On 9/10/2011 7:49 AM, Joel Wilcox wrote:
> I like the first shot quite a lot and I don't mind the Zone IX, but I
> think it is unfortunate for the composition that such a big chunk of the
> right flower is undifferentiated white.
>
> I guess I'll be interested if you find a rule to cover these situations.
> I know that when I was shooting slide, I just didn't shoot that kind of
> subject in that kind of light. I think one can salvage more with
> digital, but the result often just doesn't look quite right to my eyes.
I'm still of the opinion that carefully done shots in that sort of light are
worth trying. I recall making that point a
while ago when Brian advocated only shooting flowers is flat light, shade,
overcast, diffuser, etc.
That's a great way to lower DR, so the whole tonal range of the flowers is easy
to capture. And there are many exquisite
images made that way. But for many flowers, it seems to me to take away the
very qualities that make them so attractive
to the eye. Daffodils, for example, are made to be seen in the sun, not shade.
Take this shot in overcast light, and it's just nothing.
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Home/Garden_Summer_2011&image=_MG_1851ia80.jpg>
Would even the bee make this one interesting in the shade?
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Home/Garden_Summer_2011&image=_MG_1852cria60.jpg>
I could go on, but here's just one more example of luscious tones, shadows and
shades that wouldn't be there without the
direct light.
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Home/Garden_Summer_2011&image=_MG_2656cr.jpg>
More in this gallery.
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Home/Garden_Summer_2011>
Fiat Lux Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
