My wife, Linda, and I decided to make a short getaway to sunny Osoyoos. The drive, about four hours from Kamloops, constantly changes making the journey fun. And what can be better than new opportunities for photography?

On the way we stopped in Kelowna and swapped lenses with a photographer I had met online, and made my wife the happy owner of a Nikon 70-300mm lens. Then we were off, stopping along the way for snacks to eat, and quick photos of the changing countryside.

Osoyoos, for those unfamiliar with this British Columbia border city, is nestled around what is described as Canada’s warmest lake, great for swimming, boating and packed with orchards and vineyards. I recommend lots of available trunk space for fruit and wine.

We booked ourselves into a lakeside motel upon arrival and after a short rest and a cooling dip in the water, took off to picnic at a lakeside park. I like picnics because I get to wander around with my camera. I have to admit my travel photos always show people relaxing and eating, and yes, I know it isn’t art, but sometimes I just want the memories of that moment. The day was quite contrasty with a bright sky and deep shadows so I used the on camera flash, moving closer with each shot until the limited flash power was bright enough to illuminate Linda setting out supper. A larger flash or even a reflector would have been more effective, but I didn’t bring either, although our car had plenty of trunk space and I would have made much better pictures if I had.

The next morning after sitting around drinking coffee, eating breakfast, and snapping pictures at the motel’s lakeside patio, we struck out to visit some nearby vineyards. In wandering the back roads looking for our designated winery we discovered great photo opportunities and a vineyard or two.

North of town we encountered a route that took us along the valley’s edge and through orchards and vineyards, and it was on that drive we accidentally found the first historic building built in the Osoyoos area, and of course stopped for pictures. In 1861 John Haynes, a policeman from Victoria was sent there and the structure we found was a combination customs house and living quarters. The visitors guide says, “As the representative of justice in the South Okanagan and Kootenay regions, Haynes tried to bring law and order to mining towns that had sprung up with the arrival of the gold-seekers.” And on the construction of the building we spent our time photographing, the guide went on to say, “one of Haynes’ duties as customs officer was to levy taxes on the cattle that were being herded across the U.S. border to the Cariboo gold fields.” The cattlemen would sometimes substitute cattle for cash; and I suppose that’s why the structure was called the Haynes Ranch.

The shadows were harsh so I decided to let them stay deep and under exposed and kept my metering for the bright mid tones as I worked on the buildings themselves, trying to photograph them as part of the surrounding landscape. I had brought other lenses, but I stayed with an 18-70mm and made most of my shots at the shorter focal length. The board building, a rock filled cement wall, and the multi-coloured sage became a perfect foreground for the deep blue, cloudless sky and distant green orchards. Linda used her new 70-300 lens to photograph interesting features of the decrepit building and its location with the tight, compressed perspective the longer lens allowed. I didn’t ask her if she had more fun photographing that building, or when she was photographing sailboats and seadoos from the lakeshore later that day.

Our Osoyoos trip offered a perfect photographer’s getaway and, as I wrote earlier, the drive down was pleasant and filled with photo opportunities, and splashing around in the warm lake was fun also.

Several years ago my wife, Linda, and I took a photography vacation on Vancouver Island and the weather was forecast to be completely rainy. We knew before we left that we would get wet, so we prepared with plastic bags to cover our cameras, umbrellas to deflect water off our viewfinders, hairdryers to dry cameras and tripods off every evening, and wet weather attire because we didn’t want to spend our days in wet clothing. The trip was a bit uncomfortable, but the coastal downpour didn’t stop us from doing photography, and we didn’t waste a day of that trip huddled indoors. We were outside, cameras in hand, every day of that trip and returned with great pictures, and a fun experience of shooting in the rain.

I do a lot of commercial photography work and more than once that has meant getting wet while I produced pictures for clients. Wet hair, a soaked shirt, and driving home after the session sitting in a puddle of water isn’t pleasant, but I am there to make photographs rain or shine and I do think that those wet subjects sometimes lend interest to a visual story.

This summer has been pretty wet in the interior of British Columbia and I’m sure there are photographers that have kept cameras packed away as they waited for dry sunny weather. However, there are some that aren’t going to let wet skies ruin their photographic pursuits. I received a call from my friend Sam last week on a day that was experiencing a constant, light rain, but in spite of that, he was about to drive to a wide-open meadow location where he always found hawks, barn owls, or the occasional eagle watching for quarry from fence posts, power poles, or the few small trees that are left standing. I commented that he was going to get wet, but he said he had purchased a wet weather cover for his telephoto lens and had camouflage, rainproof clothes for himself.

The camera model and lenses he uses are weather sealed and can take the rain, so all he needed was to keep water droplets off the front element and viewfinder. But that kind of rain proofing isn’t available on all cameras, so my advice is do some research to find out how well sealed your camera is against water before venturing out when it’s raining.

Rain photography is exciting and creative. Falling raindrops, raindrops pooling on a surface, and wet reflections, can offer a creative and colourful environment for passionate photographers. Reflections during a downpour can have amazing patterns if one looks carefully, and light from the sun coming from in-between and under the clouds creates a beautiful environment. And the effect of rain combined with the gloom of an overcast day will make colours more saturated. I like to tweak the contrast a little in PhotoShop, after the fact, for more dramatic final images.

Mount the camera on a tripod and use a very slow shutterspeed for a long exposure to capture the rain or use a flash to stop the drops as they fall. I like using a flash, but I stand under a porch or awning when I use it because a flash has high power electronics that might short out. Rain becomes more visible when it is backlit. Try focusing on rain running inside a window instead of the scene outside for interesting compositions. The light coming through the raindrops is slightly brighter than the rest of the scene. Beware, that the light source can overpower the camera’s exposure meter so shoot on an angle, and make several exposures, and check the histogram regularly.

Watch for rain droplets on flowers, spider webs, wire fences, metal surfaces like a car hood, or even pools of oil on the street. Sometimes the small drops of water will act as mirrors with a multitude of reflections.

Rain transforms everything no matter if one specializes in scenics, architectural, wildlife, or people photography. I think the words of singer/songwriter Roger Miller are perfect when he says, “Some people walk in the rain, others just get wet,” and easily relate to photographers. And for those afraid of taking pictures in the rain, actor and singer Cher made me laugh when she says, “Don’t take your toys inside just because it’s raining.”

I sometimes wonder what it is about digital cameras that makes new photographers believe in magic? Well, maybe that’s not exactly right, but when I am approached by photographers with troubled questions about why some aspect of their photography isn’t working, I do wonder just what they expect.

A photographer with his new digital camera came to me with the question as to why the labs were making better pictures then he was with his personal home printer. Was there a problem with how his camera connected to his computer? Was it his computer’s out-of-date programs? Or was it because the printer wasn’t very good? Unlike the photo lab he was taking his memory card to, he hadn’t calibrated his monitor, hadn’t done any postproduction sharpening on his image, and hadn’t profiled his printer to the paper type he was using. I guess he thought all his equipment should know what he wanted the print to look like, just like magic.

A photographer I met last weekend, admired the lens I was using and said, “I think I need to get a better lens”. He said he couldn’t focus very fast, and sometimes when he pushed the shutter it took a long time before the camera took a picture, and thought that it must be a lens problem.

When I looked over at the lens he had mounted on his camera I noticed it was a newer motorized, electronically focusing, vibration-reducing model, while mine was over ten years old with none of those modern features. I asked him if he was using his camera on its Program Mode, even though I knew he would say, “yes”. I guess he, like the photographer that was unhappy with his home printing, thought his equipment should magically know how he wanted his photograph to be. Computers must be told what to do, whether on one’s desk, or in a camera. Home computers are set up by the manufacturer to print, I expect, on the paper they sell and the computer screen doesn’t have any way of understanding colour unless it’s programmed, and that’s why there are controls for light, dark, contrast and so on.

I have written about camera modes before. I like Shutter Priority mode when photographing fast moving subjects like horseracing. I might select a fast 1/500th of a second shutterspeed that is capable of stopping fast movement and leave the aperture selection to the camera. For scenics I might choose Aperture Priority where I select the aperture and leave the shutterspeeed to the camera. I want to control depth of field; a wider aperture means less depth of focus and a small aperture gives me more. When I am photographing people, as at a wedding or a portrait session, I use Manual Mode. I also prefer Manual if lighting conditions are very bright or when the light is fading. Manual gives me complete control over both the shutter and the aperture.

Cameras also give a point and shoot option, or Program Mode. I do use that mode at parties or Christmas in small, bright rooms when I am using the camera’s popup flash. I would never use Program for anything serious. I wouldn’t use it for sports or scenics, and I would never use a mode as unpredictable as Program for weddings.

Cameras have had auto or program features added for years and I recall requiring students to turn their camera to manual exposure for all assignments. Program Mode is usually chosen by new photographers (that believe in magic), and when their pictures aren’t like they imagined they start blaming equipment malfunction, instead of themselves.

Equipment, of course, should be state of the art if a photographer requires high quality. I don’t think brands, or operating systems, matter much as long as they are used properly. However, magic shouldn’t be part of the equation. Purchasing what some experts says “is the best” will only be successful if education on how it works comes next. Photographers need to take some time and learn how the cameras, computers, and printers they purchase work, then do some reading on how photographers that specialize set their systems up, use them, and lastly, make some time, and take a class. When I talk to professional photographers they do just that, they read, they discuss, they attend workshops. Professionals are always second-guessing their equipment, relying first on knowledge gained from study and second on their cameras and computers. However, when I ask new photographers if they read their camera manuals, or any books on the photography they like to do, or if they have ever taken a class they usually say, “no”. And I expect that is because they believe in magic.

Check out my website http://www.enmanscamera.com.

I received a most encouraging email from a client as follows: “In talking to you I noted that you and your wife both are into photography, so I proposed giving my wife my Sony a350 and get her into shooting her own pictures. She was a little hesitant to the idea saying she did not have the “artist’s eye”. I printed out one of you columns on ‘What Makes a Good Photograph’. She read it and realized that each person has their own take on what makes a good picture, and the short of it is, she is willing to take up photography with me”.
Personally, I think much of my enjoyment of photography would be missing if my wife, Linda, was not also a photographer, and it is great that we both enjoy this exciting medium and can share the experience of making photographs.
My advice to the photographer that sent the email and any other photographer interested in getting their spouse involved in photography follows.

Match the equipment. I mean with regard to cameras, both DSLR (digital single lens reflex) cameras should operate in much the same way. The models can be a few years apart, but should be the same brand and the controls should operate similarly and if two of the latest models are affordable, so much the better.

Don’t be cheap with lenses for your spouse. If it isn’t good enough for you, it isn’t good enough for the most important person in your life. Just as you would select a lens for the subject and the way you like to shoot, your spouse should select lenses for his or her preferences. I know your mother told you to share, but my recommendation is don’t share. That just leaves someone behind. If you both like long telephoto lenses, get two.

I can remember the exact moment I thought about the concept of equality. I was in Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming waiting for Old Faithful geyser to erupt. While I waited I noticed a man and woman with their tripods setting up closer than me. I could see that he had a large, professional looking camera and she had a tiny, almost toy like camera. I knew that his photographs would be good and hers not so good. It didn’t matter if she was the better photographer or had the better eye, his pictures would be better, and I wondered why would she even try.
I have written about tripods many times in the past and regularly say it to photographers, “If you say you don’t like using a tripod, it is because you have never used a good one”. I can’t emphasize that enough! Purchase quality tripods for each of you and attach good ball heads on each of them.

Shop for accessories together. Each photographer has his or her preferences and should make equipment choices for the subjects they like to shoot.

Education is always a good idea. Attend a photography class or workshop. Search for them on line or check local camera shops. Take turns going to photography classes or take part in the same workshop. One of my wife’s and my most memorable vacations was when we both attended a weeklong wilderness photography workshop on Mt. Rainier. In my opinion we may have got more out of that class than the other participants because we were able to share information and experiences.

Gently critique each other’s photography. Don’t just store pictures away on the computer. Sit in front to the computer display together and decide which photographs work and which that don’t, delete all the failures, and make a combined presentation of all the successful images to show your friends and family.

One photographer in the family is cool, but two photographers, in my opinion, are much better. If you want your partner to have the same excitement about photography as you do, don’t be stingy with the compliments. And if your spouse is fortunate enough to make a better picture of that waterfall or running deer than you, be sure to tell them.

Many photographers think the only time to use a flash is in a darkened room and there are even those that are so uncomfortable using flash that they totally depend on high ISO camera settings to take pictures in low light interiors. ISO stands for International Standards Organization and determines the sensitivity to light for which the sensor is set.

I think relying on high ISO settings instead of adding light from a flash is ok for long shots inside the gym during basketball games, or auditorium photos of children’s concerts, but close-ups of people with mixed lighting coming from overhead light leaves unflattering shadows and colours crossing their face.

I have fitted my camera with a bracket that lifts the flash about six inches above the lens or can be quickly removed for off camera lighting. Most camera hotshoes place the flash close and directly over the lens and that close proximity usually causes an effect called “red eye” which is the appearance of red pupils in the eyes. Moving the flash some distance from the lens using a bracket or off camera flash cord helps to reduce that effect.

Many people leave their camera’s setting on “program” or “auto mode” and hope for good results. Many of those same people are unaware how important a good quality flash is. However, photographers that are concerned with their images and want their photographs of people to be enduring, and more than just unattractive snapshots, are using a flash, and not the tiny popup flash that many cameras have, but a controllable flash with the power to illuminate spaces larger than a family dining room or be placed pleasingly for appealing portraits.

In last weeks column “Using a Flash in the Midday Sun” I wrote that I prefer to leave my camera set to manual exposure mode which allows me, and not the camera, to choose the overall ambient exposure, and to add flash to those areas that are underexposed by shadows. Although my discussion was about daylight photography, I approach my photography in much the same way indoors or out. I meter the existing light, set the exposure, turn on the flash, and make tests using the flash, and increase or decrease the output level. Then I look at the camera LCD, check the histogram and look to see if there are blinking borders around any white areas indicating over exposure. If I observe them I dial the flash down, or change my aperture, testing again till the flashing borders disappear. (That highlight-warning feature is usually found in the camera’s menu). And when I move in close for photographs I always place a diffuser over my flash head to spread and soften the light.

Using my flash like that gives me broad, even lighting on people and when out of doors I sometimes even set my camera and flash output so those individuals are slightly brighter than the surrounding area and the background. As I just wrote, I can remove the flash from the bracket which allows it to be pointed it in any direction I want; bouncing the light off building walls, concrete sidewalks and, if I want, hold it higher than people sitting in front of me.

When I learned to use a flash many years ago it changed the quality of my photography. I no longer had to rely on inconsistent, and, in many cases, unappealing ambient light, and I began to notice that my subjects had more “pop” and dimension than those without the flash. Just like the control I gained by using different focal length lenses, using the flash allowed me to add light when I needed it, improving the quality of my photographs and separating my photography from those who do not to use flash. My advice for those interested in portrait photography is to get a flash and start using it every time a person is in front of their cameras.

These are my thoughts this week. Contact me at http://www.enmanscamera.com

Using a hot shoe or auxiliary flash is confusing for many photographers, and when I casually remark that I like adding flash to all my portraits whether inside or outside, overcast or bright sunny days, I often get quizzical and disbelieving looks.

This was the case while I was photographing last weekend’s Walk for Life Relay in Kamloops. The day was sunny and bright with participants’ faces constantly affected by strong shadows. Another photographer inquired about my bracket-mounted flash, politely listened when I said I always used flash, and even put flashes onto her camera for a time. When I later viewed images on her camera’s LCD screen I could see she removed or turned the flash off resulting in unflattering shadows across subject’s faces.

Coincidentally, later that evening I read the following query in an online photographer’s forum, “I’ve been shooting headshots recently and it got me thinking a lot about metering. How do I meter for flash portrait photography on location? I know that without a flash, I would just spot meter their face, zero the meter, and snap. What happens when I have an off camera flash? Do I just meter normally then shoot? Because when I do this, once the flash goes off, the exposure would be completely different than what I’ve just metered, which would usually mean overexposed. This is so very confusing. Please shed some light on this (no pun intended).”

I recall an assignment from a photography class taken early in the 1970s. That assignment, given by our sometimes-flamboyant instructor, was to photograph someone wearing a wide brimmed hat under the midday sun. (My apologies to those that adhere to the words from Noel Coward’s words that “only mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun”).

Our assignment was to light the shadowed face under the hat and still have properly exposed surroundings. At that time flash technology produced constant light and photographers didn’t have TTL (through the lens) flash, digital cameras, or PhotoShop. The solution to the assignment was to diffuse and reduce the light in stages by placing a white handkerchief folded twice, folded once, or not at all, over the flash head until the correct amount of light “filled or opened up the deep shadow”.

Fortunately, modern cameras with TTL flash are almost foolproof, and the days of calculating restricting flash power are long gone, and only a modicum of thought is required on the photographer’s part as to how much light should be added for the subject’s exposure.

I leave my camera set to manual exposure mode. That allows me, not the camera, to choose the overall ambient exposure and to add flash to those areas that are underexposed by shadows. Given the choice of subject placement I photograph the subject with the sun at their back. I meter the existing light, set the exposure, turn on the flash, and make tests using the flash’s exposure compensation feature to increase or decrease the output level. Then I look at the camera LCD, check the histogram and look to see if there are blinking borders around any white areas indicating over exposure. If I observe them I dial the exposure compensation down, testing again till the flashing borders disappear. (That highlight-warning feature is usually found in the camera’s menu). All one needs to do is take the time to experiment, as the subject is getting ready.

My photographs from that day are evenly exposed with attractive, open shadows, and using a flash really didn’t take much more time than if I didn’t use one.

Because many readers have indicated they are uncomfortable using flash, on Sunday, July 10th I will be offering a workshop in Kamloops on flash photography for portrait lighting indoors and outdoors, and I urge DSLR photographers to enrol and overcome their hesitancy to use flash. Participants will gain the skill and confidence to create great images using wireless lighting techniques for portraits in virtually any situation by augmenting existing light with flash. I will limit participation so please contact me if you are interested.
Contact me at http://www.enmanscamera.com

With all its colours spring has blossomed in the interior of British Columbia and photographers are grabbing their cameras and tripods and heading out to record that beauty.

Visitors to my Kamloops shop ask what is the best lens to take along on their excursion to photograph those inspiring landscapes? That’s a good question, especially from those new to photography that are spending hard earned money on pricy modern lenses. There are great zoom lenses available giving us excellent versatility. I prefer lenses like 16-85mm, 18-70mm, or 18-200mm, and there are many more in that range that are light weight and easy to carry that give lots of focal length choices. But, instead of just recommending a particular lens for scenic photography, I want to begin by thinking about perspective.

A wide-angle lens has a curved front surface allowing for a wider view. The distance between the foreground and background subjects will seem extended; objects closer to the lens will look much bigger in relation to all other objects.

For example, using a 18mm focal length lens photographing along a fence will make the first post big and the succeeding posts smaller and smaller. Whereas, a 200mm focal length will give a tightly compressed view, and distances between the first fence post in the foreground and those further back will not look as distant as with the wider 18mm focal length.

In a more practical example, I’m photographing a lake with mountains in the background and a boat on the shore in the foreground. If I use a long focal length like the 200mm all the elements will be compressed in the final image with no subject gaining significance over another. However, if I fitted my camera with a 18mm lens the boat will be large, and those features in the background small and distant. Both are good photographs of that scene, just different interpretations.

The most appropriate lens depends on the perspective the photographer wants to interpret in the final image, and because the focal length adjusts the visual relationships of the objects within the picture, one must think about the image front to back and how much of the scenic is important as a wide, or narrow, aspect. It comes down to the personal vision of the photographer and what he or she wants to say about the landscape being captured. Famous photographer, Ansel Adams said, “problem solve for the final photograph”.

Like Adams states, photographers should be thinking about how the final photograph will be used and how to accomplish that. If one thinks of a photograph as a series of problems to be solved there will be a smooth transition from initial idea to final print. For example one could begin by thinking about the subject and its environment. What is the background and how will that affect the subject? What is in the foreground that will interfere with that subject? If one considers depth of field a decision must be made as to how much is to be “in focus”. In a landscape photograph, photographers might want everything from the foreground to the far off distance to be crystal clear.

There is no one lens that can be termed a “scenic or landscape” lens. Any lens might be used as long as it meets the photographer’s vision. That might be to include a wide vista with a wide-angle lens, or on the other hand, a tighter cropped image created with a telephoto lens might be visually more powerful. The choice of lens for scenics comes down to what the photographer wants the viewer to feel and see.

Black and white photography has always been my preferred medium, and at one time I even believed it was the only way serious photographers worked. To me a black and white photograph has a mood and conveys an almost tactile quality, and because of that many of my image files, personal and professional, get converted to B&W.

During film’s reign photographers had to decide whether to use black and white film, colour film or slide film and many carried two camera bodies for that, but today the decision to make a black and white image is best left to post production; there is no need for that second camera. Post-production is the intricate combination of computer programs, printers and papers that now rivals the quality of chemical-based, traditional black and white photography.

Traditional black and white depended first on the brand and type of film, for example, Kodak Tri-X, or Ilford Delta 400, etc., then the camera’s initial exposure, how the film was developed (what chemicals were to be used), and finally the choice of paper for final printmaking.

The difference between black and white film and the digital sensor is that film has more latitude and getting a usable exposure is very easy. If one over exposes with B&W film it usually isn’t a problem, but an over exposure with digital equals a loss in image information and can end in an unusable photograph. With film we used to hear “shoot for the shadows”, with digital all that has changed; we have to be very careful not to over expose. Fortunately, we can now check our exposures using the histogram.

Most digital cameras have a black and white mode available in the menu, but I don’t recommend using that, it does nothing more than create identical red, green, and blue channels in the final picture file. Just de-saturating a colour data file in-camera will give a black and white image, but it doesn’t include control of the different tonal values that make up a black and white image.

There are however, many programs and “recipes” for image conversions very close to the quality that used to be only available from a roll of film.

When I first started making black and white pictures years ago with PhotoShop 7 I used a B&W conversion process that used the channel mixer. To do that I first opened the image, then I went to the menu and selected adjustments, then in the drop down list I selected Channel Mixer. I checked the monochrome box at bottom left, I changed the red channel to 60%, changed the green channel to 40%, ignored the blue channel, and changed the constant to +4. Finally I clicked ok and I had a black and white image.

PhotoShop CS3 and CS5 both have very good black and white mode selectors with lots of tonal control. I also suggest programs like Silver Efex Pro available from NIKsoftware.com.

However, there are excellent instructions for making B&W images from the likes of Hollywood celebrity photographer Greg Gorman, and I have tried a neat Hue/Saturation conversion I found floating around the internet by someone called Hikin’Mike. There are many more, just do a search.

A black and white photograph depends on its ability to communicate, as it doesn’t attract with eye-catching colours for its’ visual presentation. Those B&W images that stand out combine attention to lighting, composition and perspective. Black and white photography is far from being left behind in the past, and, in my opinion, with the current processing software, updates in high quality printers, and the latest in printing papers, black and white image-making will continue to be an option for serious photographers.

I got up one morning last week and realized that it had just stopped raining. Everything was bathed in that nice, quiet light that comes when the storm ends and before the skies brighten when the clouds lift. As I drank my morning coffee I connected a macro lens to my camera and placed a ring flash on the lens preparing to go out for some fun garden photography.

I like wandering in my wife’s garden with my camera just about any time – winter, spring, summer, or fall – each season has its own distinct visual character that is fun to photograph, but my favorite time is just after a rain.

I prefer using a longer focal length 200mm macro lens with a ring flash attached. I was fortunate enough to get a used one some years ago. I did not know what I was doing at the time, however, that ring flash went from what I thought was a gimmicky way to add light to what I now consider an essential part of my lighting for plants when the ambient light is low or flat like on that wet morning.

Lighting small objects with a ring flash isn’t new to photographers, as ring flashes have had changing popularity during the years I have been involved in photography. Along with the amazing digital cameras we use, technology has brought new life into what was once pretty much left to biologists, naturalists, hard-core flower enthusiasts, etc., as many photographers are now choosing ring flashes or ring flash modifiers for their macro work.

Canon has the MR-14 Ring Lite designed to surround the front of a Canon macro lens. Nikon has now moved away from the ring flash, but the two they offered for years, the SB29, and the older SB21b that I use, are easy to find used, and excellent to use. There is the Phoenix RL-59, the Cameron PRO DRF14 Macro Ring Flash, and Sigma’s EM-140 DG to name a few. Also popular and economically priced are two that aren’t ring flashes, but are flash modifiers that attach to any flash converting the light output to that of a ring flash; the Ray flash and Orbis ring flash. The Ray Flash mounts to your camera with the flash attached on the hot shoe and the Orbis mounts from under your lens, with the flash stuck up inside it connected to the camera with an off-camera TTL cord.

Ring flashes produce perfectly even, shadowless images. I wouldn’t select that kind of lighting on a bright sunny day, but on overcast rainy days it’s an effective way to illuminate the water droplets balancing on flower petals and leaves. I use mine on the “manual” setting, and reduce the light by adjusting the aperture until I get the sparkles to appear the way I want them, and then adding additional light from a flash keeps the shutter speed high to compensate for plant movement caused by an unwelcome breeze that might come up just when I‘m ready to press the shutter. Using a tripod and a cable release will stop camera movement, but there are times when conditions are quickly changing and I want to photograph many subjects before the weather stops cooperating, and wind or rain drives me indoors. A ring flash allows me to do that.

For me garden photography is very relaxing and I like to take the time to look at each plant creatively. I also like to add light to the small, close-up subjects just as I would when taking someone’s portrait. That might mean using a reflector, or an off-camera flash, or as I have discussed above, with a ring flash, because it is really all about the quality of light that separates one image from another.