on 2011-12-11 14:58 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. [...]
Same here. Unflashed version looks much better.
i had the same immediate reaction
i can see the appeal of the flash, and it would make a better shot for
identifying the bird; the lack of CA, and the good definition of the eye are
also pluses
but the tones in the feathers, beak and branch all attract me more in the
non-flash version; it makes me wonder if there's a happy medium, perhaps with
higher ISO, smaller aperture and a tiny amount of flash fill you could keep the
naturalism of the first shot without the CA and the too-subtle eye (i say that
knowing my own camera K200d often does not have the ISO latitude to do what i
want with birds)
--
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.
