HI Paul - My 2 cents: the birds needed some fill flash but not as much
as they got. My guess is that -2 EV of flash comp, from what you shot,
would have gotten you most of the benefits of the FF without creating
the flashed look. I don't know if that would help with the fringing or
not. I think of fill flash in an image like spice in a recipe - when
it's used right, you don't notice it.
Sounds like you had a fun outing!
Mark C.
On 12/11/2011 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
--
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.
