On Dec 11, 2011, at 12:24 PM, Stan Halpin wrote: > > 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?
The fringing is resistant to any CA tools. It can only be removed by hours of tedious cloning and color replacement. Not worth the trouble, IMO, although I've done it before. I don't agree that flash fill makes a wildlife shot a studio shot. Many wildlife photographers use flash to great effect. My use here may have been a bit heavy handed -- probably a half stop too much -- but many shooters employ it. You can't always predict the sun angle when shooting wildlife, so fill can help correct the inevitable problems. Paul > > 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. -- 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.
