In a message dated 11/16/01 5:10:41 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "> But to support Mike's post I want ot say, I watched a very high priced pro > photographing a car in his studio once. The amazing thing to me was how he > lit every point on the car like it was a separate photo. The tires had > different lighting that the hubcaps. The interior was a whole other set. > Heck even the emblem on the trunk was lighted separately from the rest of > the car. The whole set was a forest of flags, refectors, gobos, grids, and > of course lights. He must have been using 100-200,000 dollars worth of > lighting equipment and at least five assistants. Between each shot the dust > was brushed off the car, finger prints buffed out. If you bought a new Chevy > that year you undoubtedly saw his photographs in the brochure."
You make a good point about commercial photographers. Had the original writer said: "I'm a commercial photographer and use blah blah lighting" would have been one thing, but the man? said he didn't know how to use flash (surely a stretch of veracity), had never owned a "flash," at the same time, was not being forthright to say he uses or used "strobes." I still maitian the statement was was/is disengenuous. > "Mike's right, on camera flash is only used for reportage (news, weddings, > etc) by serious photographers." A little confusing. At the end of your statement, "(etc) by serious photographers)" did you mean "etc) "not" by serious photographers"? Or that on-camera flash is used only by amatuers/hobbyists? If is there a new thought afoot, that somehow one who shoots on-camera flash is less of a photographer or that only those who shoot studio/medium/large format are the only "pros"? Surely that's not being suggested here. Mafud [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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 .
