matt lumpp , Jan 29, 2012; 08:27 p.m.
I just got done shooting an event indoors at a conference center. The lighting was dim and I did not use a flash as I didnt want to be intrusive letting people know when I was taking pics. I used a 5d mk 2 with a 70-200 2.8 IS and most shots were taken around 1600 ISO at 2.8. I also used a t2i with 17-55 2.8 IS at 2.8 around 1250 ISO. I wasnt liking the quality I was getting so I shot a few test shots after one of the sessions with my 580 ex ii and was shocked at the image quality/detail improvement. My test subject was an individual about 25 feet from me.
Is this always the case? In low light settings shooting with wide apertures and moderately high ISOs is the image quailty/detail always going to be worse than if I was using a flash?
Or am I doing something wrong?
Jeff Spirer 
, Jan 29, 2012; 08:48 p.m.
Flash is almost always better at these types of events. There are a number of reasons:
- The lighting isn't designed for photography. It's often mixed, or fluorescent, and when it's fluorescent, there are often failing fluorescents at different color temperature. As a result it's uneven and bland looking.
- Shooting at high ISO increases noise which makes things look less sharp.
- Shooting at slower shutter speeds without flash reduces sharpness.
- Events usually have a lot of background distractions. Because of the inverse square law for flash, using a flash will often separate the subject from the background, which makes them look sharper.
People at events are rarely bothered by flash and often don't notice when shots are being taken. Even if they do, it's far better to have a good shot than a bad one. I always use flash at events unless it's not allowed.
This one is pretty typical, showing both all the distractions (lots of uncontrollable lights visible, among other things) and the difference between foreground and background. I used a slow shutter speed to make the background more visible (not blacked out due to relationship between flash-lit subjects and background) and to blur the background slightly.
Ariel S 
, Jan 29, 2012; 10:06 p.m.
Well, photography is Greek for "drawing with light." No light = no ink = no image! Crappy light = crappy ink = crappy image! Simple as that. So yes, increasing the amount of light will improve the quality of your images, but use the flash correctly, so that you aren't getting harsh light directly on your subjects.
Dan Marchant , Jan 29, 2012; 10:59 p.m.
As pointed out above a good photograph requires the right amount of light.
While opening the aperture allows more light to reach the sensor, adjusting the ISO doesn't. What it does is adjust the sensitivity of the sensor. It is basically a software/hardware method of generating a picture from the available light and makes the sensor more prone to error/noise. Increasing the ISO is basically the same as taking an under exposed picture and then upping the exposure/light fill in post processing. You can get an image doing this but there will be more noise.
Using a flash (like opening the aperture or using a slower shutter speed) adds more light and that will always result in a cleaner image that upping the ISO.
Simon Hickie - Melbourne, Derbyshire, UK 
, Jan 30, 2012; 05:20 a.m.
All the above is sound advice. One further thing I have noticed is that ISO1600 in good light (e.g. flash) is less noisy than ISO1600 in poor light. So yes, flash is OK in this situation. However, you need to bounce it to avoid hard shadows.
Max brunell , Jan 30, 2012; 08:45 a.m.
Thanks for the great advice. But how do you bounce flash with 20 plus foot cielings and subjects in the middle of the room?
Gary Fong lightspere or something?
Jeff Spirer , Jan 30, 2012; 10:06 a.m.
But how do you bounce flash with 20 plus foot cielings and subjects in the middle of the room?
You don't have to bounce. My shot is done without bounce. There is a slight shadow under the chins, but that's it. I shoot with aperture and ISO set to give me a slower shutter speed and use a slight negative flash exposure compensation. Another thing you can do is move the flash off the camera, which can help.
I have a lightsphere, it's good for some situations, but it really depends to some extent on bouncing also. It also seems to annoy people far more than regular flash.
Harry Joseph 
, Jan 30, 2012; 12:04 p.m.
"Flash is almost always better at these types of events."
I'm glad Jeff had the courage to say this... I prefer to use flash at indoor events, rather than no flash at all. For some portraits and other artistic endeavors I might choose to use window light, or bounced flash, but I prefer the sharpness, color saturation and even tones of flash photography. These days, top quality speed lights have improved so much that bounced flash has become an option.
Max brunell , Jan 30, 2012; 12:17 p.m.
What about taking lots of pics at an event and the flash killing the mood or the subjects acting too "prepared" to have pics taken of them?
Jeff Spirer , Jan 30, 2012; 12:26 p.m.
What about taking lots of pics at an event and the flash killing the mood or the subjects acting too "prepared" to have pics taken of them?
Photographers "kill the mood," not equipment. And people at an event in a conference center are probably expecting to be photographed anyway. And, usually clients want pictures of people looking a certain way at events.
