 |
|
|
UER Store
|
|
order your copy of Access All Areas today!
|
|
|
 YellowSnow
 
Gender: Male
 |  | Which looks better?
< on 4/19/2006 5:14 AM >
|  | | | Does this picture look better with flash?
or without?
>_> |
|
YellowSnow
Gender: Male
| | Re: Which looks better?
<Reply # 1 on 4/19/2006 5:17 AM >
| | | | Same thing for this one, with or without flash...
>_> |
|
dev
  
Passed away September 23rd, 2006.
| | Re: Which looks better?
<Reply # 2 on 4/19/2006 5:24 AM >
| | | | without, for both. the first (of the book) is a bit underexposed without the flash.
woo.
|
|
YellowSnow
Gender: Male
| | Re: Which looks better?
<Reply # 3 on 4/19/2006 5:26 AM >
| | | | Yeah, I've got another one of the book that's a little brighter, but I thought that this one looked more dramatic.
>_> |
|
ScourgeVW
  
call me Hamilton
Location: Not Hamilton Anymore.
Gender: Male
| |  | Re: Which looks better?
<Reply # 4 on 4/19/2006 5:33 AM >
| | | | Question is, what looks more like what YOU were trying to achieve?
It's all a matter of opinion, shoot it the way you like it.
That said, for both of those my taste dictates tripod and expose well without a flash. That's just what I prefer though.
-George
http://mrscourge.deviantart.com/
Is it time for Man-Rage yet? |
|
Core
Location: MI
Gender: Male
Warning: Some side effects may occur
| | | Re: Which looks better?
<Reply # 5 on 4/19/2006 4:44 PM >
| | | | I agree with Scourge, go with what you were trying to achieve not what others want to achieve with your photos. That said, I think they look better without a flash. With the non flash book shot you can see the dust and dirt being highlighted by the ambient light as it slants across it, in the flash shot all that detail is gone. In the other shot, the light shining toward the camara is distracting. Exposing without a flash helps show the depth of the picture as well as showing off the crumbling walls and peeling paint because again the light slanting in picks out detail and highlights it making for a better shot. The flash tends to flatten the image. If you compare the two you see that the flash shot has very little depth to it and the peeling paint is barely defined, if at all.
|
|
Glass
Location: Chicago
as one does
| | | Re: Which looks better?
<Reply # 6 on 4/19/2006 9:41 PM >
| | | | Always better w/o flash.
Both pics still need light painting.
|
|
Urban Pirate
Location: Salt Lake City
Gender: Male
| | Re: Which looks better?
<Reply # 7 on 4/19/2006 10:48 PM >
| | | | Without flash, that's pretty much always the case.
www.urbantrespass.com |
|
flapjack
Location: Manhattan, New York
Gender: Male
| | | Re: Which looks better?
<Reply # 8 on 4/20/2006 12:16 AM >
| | | | The EXIF says your shooting with a digital rebel so I assume you can have a bit of control. If you have some time you might want to play a bit and try and use your flash to fill in a bit. Try setting the flash to -3 or -2 stops (if you can) and exposing for the natural light. Then use it to fill in a little in spots if you need. If you can mount a flash off the camera a cord, that will look better ast well.
|
|
the_doctor
Location: Boston area
Gender: Male
It's probably dangerous
| |  | Re: Which looks better?
<Reply # 9 on 4/20/2006 12:24 AM >
| | | | more exposure and Photoshop will make em look really good
|
|
YellowSnow
Gender: Male
| | Re: Which looks better?
<Reply # 10 on 4/20/2006 2:41 AM >
| | | | I just got the digital rebel last week, so I don't really know what you're talking about when you're saying to set the flash -2 or -3 stops. Does that mean to make it not as bright? Anyways, thanks for all your help.
>_> |
|
tron_2.0
Location: Ohio
Gender: Male
| | | | Re: Which looks better?
<Reply # 11 on 4/20/2006 3:07 AM >
| | | | are we allowed to photoshop this one, too?
[quote][i]Posted by yokes[/i]
I find your lack of coziness.... disturbing.
[/quote] |
|
flapjack
Location: Manhattan, New York
Gender: Male
| | | Re: Which looks better?
<Reply # 12 on 4/20/2006 4:23 AM >
| | | | Posted by YellowSnow
I just got the digital rebel last week, so I don't really know what you're talking about when you're saying to set the flash -2 or -3 stops. Does that mean to make it not as bright? Anyways, thanks for all your help.
|
Yeah. On my Nikon I can turn the power down on the flash in 1/3 stop intervals. You can use it as "fill flash" to brighten up some of the shadows. You set the flash to underexpose to get the right effect. You may have to be on manual to fool the camera into doing what you want.
[last edit 4/20/2006 4:24 AM by flapjack - edited 1 times]
|
|
ryan
This member has been banned. See the banlist for more information.
Location: Providence RI
Gender: Male
F/gayz
| | | | Re: Which looks better?
<Reply # 13 on 4/20/2006 4:40 AM >
| | | | flash is the devil
I climb stuff!
Remember! Shop smart. Shop S-Mart \http://www.myspace.com/xitstheendx |
|
Core
Location: MI
Gender: Male
Warning: Some side effects may occur
| | | Re: Which looks better?
<Reply # 14 on 4/20/2006 3:15 PM >
| | | | Posted by YellowSnow
I just got the digital rebel last week, so I don't really know what you're talking about when you're saying to set the flash -2 or -3 stops. Does that mean to make it not as bright? Anyways, thanks for all your help.
|
I'm unsure sepcifially what he meant but I would think it means set your flash level to 2 or 3 stops below what the camara recommends for your apeture setting.
|
|
Nords
Gender: Male
| | Re: Which looks better?
<Reply # 15 on 4/22/2006 4:46 AM >
| | | | I definitely like both sets of pics withOUT the flash.
flash is good for snapshots, longer exposures look a LOT better though. Flash leaves the obvious shadows and harsh lighting, not sure if you can play with white balance to get it looking a little warmer, but flash always looks harsh to me.
|
|
Hi/Po
Location: Earth
Gender: Male
| | Re: Which looks better?
<Reply # 16 on 4/22/2006 5:12 PM >
| | | | Get an external flash gun and some sort of diffuser, for creating/controling shadows, and getting the light exactly where you want. Flash can be great sometimes. It's there for a reason. To deny its use is to limit yourself to a certain "frame" of photographic results.
Here's a lot of info on flash with Canon EOS: http://photonotes....rticles/eos-flash/
|
|
Lexi
Location: Oslo, Norway
Gender: Female
I'm getting old.
| | Re: Which looks better?
<Reply # 17 on 4/22/2006 5:49 PM >
| | | | I only use flash if there's absolutely NO light. Otherwise I do long exposures.
No flash, on both of them.
[15:00:33] <SeeThirty> cause you're not likely to be anywhere that other people haven't been who didn't have protection
[15:00:41] <SeeThirty> still better safe than lexi |
|
YellowSnow
Gender: Male
| | Re: Which looks better?
<Reply # 18 on 4/23/2006 4:03 AM >
| | | | Thanks guys, I think I'll go with the no-flash's.
>_> |
|
|
|
All content and images copyright © 2002-2024 UER.CA and respective creators. Graphical Design by Crossfire.
To contact webmaster, or click to email with problems or other questions about this site:
UER CONTACT
View Terms of Service |
View Privacy Policy |
Server colocation provided by Beanfield
This page was generated for you in 187 milliseconds. Since June 23, 2002, a total of 739852367 pages have been generated.
|
|
