Fram wrote: >The bright side of her face seems a >bit burned out, and the bright spots in the background are really >distracting.
Right, Frank. The bright part of an image is what catches the eyes first. So, the bright parts should preferably be an important part of the image. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: frank theriault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 7. november 2004 13:35 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: fill flash problems on the *istD On Sat, 6 Nov 2004 20:51:01 -0500, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As has been noted here before, flash photography with the *istD is > tricky. First, you should shoot at iso400. Second, shoot RAW, so you > can easily correct exposure problems. In truth, if these were RAW > format, and I had to work with them to produce a suitable shot, I'd opt > for the first one. Both the third and fourth have way too much flash in > my opinion. > Paul > With the caveat that I know only a teeny bit about flash issues, and even less about digital generally or the *istD specifically, I'll agree with Paul WRT which of the images looks best to me. The last one seems overexposed. The bright side of her face seems a bit burned out, and the bright spots in the background are really distracting. #1 has the best skintones, and #2 has the best (least obtrusive) background. Again, I don't know anything about digital, but wouldn't it be possible to do something with those two in PS or whatever to bring the brightness up a bit? I would think that would bring better results than working with #4. But, again, I really don't know what I'm talking about... <vbg> cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
