> The pictures are great but I don't agree that flash is "the way to
> go". I think a good natural light is better than flash but all too
> often the light isn't right and you have to use a flash. Of course
> everyone's taste is different.
I agree in some ways -- if you have a tripod handy and can set things up to
take the shot then natural light + longer exposure is nice, yes. A lot of
those shots were taken of flowers in the middle of a flowerbed where setting
a tripod up would be possible, but a _lot_ of hassle, and getting that last
little bit of fine-tuning is awkward. A macro rail would help there, the
right sort of tripod head, etc; I have none of those things with me at the
moment, but I do have a flash and TTL cord, so that's what I used.
(also, long exposures assume static subject, and shooting plants outdoors
wind would have been a serious problem for some of those. In general, I find
that I've taken more successful macro shots with flash than without, but
that may be as much of a comment on my technique as anything -- flash means
I can just open the lens up all the way and not worry about things so much).
> flower_7 with the light shining through the petals is very nice. If
> the window in the background could be removed it would be fantastic.
The thing that annoys me about that one is the red flower behind it rather
than the window -- as always, it's far too easy to just not see the
background when taking photos, and here it's placed almost like a halo.
> wintergarden/plant_1.jpg is a Gynura aurantiaca aka Purple Passion
> Plant. They used to be popular house plants in California but they've
> almost dissappeared. I saw some in a store recently so I guess they
> haven't been banned.
Ah, thanks for clearing that up -- I'll change the description
appropriately.
-- dan
< 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 >
|