On Dec 11, 2011, at 5:40 PM, <[email protected]> <[email protected]> wrote:
> With out the catchlight in the eye, the image isn't a keeper IMO. Good point, Ken. IN most instances you won't get a catchlight without some flash. But, yes, less would have been more here. Paul > > 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. -- 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.
