On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Stan Halpin <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 agree with Stan. For me, one of the most important technical factors in bird photography is the textural rendition of the feathers. That's one of the biggest differences between my DA*300/4 and my cheap Tamron 70-300 zoom, for example. In your non-flash shot, there's nice texture in the breast and head, showing how the feathers lie on the bird. In the flash shot, the texture is diminished, probably because the light is coming too directly from the camera. I do think the non-flash shot could benefit from some added "fill light" in Lightroom, or the equivalent in other software. (I realize that sounds funny given that the point of the flash was to add real fill light, but I think the non-flash is the stronger starting point.) >> 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 -- 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.
