On Dec 11, 2011, at 3:08 PM, Bulent Celasun wrote: > Why the background is darker in the flash shot? > A change in lighting?
The background is darker in the flash shot because the available light was supplemented with light from the flash, so the exposure was somewhat less. > > I wonder if a little overexposure (say, plus 0.5) would have made a > difference in that one. A +1 exposure comp would have helped the shot without flash but not to any great degree. Because I was set up to shoot with the flash, I didn't have that much exposure comp dialed in, so for the shot without flash, I had to add some exposure (and ACR fill) when converting the RAW. If I had decided to work without flash, the ambient light shots could have been slightly better, but not to any great degree. Been there, done that. BTW, my shot of the dragonfly that Pentax used in their ads was shot with this same rig with plenty of flash fill. I learned a lot about using flash for this kind of shooting from Mark Cassino. There's nothing diabolical about flash. It's a useful tool. Paul > > 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. -- 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.
