Cotty said: > On 14/1/05, James B.Davis, discombobulated, unleashed:
>>>Jim, I don't think a flash would have conveyed the same >>>mood here, for example: >>True, the candid amateur quality maybe not, but a true pro would have >>used several lights to get a natural effect that looks way better than >>your candid. > Sorry but that's complete bollocks. So true, I love the shot. It gives a great representation of the scene - shows the mood and tension the guys are in, nicely enhance by the low light. The solo is obvious and draws you into the picture. The stars in the back wouldn't have looked so nice with the 1.8 (according to the reviews). Love the way the glasses reflect the papers on the stands BTW. > A true pro (whatever that is) *could* have used several > lights to get a natural effect that *may or may not* > look way better than [Tom's] candid. I wouldn't dare calling this shot a candid. And come to think of it, these papers on the stands act like very nice reflectors indeed! So Tom did have multiple lights with reflectors and everything! > If the 'true pro' was shooting during a performance, > he would not be using flash. Period. Would have been very distracting indeed, the guys wouldn't have been able to read their music for some seconds. Very likely ruining the entire performance. Cheers, Stefan * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
