Mar 16, 2006, 12:11
I was trying the different strengths of my flash compensation. And also trying to make it look good.
![[Image: march%20010.jpg]](http://www.shuttertalk.com/forums/images/upload/march%20010.jpg)
And one from underneath.
![[Image: march%20009.jpg]](http://www.shuttertalk.com/forums/images/upload/march%20009.jpg)
And one from underneath.
Mar 16, 2006, 12:26
They look very nice, the second one was also with flash??
Mar 16, 2006, 12:58
Nice ones, I like the first one more. The black background gives the photo a great look. What kind of flower is it? : P
Mar 16, 2006, 15:52
XeoX Wrote:Nice ones, I like the first one more. The black background gives the photo a great look. What kind of flower is it? : PIt is a Cyclamen, a corm or bulb that dries out after flowering and comes again the year after.
Inside, in a pot.
Irma, the second one was not with flash. I must have put the room light on.
Mar 16, 2006, 18:50
They both look great, was the flash direct? or diffused/bounced?
Mar 17, 2006, 07:55
Schellamo Wrote:They both look great, was the flash direct? or diffused/bounced?The first photo is direct flash (the one fastened to the camera) but I can compensate the strength (of the flash) up or down. The shadow at the bottom is from the lens hood.
It was at the lowest (weakest setting). On normal setting it overcooked everything and the petal on the left was just white.
Some other shots I did, because I was close, about 2 cm. I was getting flash bounced back and shining through the petals from behind. It could be interesting to see if someone has separate flash. Hide it behind the plant but let some come through.