Ah, you didn't read the original note concerning the background.
Joel W.
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Chuck Norcutt <
chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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/
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
