With out the catchlight in the eye, the image isn't a keeper IMO.
I agree that a little less flash power would be an improvement, assuming
you'd also get the catchlight.
Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Stenquist" <[email protected]>
Subject: A400/5.6 birds with and without flash
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.
