No, I don't find it harsh at all. I think your flash work was perfectly
fine but your choice of background should be re-examined. You've ended
up with two subjects with one competing with the other.
Just getting the background out of focus isn't always enough. Clone out
the bright bits in the background and you'll see a significant
improvement. One of my earliest photography lessons is that the
brightest part of the photo automatically becomes what attracts the eye.
The bright bits attract the eye and then become the subject whether you
wanted that or not.
As to flash being not repeatable it's only because you're not measuring
it. You can easily measure the ambient light with your camera's meter
or any other meter. Measuring flash requires a flash meter... something
that can measure a bright 1/50,000 second burst. Get yourself a flash
meter that can simultaneously measure both flash and ambient and report
the percentage contributed by flash and you'll be good to go for
repeatability. But if you're using multiple lights measure each light
independently (to know the balance between them) and then measure the
total light for the final exposure.
Without the flash meter, if you're experimenting and find something you
like then record the distances and angles, flash power and type of
diffuser along with the camera exposure info. Only then will you be
able to repeat it.
Dr. No-Competing-Bright-Bits
On 2/21/2014 10:53 AM, DZDub wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Chris Trask <christrask@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I probably shot a dozen or so variations each of three different
>>> settings/subjects. The current discussion of flash sent me back to have
>>> another look with fresh eyes at the ones I thought were the most
>> successful:
>>>
>>> http://zone-10.com/tope2/main.php?g2_itemId=11470
>>>
>>> Thoughts? I would appreciate your criticism. The thing that is
>>> frustrating for me is that there was so much experimentation involved that
>>> I have no basis for repeatability at this point. I would just have to go
>>> at it again. Plus, the bare bulb is a bit unpredictable and very
>> dependent
>>> on the room, distance, height. So many factors!
>>>
>>
>> Orchid 2 and Orchid 3 are very good, especially the latter as the
>> light amount of shadow highlights the texture of the flowers. The
>> backlighting of Orchid 1 highlights the veining of the petals, but some
>> minor fill flash projected from the lower left or bottom would overcome the
>> harsh graduation of the shadows and bring out the textures.
>>
>
> Thanks, Chris. Do others find it harsh? I often like direct sun creating
> shadows of this kind on flowers outdoors:
>
> http://jfwilcox.jalbum.net/April%20Flowers/#IMG_0396_editedw.jpg
>
> Joel W.
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
