Why the background is darker in the flash shot? A change in lighting? I wonder if a little overexposure (say, plus 0.5) would have made a difference in that one.
Too tricky for me, anyway :( Bulent --------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.flickr.com/photos/bc_the_path/ http://photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=2226822 http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/bulentcelasun 2011/12/11 Paul Stenquist <[email protected]>: > > 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. -- 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.
