Skip wrote >> What could possibly be your objections to the rubber hood
method? (If the aquarium will allow you to get that close...) <<
I think the meaning of my comment was lost in the many permutations of the
thread.
I see no problem using a rubber hood with flash (and even without flash, the
hood would be fine.) As you say, if the exhibit is lit from within (most
fish tanks at aquariums are) and there was little or no light outside the
tank (there usually isn't) then natural light would (IMHO, folks) be more
desireable than flash. I am sure the fish and other visitors would like it
better too. Nothing like a bright flash in a dark room to make things
interesting...
FWIW I can't remember the last time I made photographs WITHOUT a hood, but
that is a topic for a different ad-naseum debate... :-)
ppro
>>>>
>>>>From: dosk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>>>
Rubber hood method only for flash? No. Absolutely not. You can of course use
this method quite effectively with flash, but I mostly use it without flash,
to prevent reflections in the glass barrier I'm shooting thru...
What would you do, press a lens or a hard hood against the glass of the
exhibit, and risk scratching and sliding?
Or are you planning to stand back away a bit from the exhibit glass? This
works too, but it depends on the way the room is lit. If it's dark all
around you and the exhibit is lit brightly, fine! You'll be okay. But if the
room around and behind you is well lighted, you might well get mucho
reflections in the exhibit glass...
What could possibly be your objections to the rubber hood method? (If the
aquarium will allow you to get that close...)
Skip <<<<<
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
