I have a plan.
My plan is to go through my old camera bags and find the flashes I have, but haven’t used for ages. Since I got my 50 mm lens many years ago I didn’t have to use the flash to get enough light, and I very much liked the natural light that lens can capture (although the lens is quite “soft”). Now however, since I started listening to Scott Bournes photo blog (photofocus) I realized many photographers like sticking a flash on the camera even though they have lenses that could provide short enough exposure times without the use of flash, so there must be something more to it than just the exposure times…
I haven’t really experimented much with flash, bouncing it off walls, ceilings, using soft boxes etc, and I think it might help me understanding flash photography a bit better if I made some tests with it. I have two flashes (one old pentax, and one really old one that I got from my uncle when he decided to scrap his old camera) which both work, and are quite ok, but aren’t totally compatible with my camera, but they should work in manual mode, so I’ll try to figure out how to rig one of them on the camera, and use the other as a slave. I know it has the photo receptor and can be triggered as a slave. Maybe I’ll try setting up some sort of little studio place for it. More info to follow 
February 14th, 2010 | Tags: 
Hmm I think that the reason why photographer put on a flash although they actually don’t need is that flash is impressive and makes you look cool
Yep, sometimes I think so too, but when you use flash you can use a few other settings on the camera which can be interesting, so that’s why I’m going to give it a try
May I ask where you are planning to have the little experimental studio? *just asking*
Haven’t decided about that part yet. Depends a bit on how well it works out if I try it in my office I guess