On Dec 11, 2011, at 11:39 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: > While I agree with Bob that natural light is almost always better than flash, > it isn't always practical. Here's a comparison of the same bird shot with and > without flash. Now, if I had better long glass, I might be able to pull off > more available light wildlife shots, but the A400 is extremely prone to color > fringing when backlit even by a bright, indirect sky. Here's the no-flash > shot. Color is nothing special, there is more modeling of the shape, but > there's also an abundance of fringing. I could PhotoShop the fringing out of > there but given the overall dullness of the shot, it wouldn't be worth the > trouble, IMO. > > http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=14783692&size=lg > > Here's the same bird shot with flash fill. It's not full power. The flash > comp was set at -1 stop. But -1.5 would have been better. > > http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=14780352&size=lg > > I'm hoping that Pentax shows up with a DA* 400/4 some time soon. And it's > less than $1500. > > Paul
I prefer the unflashed version, even with the fringing. Which I presume you can cure. The one with flash looks like it was shot with flash, and it becomes a studio shot rather than a wildlife shot. I was interested in your comment about the "overall dullness of the [non-flash shot]." Is this an example of the sort of shot discussed recently that would have been quite acceptable before Velvia and other factors (and Kenny boy of course) started us down the path to brighter higher saturated images? stan -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
