How much of the fill light on the under side of the bird in 001 can be
attributed to reflected light from the
brightly lit flowers?
>
>
> Andrew Dacey wrote:
>
> > http://www.olympus-esystem.jp/gallery_e/unno_k/
> >
> > Beautiful stuff but there's something about the 2 bird shots (001 and
> > 003) that seems odd to me, can't quite put my finger on it. I feel it
> > more with 001 than 003. There's something about the bird that just
> > doesn't seem right, it almost like the "cut out" effect you see with
> > fill flash some times but it doesn't look like he used fill here.
> --------------------------------------
>
> I think what strikes you as odd is that, even if he had the good fortune
> to catch the bird in the shade vs. direct sun, the bird is still being
> illuminated from above by that bright blue sky. The bird is too well
> lit underneath which is what gives it that "funny" appearance.
>
> I agree, I don't think there was fill flash applied but I think there
> was plenty of fill PhotoShop applied.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|