hmm, i kinda disagree with you there because a good photographer doesn't need a flash, it generally produces a more
You're welcome to disagree, but once again, you'll find most professionals who make money off their photography use flash. The only real exceptions are outdoor sports and landscape photographers where flash simply isn't an option. Good landscape photographers have to time their arrival, weather and work out their positions, sometimes months in advance (read some of Adams' books,) because they don't have the luxury of controlling the light.
realistic shot. If you want to create the shot you want, you have photoshop, but photography is about capturing light, not creating or manipulating it.
No, documentary photography is about capturing light as is, as are snapshots- most other photography is about capturing a vision- which includes posing, lighting, props and all sorts of "manipulation." Look at any good magazine, you'll find more well-lit shots with artificial lighting than you'll find natural light, no reflectors, no posing, no props shots. Look at any $15,000 and up wedding photographer and show me one who doesn't use flash whenever they can.
Once again, look at the swan picture and I'll *guarantee* that fill flash would make the image look 200% better, because the best natural light is in the early morning and late afternoon, not the harsh mid-day light, but you can fix that with flash, or you can go in with a faster lens earlier in the day, but you're still not going to be guaranteed an evenly lit subject or a good catchlight, both of which make for a saleable image- which the current example isn't.
Also, ANYONE can do wedding photography, but the good photographers use little flash, or like I said, diffused, which, like I pointed out - should be the only kind of flash used. It's more professional.
I suppose it depends on what you consider a "good" photographer, but all the *great* non-landscape photographers use lighting, and most of them will light completely if they can since it means not having to deal with mixed lighting temperatures. If you think only diffused lighting works, then frankly you're simply not that well-versed in lighting- while most key lights work well diffused, there are times and situations where diffuse lighting simply isn't the right lighting- there's never a one-size-fits-all lighting formula unless you like those horrendous Sears/Walmart portraits. For instance, a hair light is much, much better gridded than diffused, since the diffusion removes the texture of the hair from the result.
When I shoot portraits, I generally use 3-4 lights. I can guarantee that using only one light on most people will not produce a flattering portrait, and 19 times out of 20, they'll pick a portrait where the lighting is done well over one where you simply use whatever nature provides, most especially if you shoot female portraits- can't fill in the eye sockets? Not going to make the sale. Can't fill the neck or chin? Not going to make the sale.
As far as saying "anyone can do wedding photography," that's true, but very few photographers can do wedding photography well, and even fewer can do it exceptionally well. Show me a wedding photographer who never uses flash, and I'll show you a wedding photgrapher who's not in either of those categories. If you think "anyone" can do it, then you've never shot a wedding as the primary photographer, and you've certainly never shot one professionally. Show me a wedding photographer who can't drag the shutter and I'll show you a bunch of substandard pictures.
Ever shot the interior of a room? People will psychologically not be comfortable without light from two directions- that's not always possible to get without bringing light to the equation. Why do architectural photographers spend hundreds of dollars and lots of time replacing all the bulbs in a room with flash tubes if it's "more professional" to not use flash? Why do professional nature photographers spend hundreds of dollars on flash brackets for their Wimberly heads if it's "more profesisonal" to not use flash? Why do fashion photographers spend thousands on ring flashes, beauty dishes and multiple lighting setups if it's "more professional" to not use flash? Why does Sports Illustrated spend thousands of dollars on arena strobes and radio triggers if it's "more professional" to not use flash? Why do product photographers spend tens of thousands of dollars on studios if it's "more professional" to not use flash?" Why does Stroboframe have a business if it's "more professional" to not use flash? Why is strobist.blogspot.com an Internet icon if it's "more professional" to not use flash? Why would a newspaper photographer (newsprint isn't the highest resoultion media) carry lights and go through the pain of setting them up if he didn't have to?
Once again, you're welcome to disagree, but frankly you don't have much credibility with such an opinion. Though my preference is for fine art nature, I do shoot products, and portraits, and I've shot the occasional wedding, sport and event- motorcycle racing is about the only occasion I can recall where I didn't even bring a flashgun.
Finally, consider this-
Every movie you've seen in a theater was artificially lit with multiple lights- but your mind didn't scream "that looks fake" for most of the time in most of the movies. A well-lit scene doesn't look unnatural- no matter if you're shooting still or motion. The biggest resistance to lighting is by those who either don't understand it, can't do it, or haven't tried it- that's a pitty, because most pictures would improve with the addition of *good* lighting, which doesn't mean set the camera on TTL and hit the shutter.
I'd recomend reading "Light: Science and Magic," spending some time on the Strobist site, and actually trying multiple lights- because controlling the image makes for a better image 98% of the time.
