>
> That's a great way to lower DR, so the whole tonal range of
> the flowers is easy to capture. And there are many exquisite
> images made that way. But for many flowers, it seems to me
> to take away the very qualities that make them so attractive
> to the eye. Daffodils, for example, are made to be seen in
> the sun, not shade.
>
> Take this shot in overcast light, and it's just nothing.
><http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Home/Garden_Summer_2011&image=_MG_1851ia80.jpg>
>
The items in the background are distracting. A different angle showing
the face of at least one flower would dramatically change the overall tone.
>
>Would even the bee make this one interesting in the shade?
><http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Home/Garden_Summer_2011&image=_MG_1852cria60.jpg>
>
Even without the bee this would be a somewhat artsy photo, but the
presence of the bee gives a broader sense of subject, adding more sense of life
to the scene.
>
>I could go on, but here's just one more example of luscious
> tones, shadows and shades that wouldn't be there without the
>direct light.
><http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Home/Garden_Summer_2011&image=_MG_2656cr.jpg>
>
This photo is intriguing, to the point of being sexy. Oh... can we say
that here? :{b
Chris
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
