>
> This is again the question of a picture or no picture, I think you already
> knew the answer :-) If the shooting condition is that bad and I have no
> other solution I will refuse to be the main photographer.
>
LOL, There have been a few times I wanted to walk away from a wedding...
The Ultrabounce or Omnibounce diffusers operate on this principle which we
are discussing. The light goes and bounces off of every surface AND it also
provides just enough direct light on the subject to keep from getting racoon
eyes. Sorry, but this high-ISO wedding shooting is resulting in hideous
facial shadows and racoon eyes. I'm eagerly awaiting for this fad to pass.
My problem with the "bounce off the ceiling for natural light" look is that
it turns the entire scene rather boring with very flat lighting. My style
is to always try to establish a seperation between the subject and the
background. I prefer to have my background under or over exposed a little
bit. This is something many people "fix" in post, but if I can do it "in
camera" why bother?
Which brings up a rant....
Photoshop is no substitute for proper lighting. If you don't understand
lighting then just maybe you shouldn't be in the business of wedding
photography. I'm appalled at what people think is the "current look" when
in reality it's nothing but pure garbage resulting from morons who haven't a
clue how to do anything but swing the camera around the room with the
shutter-release pressed down firing away at 10 fps. Flash can't keep up
with them, so they are so excited about ISO 102,400 so they can do
"available light" and pretend they are Dennis Reggie.
Brainless twits!!!!
...end of rant.
AG (my s*** doesn't stink) Schnozz
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|