Here is a photograph of the cats, with the SB-600 flash aiming at them. It was the best way to solve a problem I was having, as it can be seen below...
The cat in the foreground appears fairly well lit, but what about the one in the background? Ben, when photographed with the SB-600 bouncing light off the ceiling, appears nicely exposed. Mimí, behind the TV stand, was not. I had to do something I usually don't, which is to aim the flash directly at them. That was the best way to get the results I wanted. Now... a common exposure problem: exposure for highlights. Which of the landscapes below looks better? The one right below...
Or this one?
The difference between them (in case it's not obvious) is a couple of notches of underexposure. In fact, the landscape below was shot as per camera meter settings on A-mode. It did give me a good color for the snow, as it appears right before sunset in my corner of the world. So, I dialed two thirds of underexposure (thanks to the Quick Exposure Compensation feature; check b4 in the Custom Setting Menu) and shot again (with a slight change of position, so as to avoid the distortion effect of the post on the left), and... voilà! Got the colors I wanted.
Why this move? Why tinker with the exposure?
The camera is a tool, and users tend to let it dictate their end result. In this particular situation even though I wanted (and metered on) the sunset colors, the camera matrix meter dialed up the highlights. It is a tendency of all digital sensors, and from what I understand, it's in their algorithm. However, a photographer has something better: brains. That's why, after noticing the slightly singed effect on colors, I took a second shot of the first photograph but with a slight underexposure. This one allowed me to register the colors I wanted.
As for the snow? One still can tell it's snow, right?
Later on, some flash effects with this camera and the SB-600.
No comments:
Post a Comment