>
> Well, like many things, not needing flash is a matter of opinion. This
> non-flash shot, for example, shows much considerable harsh shadow under
> chins, glasses, some eye sockets and on necks, and cheekbones. All the
> light is coming from a point source high high above and to the right and
> is not kind to these folks.
I make it a habit to cruise the internet looking for new photographic ideas
and tracking trends as it relates to wedding and portrait photography. I
hate to say it, but since the D3 and D700 have hit the market, things have
gotten "ugly" in a hurry. Don't people realize that flash is a good thing
to control contrast and "quality of light"? Maybe this is why we're seeing
a resurgence in faux B&W photography since the ambient lighting is so
gut-wrench. Shall we mix incadescent, with two flavors of florescent and
neon lighting with daylight?
One type of lighting I've attempted but never got the hang of is second
light where you use one flash on-camera and the other like 10 feet to one
side. Some photographers have it working for them, but I get horrid, harsh
shadows.
There is a method to my madness as to why I want the T45 working. I'm very
interested in recreating the 50's look, but with my own typical Norton
twist. :)
AG
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|