Well, I've gone back and forth. Without the flash, the image is too flat. With the flash, there is an unnaturalness to it. Maybe just better lighting either from the sun or multiple strobes would be best.
-- Best regards, Bruce Wednesday, April 13, 2005, 4:21:01 PM, you wrote: pcn> Thanks for the feedback Eric. I'm somewhat torn myself, so pcn> it's good to get some other opinions. pcn> Paul c>> At 11:50 pm 13/04/2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >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 >> >> Hi Paul, >> I don't normally like the harshness of flash arcing across the stygian >> darkness (yep, I realise this is just fill in flash here) photos but here >> it really seems to help bring out the 3D form of the daffodil compared to >> the non-flash photo. I like it, and the yellow shadow on the white petals. >> There seems to be more texture in the petals too. >> Eric. >> >> >>
