Kan Win Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 One without flash and the other one using the built in flash. Oly E-5 Lens 12-60mm Both photos were only re-sized and nothing touch up. However when the final version comes out, it should be much better I think or just a "Flash in the Pan" so to speak. No Flash used Flash used Win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saltandpepper Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 I am not an expert..... I like both, with maybe a slight preference with the one with no flash. I wish I can do some nice pictures like these 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckamuck Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 The flash one looks like a flash picture, it has that artificial light look to it. The other one is better. I would Photoshop that stick out though. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddhistVirus Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 +1 for no flash 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kan Win Posted June 13, 2012 Author Share Posted June 13, 2012 Thank you for your comments to all that replied. The flash one looks like a flash picture, it has that artificial light look to it. The other one is better. I would Photoshop that stick out though. Flash is an artificial light in any camera that has one, so yes it does look like that as you say, but without the flash there is no real / natural light is there? in the foreground that is. I really like the hanging stick as it does not distract the distant sunset, but give the photo a more natural look about it. Why take nature away from the original photo? Win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckamuck Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 As a product photographer I always eliminated everything that distracted, I can't help but to do the same with scenics. For me the photo is completed in Photoshop because you can always take it a little bit further. But I realize this is not the purist approach. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kan Win Posted June 13, 2012 Author Share Posted June 13, 2012 Hi canuckamuck, Thank you for your C&C and I welcome them. Will think about what you wrote during me final editing version. Win P.S. Still, Nature has it's way, as all my photos are "Thailand as I see it". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genericnic Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Hi Win Like the others, I prefer the one with no flash. In general, the human eye is drawn to brighter spots than darker spots. That is what I think happens in your flash picture. If you want to use flash in a situation like that, I would suggest doing what Galen Rowell did to make flash look less like flash. Dial your flash down about 1-3/2 stops. Adds just enough light to bring out some detail without overdoing it. Here is a link to articles he wrote. Look for the one entitled "Smart Flash is Addictive" David 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
draggons Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 No flash for me colonel. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villagefarang Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 I too prefer no flash and removal of the stick. I also feel there is too much dead space in the photo so would probably prefer a little more cropping. Being two dimensional, a photo is never what you see. All photographs benefit from a little tender loving care in my opinion as it helps to express what the photographer feels as well as what he sees. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pauljones Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 I like the idea of using flash in these situations. I would try to dial down the flash and add a amber gel for this scene and see how it looks. A time exposure with some light painting on the foreground with a handheld light can be fun. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdnvic Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 Definitely the one without the flash. Multiple intensities of lighting does not make a good frame. It pulls the eyes all over the place. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kan Win Posted June 26, 2012 Author Share Posted June 26, 2012 Hi Folks, Thank you for taking your time out to C&C these two photos. I have noted all of your comments with thanks. Win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikecwm Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 Definitely the one with no flash is better. To my mind it's the sunset after glow that is of interest in these photos. The illuminated foreground vegetation just detracts from the interesting light in the distance. Seems to be the general view of posters as well. Good to know we all have taste isn't it? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romforum Posted December 25, 2012 Share Posted December 25, 2012 No Flash used Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemel Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 No flash for me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bifcake Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 I like the one without flash better. The black foliage serves as a frame around the sunset. You distract the eye from the sunset by popping the flash in the foreground. You could get away with popping the flash and giving the foreground a bit of detail, but I think you'd need to do two things to accomplish that:1. Pop an off camera flash to give the light a bit of depth 2. Bring the flash down about another stop, so that it doesn't overpower or distract from the sunset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phuketrichard Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 non flash and than photoshop to bring some detail out in the foreground/dark areas but make sure u try an keep it natural looking For me; i would zoom in a bit and eliminate the bush in the right foreground as well Then ur eyes lead you down the river Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanBBK Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 No flash please. Keep the stick. I would try a tad longer exposure. Like the idea of "light painting". Sent from my GT-I9500 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlesHH Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 do not use flash for a night landscape scene like you have. The flash fools the automatic camera and you get a darker picture like you did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forethat Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 (edited) Ok, my topic ... As far as your photos are concerned, they're perfect examples of the limitations of a camera - the brain of the camera will make a serious attempt at exposing both the sky and the darker areas, but in general it will fail miserably because the dynamic range is simply to great. You could potentially solve these problems, the most common way is to create an HDR. Personally, I'm not to fond of HDR, but that's me. Your composition makes the use of a flash difficult, but you could have created an awesome photo if you had a subject in the foreground and had that subject lit by flashes. Landscape photography with flash is almost pointless without a subject in the foreground, and impossible with a built in flash. But the big question here is why you would want to capture a night landscape photo without a light source? You can create awesome shots using a powerful torch, or even using your cars headlights. Traditional landscape photography at night tend to focus on capturing the glowing sky, and that's exactly what you've done in your photo, the first being by far the better one. So, what should you do if you want to use flash in darkness? First of all, get your camera in Manual mode. Forget any type of auto (including Aperture Priority and similar). Most important; get the flash off the camera, which means dont use the built in flash. And secondly (in MY opinion), you need something that sticks out, a subject other than the sky. The most common reason I see decent night shots amongst most amateurs (in my opinion) is that most photographers have yet to discover the possibilities with off-camera flash in MANUAL mode. Check out David Hobby for inspiration and how he uses flashes and strobes to focus on subjects in night photography. In fact, your photo is very similar to Davids, minus the cellist. http://davidhobby.zenfolio.com/ Lastly, keep in mind that with speedlites you can craft your own light. If you combine that with blocking out the ambient light with the shutter speed you can easily create the illusion of night when it is in fact plain daylight. It all depends what you want to capture. Edited June 15, 2014 by Forethat 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now