At 02:38 4/8/02, Tim wondered:
> The use of on-camera flash for "nature" macros is obvious in the
> photograph.
Which photograph are you talking about ?
No specific example(s) . . . they're photographs I've seen in the past made
using on-camera methods that overwhelm ambient lighting.
Direct on-camera flash has two effects:
(a) Surface texture is lost because the lighting is frontal. To be
readily seen, surface texture requires lighting from a direction other than
the camera lens. With most subject material that has both 3-D shape and
texture, as a light source is gradually moved from on-camera to a different
angle, the first thing to become more prominent is object shape. The next
is its texture. Obviously this is dependent on the nature of the subject
material itself, so this is admittedly a generality.
(b) Lighting falloff as distance increases due to inverse square law is
much more obvious because flash to subject distance is so short. If
there's any significant distance to a background behind the subject, the
fall-off is apparent. It's much less even than natural lighting from the
sun; direct or indirect (skylighting, etc.). If the flash is only 1 foot
away from the nearest portion of the subject, something 2 feet away will
receive 1/4th the illumination. Reduce that to six inches, and somthing 18
inches away will have 1/9th the illumination. If the flash is turned down
to make it a subtle fill with a high amount of ambient light, it defeats
the purpose of using flash to stop action there will be too much ambient.
-- John
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|