I was hanging out with a friend of mine who is a professional photographer (for 15+ years), and has a solid portfolio, web-presence, and regional and national exposure.
He never uses a flash. Period. Swears to never use them for his engagements (mostly wedding).
Where does flash make sense? Or rather:
Can one have a full photographer experience/service without ever using a flash?
Lets break this down into sub-questions to make the answer more obvious:
It is possible for someone NEVER to use the flash?
Yes. Buy a DSLR without a built-in one and do not pay for an add-on flash, and voila!
Can you make great photos without EVER using a flash?
Yes. Just look at photos taken without a flash. My entire gallery has been taken without a flash. Sometimes I use flash, it is extremely rare but not an absolute for me.
Are you going to run out of photos to take if you do not use a flash?
No. There is always more to shoot, more subjects, more angles, etc.
Can you take every type of imaginable photograph without a flash?
No. Some shots require flash to get it a certain way. High-speed photography like water-drops are a good example.
Can a photographer be a professional if he only shoots photos without a flash?
Why not? It is part of style. Some photographers are even more restrictive. I've heard of one which shot everything in natural light with a 50mm lens over a 30+ year career. He neither run out of photos to take nor of people willing to pay for them.
Honestly your friend probably has an excellent advantage on his side. His wedding photos probably look unlike most typical wedding photos. That is a pretty cool selling point!
Yes it's perfectly possible to be a photographer, professional or otherwise, without ever using flash, just like you could be a professional photographer without ever using f/2.8.
I would however consider someone a more well rounded photographer if they knew how to use flash, even more so if they also knew when to use flash!
There are right an wrong reasons for avoiding flash. "Because you can't personally get good results from it" is, in my opinion, the wrong reason. Flash photography doesn't have to look like this:
When done right it can look like this (all of these were shot at events with a hotshoe mounted flash):
And for anyone who thinks flash kills the mood at weddings I present the following, all using flash (off camera, except for the first shot):
"full photographer experience" is the kicker here really.
Can you do weddings? Apparently, because your friend does.
Can you create a dramatically lit portrait in a fully lit, bright room against a bright walls without it...probably not.
If you always have control over your environment and only want to do certain kinds of shots - then of course you can do it....but you're certainly missing out on a whole dimension of your photography you can control.
Shooting without flash is part of his style and thats what he's selling. There's not really an inherent advantage to refusing to use flash - its just that its helping to define his style. And having a style - that's an advantage.
As long as he's not using flash for the right reasons, then it's completely fine. The wrong reasons sound like the following:
I HATE using flash! It's soooo unnatural!
This is a chronic illness among new (D)SLR owners, and it's just a ridiculous statement (especially with an entry-level camera). Technology can only get you so far, and then you help yourself with Photoshop, Lightroom, Aperture, etc. In a perfect world the lighting will always be great. Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world; sometimes it's too dark, sometimes it's too bright, sometimes it's super bright on someone's forehead and dark on the rest of her body.
Photography is about capturing what's reflected in light. With tools you can shape the light to your needs. Flash shapes that light during the shoot. Software, and other tools, shape the light post-shoot.
So to answer your first question, flash makes sense where the lighting is not to your liking. Then you use flash (and reflectors, diffusers, etc) as a tool to shape the lighting to your needs.
To answer your second question, yes it's possible to take photos your whole life without using flash at all. I'm sure your friend does a fair amount of post-processing to help his pictures come to life.
Weddings are a special type of engagement in my opinion. The rule I have always heard is "Flash kills the romance". It is usually a truth in wedding photography.
I rarely use a flash in my own wedding photography, but it does come into play in certain situations. I think it would be completely acceptable not to ever use a flash if that is the effect you are going for. If you shoot with prime lenses and wide open apertures, you really do not need to use a flash to freeze your subjects even in dim light.
Where I think a flash would be useful:
All of these situations can be covered if you shoot with a wide open aperture such as f/1.2 and a high ISO, but you are going to be hit with a razor thin depth of field which might not be adequate.
Overall, I would say it is unlikely, but possible that a professional wedding photographer would never use any type of flash/strobe/lighting besides natural light.
newline. Second, to create a bulleted list, you need a newline between the previous sentence and your bulleted list; then, you can type - and insert one space, to create your bullet.
\$\endgroup\$
Commented
May 3, 2011 at 14:36
Another point is that Modern DSLR with high iso low(ish) noise make flash less and less necessary. Working with an argentic camera with an iso 100 film aint the same as working with a D7000 at iso 1600 or 3200. Clearly for a given low light there is more requirement for flash in the former case than the later!
Why not. Flash is IMHO necessary when lighting is harsh, time is short and details in shadow are important. That is three combined factors that can be avoided.
Concerning the weddings: If he can convince the pair not hold the ceremony in full sunlight he will be able to manage - for the formal pictures he can use reflectors.
Why make such a choice?
To state the obvious, photography is about light. Even natural light can make bad photographs. Would you say, you will never use moonlight to take a photograph? Flash is just another source of light. Of course, one must learn to use a flash because, it is a little more challenging than natural light, because natural light is always on for you to do your metering. Most modern flash units and camera now make that situation simple these days.
So, the question is not what equipment you should use, but what image you want to capture.
Flash is great, i love it. Endless possibilities. It's not just for dark environments either. I don't consider there to be 'natural light' and 'flash photography'. it's just photography.
"Flash is unnatural, i only use natural light"
Rough translation;-
"I have no idea how to balance ambient and flash light but i'm very good at putting others down who do."
Flash, photoshop, tripods, it's all part of the end product. You're not being 'natural' by refusing to use them, you're just cutting your nose off to spite your face.
Why are people so concerned with process over product?
There's so much misinformation about photography.
