Thanks Mark.
> Great DOF on these Paul - but to me the real strong point in both images are > the daffodil leaves poking up around the flower. It's both an interesting > visual element, but also provides a great setting for the flower. > > If I had to choose I think I'd go for the 'no-flash' take, just because I > like the symmetry (somewhat compromised by the shadow in the 'flash take). > But both are great. > > - MCC > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > Mark Cassino Photography > Kalamazoo, MI > www.markcassino.com > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 4:34 PM > Subject: Re: PESO:Daffodil, No Flash > > > > Hi Bruce, > > Yes, it was flat light. But warm flat light can be nice for flowers. > > Here's the side by side. > > No flash: > > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3278916 > > > > Flash: > > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3275980 > > > > I like them from straight on. Particularly when the cone and petals are a > > different color. I've shot them from a lot of different angles as well, > > but head-on is ?robably my favorite daffodil look. That's highly > > subjective of course. > > > > Paul > > > > > >> Hmm....seems that you were dealing with flat light in general. I'd > >> have to see them side by side to decide which I liked better. I don't > >> really like the direct on shot of this one. Daffodils have shapes > >> that are good to show off. > >> > >> -- > >> Best regards, > >> Bruce > >> > >> > >> Wednesday, April 13, 2005, 12:42:54 PM, you wrote: > >> > >> pcn> Here's another shot of the same daffodil I posted > >> pcn> previously. This one was shot without the flash. The light is > >> pcn> much more subtle. The camera angle is slightly changed and the > >> pcn> exposure is different, but everything else is the same: *istD and > >> pcn> Vivitar Series 1 90/2.5 macro. I processed it at work on an > >> pcn> uncalibrated monitor, but I think it's pretty close to what I > >> pcn> would have done at home. > >> > >> pcn> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3278916 > >> > >> > >> > > > > >
