> I disable the flash on every piece of camera equipment I own. In my book, there is never a scenario where it is okay to use a flash, if it is too dark to take

> I disable the flash on every piece of camera equipment I own. In my book, there is never a scenario where it is okay to use a flash, if it is too dark to take the photo, then don’t take it. That's about 90% bathwater and 10% baby. Yes, the vast majority of the time ordinary people use their flash, they really shouldn't be. But there are genuine situations where even snobs like us to need to just suck it up and break the no-flash streak. The most obvious is when you're not trying to take a beautiful photo; you're just trying to take an accurate one -- like inside a crawlspace where something needs to be repaired. And then there are the times when you only get one chance to capture something amazing, and there's not going to be time to set a long exposure and pray for no-blur. This happens a lot when children or animals are involved: http://www.flickr.com/photos/18575617@N03/2281710004/sizes/z/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/18575617@N03/2281710004/sizes/z... But even in broad daylight with relatively still scenes, there are still flashworthy situations. For example, when all the light is behind the subject: http://www.flickr.com/photos/18575617@N03/2408341744/sizes/z/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/18575617@N03/2408341744/sizes/z... (That one is from the days before HDR -- if the flash hadn't fired, either the subjects' faces would have been underexposed, or the sunny background would have been overexposed.) Now, just to give equal time to the opposing side, this non-flash photo would have been absolutely ruined if the flash had been used: http://www.flickr.com/photos/18575617@N03/2407218105/sizes/z/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/18575617@N03/2407218105/sizes/z...