Stan Halpin wrote: >On Dec 11, 2011, at 11:39 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: > >> 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 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?
Same here. Unflashed version looks much better. -- Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia www.robertstech.com -- 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.
