Hi Bruce, I have the daffodil without flash, but it's at home. I'll try to post it later. It's different. No shadows, since it was in the shade. Nicer in some ways, but not as punchy. However I had this version here at work. I was bored, and it was handy <g>. However, I like the cone's shadow. i think it adds dimension. I've used flash quite successfully with some flower shots, although I usually work harder at it than I did here. (Due to the vertical format on this shot, the flash was off to the left.) But the flash can be a real boon when trying to get a little more dof for macro shots in deep shade, particularly on tiny plants where a tripod is impractical at best. Here's one from a year or so ago, where I used a Pentax AF400T firing into a sof' shoulder reflector. The sof' shoulder is a much better reflector than an omnibounce. It's positioned slightly to the left of camera but fairly high, and its light is very diffuse. These snowdrops are smaller than a fingernail, so this is c! lose to 1:1. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2220242
> Paul, > > I like the shot and yes, those are among the prettiest daffodils. I > am curious, as even though I use flash quite often on people, I never > really use it on plants. Had you not used flash, what would this have > looked like. There is a shadow caused by the cone that seems too > noticeable and the white part seems a bit flat. > > -- > Best regards, > Bruce > > > Tuesday, April 12, 2005, 12:04:55 PM, you wrote: > > pcn> Spring is bursting out all over North America. A week of > pcn> good weather in Michigan has the daffodils blooming in abundance. > pcn> This is one of my favorites: White petals and a yellow cone: > > pcn> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3275980 > > pcn> Shot with the *istD, the Vivitar Series 1 90/2.5 macro and > pcn> the Sigma DG500Super firing into an ombibounce reflector. > > >
