One must use flash very sparingly. Even a low fill flash exposure
that's only 1/2 stop above the ambient does exactly what you might
expect... leaves the background (exposed only by the ambient) 1/2 stop
underexposed... noticeable.
Dr. Flash
On 8/4/2011 9:39 AM, Dean Hansen wrote:
> Jim's butterfly is, as he notes on the LUG site, the American Lady. A
> similar side-view shot is at
> <http://wisconsinbutterflies.org/butterfly/species/90-american-lady>.
> I'm with George--most butterfly shots benefit from a flash. But not an
> axial flash. I use a T32 on a Bogen Magic Arm to place a flash well
> above the butterfly and have the flash graze the butterfly's wing at a
> very low angle. This brings out the details in the wing (as I've
> mentioned before). Both Jim's shot and the one on the site above lack
> this "punch" that an oblique flash can give. But I disagree with George
> that the background should be dark. I've seen shots of butterflies that
> look like they were taken at night. I've also taken some:
> <http://s124.photobucket.com/albums/p15/Dean_Hansen/MNButterflies/?action=view¤t=Bfreija5.jpg&newest=1>
> Jim's shot seems to have been taken with the sun behind a cloud--there
> are no shadows. OK, this means no blown highlights. But the wing is
> also "flat" with no "punch" that an oblique light, e.g., the sun, would
> give. Also, is the camera tilted 30 degrees counter-clockwise to bring
> the butterfly to a horizontal position? Stems in the background look
> like they're pointing up and to the right.
> Keep shooting, Jim!
> Dean
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
