Some Quince.....

K5, 100mm D FA Macro.Daylight.
Elements 11.


















...be good to hear your thoughts on these.

Roger.

My first thought would be... Decent images but why only use daylight ?

Why not?


Oh, and No 2 for me.

Because with ambient light you have what you have... With false light you can really create and design an image...!!

Nice images and good use of natural light. It's diffused nicely and created depth

Nice study. Very atmospheric with the natural lighting.

Are you making jelly with them?

Lovely chiaroscuro in these. Natural light well taken advantage of.

And "Natural Light" wins by four to one!

Stub, advocating flash here is probably swimming against the tide There is a common tendency to equate "natural" light with being obviously better. I suspect its "obviously better" for most because its more easily obtainable. How many times have we seen people write "I am a natural light photographer", and then a flash advocate writes in response "that means he just doesn't know how to use flash" !

I think there should be understanding and appreciation from both sides ..... here with Rogers shots, I find the light works best in the first one. The others I find the contrast too great (shadows very deep and sudden) and there are distracting hotspots on the lit sides. So perhaps a reflector could have been tried, plus some way to diffuse the light more.

If that was something I wanted to "improve" then yes, two flashes with diffusion could do it .... equally perhaps a white surface to reflect light back into the shadow side, plus some material over the window might achieve a similar result with only natural light.

Where there is a real difference between the two is the subject of exposure time ..... natural light in this sort of situation may well mean quite long exposure times, so the need for steadiness or support. Non flash users may not appreciate the sheer power and flexibility that comes from being able to shoot at ISO100, 1/180th sec and F11, in quite dim conditions.

There is a place for both natural light and artificial light sources, but the difference for me is between continuous lighting and flash, rather than natural lighting and flash.

Continuous lighting gives very different images to most flash shots, not least because the light sources tend to be larger than the point light of a small flash unit. Sudio flash is something else, and very versatile.

Personally I prefer continuous lighting with reflectors where necessary and sometimes studio flash.

Opps, what have I started...!! Sorry guys..
Nigel I didn't exactly say "flash" Though that would be sufficient, any kind of light or just a reflector would do. No need for the flash v ambient arguement.

These images could be exactly the authors intention. So if that's the case then he has returned what he intended. And people like me shouldn't pass opinion.

For me the images would be improved somewhat with more depth to them, and that is were I feel they need additional light. "Fill light" to give them that. The creation of a lighting ratio. There is enough light from the main "Key" ambient light, on the subject. Creating a highlight no less, But the stems start to disappear half way down. With the introduction of agressive shadows.

I also did say that the images were decent and I liked the idea...!!

"...be good to hear your thoughts on these."

Thanks, everyone.

None taken.

I still like them.

Chiaroscuro!

Roger.