera. To be a good well rounded photographer, I believe it's important to know about everything you're doing without the attitude of, "I'll just fix it in post." That will end up leading to mistakes that can't be fixed in post.

 

[Phrasikleia]

For someone who was considering attempting to take snapshots of buildings at night aided solely by a single camera-mounted flash, white balance is a separate issue, at best. No amount of color correction will sharpen a blurry photo, while auto WB does a decent enough job for most people, and raw files can cover for mishaps in post. I think shooting raw and sticking to auto WB would be the best choice for this excursion.

Very succinctly put, and I agree completely.

You're making assumptions and everyone knows that's bad. Besides, WB can be corrected on JPEG images as well, it's not something that' limited exclussively to RAW files.

Where did I ever allude to shooting JPEG and not RAW?



Like I said, I like to get as much right in camera. To be a good well rounded photographer, I believe it's important to know about everything you're doing without the attitude of, "I'll just fix it in post." That will end up leading to mistakes that can't be fixed in post.

OK, now you just have me completely confused. If you weren't advocating a JPEG approach, then I'm not even sure what it is that we are disagreeing about.

• Shooting raw is advisable: It sounds as though we both agree (?)

• WB is not permanently fixed in the raw image at the moment of capture: No need for agreement, as this is a simple fact.

• White Balance adjustments are best viewed on a proper display: You said you agree.

• White Balance adjustments can be finessed with greater control in raw processing software: again, just a fact.

Am I missing something?

I'll leave the OP with this helpful link on White Balance from Cambridge in Colour. Note the section titled "In Practice: The Raw File Format". Here is an excerpt:

"By far the best white balance solution is to photograph using the RAW file format (if your camera supports them), as these allow you to set the WB *after* the photo has been taken. RAW files also allow one to set the WB based on a broader range of color temperature and green-magenta shifts."​

(In short: what I said.)