why question that accuracy of the mass media’s pictures… you’ll start believing it’s all a fake.
I mean, if this picture is fake, then so is ever other picture… the conspiracy goes on. The reason there are so many fake pictures is that a terrorist killed Bush. Bush’s speeches are doctered in a similar fashion to the way Neo can kick the asses of hundreds of agent Smiths. It’s a plutocracy out there, and big business doesn’t want the stock market to drop a couple points because the president died.
Of course, this conspiracy is nowhere near the truth, but it could’ve happened.
It is a myth that flashes always give flat, hard light and continuous light sources do not. The harshness of the light is determined entirely but its apparent size and position relative to the subject. A small source far away from the subject makes for hard edge shadows where large sources close up do the opposite. That’s why studio photographers often use umbrellas, softboxes and scrims to turn a point source of light into a large area source. Also, the light source for that photo appears to be very close to the lens axis which gives the flat look, little apparent depth to shapes. Moving the source away from the axis gives more modeling and it appears that at least some of the light in that image is off axis but just a small portion. It’s entirely possible that photo could have been lit with flash but a floodlight can give the same effect.
All you say is, of course true, but photojournalists, in general, do not use off-camera flash in news situations. It’s cumbersome and impractical. Any time I get a chance to use a remote cord or, if I’m lucky, set up strobes on radio slaves I do. But in news situations, this is usually not a practical option.
Taking a flash off-camera makes a world of difference in the end result. But for photojournalists, this is often not a sensible option.
P.S. And nowhere in my initial statement did I say all strobed photography looks flat and contrasty. I’m a fan of strobes when used well, and there ain’t nothin’ wrong with flash. My statement as such is true. The picture is flat and contrasty because it is strobed. I didn’t say all strobed pictures are flat and contrasty. But in that picture, it’s a tell-tale sign of direct, on-camera flash.
Don’t read into my statement more than I’ve written.
No, I was eye rolling (roll-eyeing?) myself for picking such a small nit. Sheesh :rolleyes:
No, you did not say that all flash photography looks that way but you said that because it looked that way it was “clearly strobed” which I didn’t see as a very different statement. I’d bet it was a flash photo but I can also see that floodlights aimed at the door of the plane from near the photographer position could give the same result.
I guess I should have said that it was “clearly lit with a direct lightsource on the same axis as the photographer, most likely by a flash, but just as well could be a floodlight.” Either would have produced the flat, contrasty lighting evident in the photograph. I’m guessing by the depth of field that it was strobed, but it is entirely possible it was floodlit. Except that in the other photos online, you see multiple shadows, suggesting that the flash overpowered the floodlights in the photo in question in the OP.
As a side note, I’ve never seen a photojournalist use a fresnel lens attachment to the flash for focusing the flash on telephoto shots. It’s possible some do, but it’s not the norm.
Sorry I misinterpreted your roll-eyes. I just have never seen anyone roll-eye themselves.
