Quote:
Originally Posted by mdwsta4
i like the idea, but i would dial down the exposure compensation on the flash (you can do that with the S3). most of what you captured is severly overexposed. it would be a lot more powerful if the tree weren't as bright and had more detail/contrast in it.
|
Thanks mdwsta4, I think I know what you're aiming at. I do have 1 or 2 shots that are not overexposed and they do have a charisma of their own, it's different but still powerful. Now I think maybe the second shot would be better taken that way in the first place (instead of decreasing the exposure in post processing). I tried to darken the first photo too but the less interesting branches came up brighter, so I like it better like this - overexposed and flat.
I knew somehow that overexposure would be an issue. Frankly, I was going for it, and I really like the effect of it in the photos. That's why I named them silhouettes. Just as the daylight silhouettes are overly underexposed, these are overexposed by flash.
Now I'm being curious how right or wrong that is, technically speaking. It's not that I mind crossing the line, but I'd still like to know where it is. I know that overexposed daylight photos are technically considered damaged and are discarded in most cases. Only artistic photos are alowed to have burnouts... But what about the night photos? What about car light tracks, images drawn with light?...
Anyhow, I will try what you suggested, it's a good idea.
I'm also thinking of shooting trees with slightly longer exposure and slow sinc flash (I'm gonna need a tripod for that) ...