On Dec 11, 2011, at 3:44 PM, Matthew Hunt wrote: > 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.)
The non-flash shot was treated to a large measure of fill in PhotoShop. At 100%, the flash version shows much more feather detail than the non-flash shot. I'll post a comparison later. The flash shot could probably benefit from a bit more highlight reduction. > >>> 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. -- 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.
