On Dec 11, 2011, at 4:58 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: > 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.
I know what you mean. My previous reply was perhaps too flip. But I'm going to revisit the flash version. I still think it's better in many ways, although perhaps not as well rendered as it should have been. Paul > > -- > 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. -- 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.
