I did but apparently missed a few words. But I hope you got something
out of the rest of it, particularly the need for measurement for
repeatability.
Dr. Flash
On 2/21/2014 2:25 PM, DZDub wrote:
> 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/
|
