I don't give two hoots of a rat's patootie if the photographer is more rewarded by being able to craft the image entirely themselves
I think this would be a discussion better held over a pint of beer
For sure.
I think you are missing my point a little bit.
Quite possibly.
Lots of my photography involves flash in some way, and not all the posed stuff. Lighting the reactions during the speeches for example, really important and I am always amazed by photographers who don't have a clue and just put up with gloomy lighting. If you know what you are doing you can add lighting to a situation AND get the natural reactions.
I agree with that -- shooting with a photo-journalistic style doesn't preclude use of flash, in any way. For non-theatre photography, although my taste tends to run closer to "available light", I do use flash when I think it's necessary. Sometimes I take one shot with, and one without, just so I can appreciate the difference, and adjust my notion of when is "necessary". It does help, even when I'm just using the dinky little built-in. For theatre photography, though, it's not an option for me -- it's specifically disallowed, as I'm shooting during the production (even if it is "just a rehearsal"). Flash would be disruptive, and potentially dangerous (don't need an actor falling off the stage, getting poked in the eye with a sword, or spraining in ankle due to a missed landing on a leap, because they're momentarily blinded by flash). If I were shooting Broadway or West End shows for glossy commemorative brochures, etc. then I'd expect to have an entire day set aside for photo-shoot day, and, when the stage lighting isn't adequate for a shot, have a discussion with the producer and lighting designer about a) whether it's a shot they really require, and b) how it might be improved. But the theatre I'm working with has neither the time, nor the budget for that (a show only runs three weekends), and from what I've seen on the internets, that sounds pretty typical, even for theatre's larger than ours.
I get what you are saying, but it sound like you are working with people who don't appreciate or understand good photography. If they did they would let you have some input at some point of the production.
I think they're just striving for a balance, where their primary focus isn't the advertising. The majority of the time, everything honestly works out just fine. It's just that every now and then the stars align in such a way that I go "hrm... I wish I had a higher res version of that shot" or "I wish I'd had a bit more dynamic range, so that I could boost the exposure of the shadows in this shot by 1/3 of a stop." I don't lose any sleep over it.
Previous Topic
Index
