Thanks Mark. 

> Great DOF on these Paul - but to me the real strong point in both images are 
> the daffodil leaves poking up around the flower. It's both an interesting 
> visual element, but also provides a great setting for the flower.
> 
> If I had to choose I think I'd go for the 'no-flash' take, just because I 
> like the symmetry (somewhat compromised by the shadow in the 'flash take). 
> But both are great.
> 
> - MCC
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Mark Cassino Photography
> Kalamazoo, MI
> www.markcassino.com
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <pentax-discuss@pdml.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 4:34 PM
> Subject: Re: PESO:Daffodil, No Flash
> 
> 
> > Hi Bruce,
> > Yes, it was flat light. But warm flat light can be nice for flowers. 
> > Here's the side by side.
> > No flash:
> > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3278916
> >
> > Flash:
> > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3275980
> >
> > I like them from straight on. Particularly when the cone and petals are a 
> > different color. I've shot them from a lot of different angles as well, 
> > but head-on is ?robably my favorite daffodil look. That's highly 
> > subjective of course.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> >
> >> Hmm....seems that you were dealing with flat light in general.  I'd
> >> have to see them side by side to decide which I liked better.  I don't
> >> really like the direct on shot of this one.  Daffodils have shapes
> >> that are good to show off.
> >>
> >> -- 
> >> Best regards,
> >> Bruce
> >>
> >>
> >> Wednesday, April 13, 2005, 12:42:54 PM, you wrote:
> >>
> >> pcn> Here's another shot of the same daffodil I posted
> >> pcn> previously. This one was shot without the flash. The light is
> >> pcn> much more subtle. The camera angle is slightly changed and the
> >> pcn> exposure is different, but everything else is the same: *istD and
> >> pcn> Vivitar Series 1 90/2.5 macro. I processed it at work on an
> >> pcn> uncalibrated monitor, but I think it's pretty close to what I
> >> pcn> would have done at home.
> >>
> >> pcn> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3278916
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > 
> 

Reply via email to