(x-post) This flower better with or w/o use of Lightsphere?

[Steve S]

Originally put this thread up on Pro Lighting, but thought it might get a better response here.

Was out early this morning experimenting with my new Lightsphere 2, and would like some feedback as to whether or not you think the Lightsphere made the shot better.

Without Lightspere:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Make Nikon
Model NIKON D2X
Flash Used No
Focal Length 85 mm
Exposure Time 1/20 sec
Aperture f/9
ISO Equivalent 100
Exposure Bias
White Balance
Metering Mode multi spot (3)
JPEG Quality (6)
Exposure Program aperture priority

With Lightspere:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Make Nikon
Model NIKON D2X
Flash Used Yes
Focal Length 85 mm
Exposure Time 1/60 sec
Aperture f/9
ISO Equivalent 100
Exposure Bias
White Balance
Metering Mode multi spot (3)
JPEG Quality (6)
Exposure Program aperture priority

 

[Leigh]

Steve,
I'm no pro...In fact, I just shoot w/a CP8800. But I know what I like. The second one is much better to me. It's still the same flower, but w/much more detail...but not harsh like w/a standard flash. Not washed out. It just seems to have brought out the details more, patricularly in the center (where the detail was lost in the first shot due to what looks like lighting coming from the back). Again, not a pro, but I hope my comments are of some use.

 

[Jerry Snider]

This is a tough one! Both pics have excellent qualities depending upon what you are looking for in the pic.
I love the backlighting of the first one--really nice. A little photoshop work to bring out the center of the flower a bit and I think that I would prefer this one.

The second one does show more detail, but the flower center looks a tad soft. I like it enough to give serious consideration to the Lightsphere 2. Nice, soft lighting.

A difficult decision!
Jerry Snider

 

[Steve S]

Thanks you two, I like em both too

but at this point, after staring at them for too long, I think now I do prefer the backlit 1st shot. If only I could coax more detail out of it's center without messing up the rest of the shot. I should try it with a Quick Mask.

 

[Gilles]

Steve, i do too like Jerry prefer the first one. The color of the background is quite different between the two.

 

[Jerry Snider]

Steve,
Might be worth the risk to add a touch of shadow/highlight from Photoshop CS or CS2. Likely will not work, but only takes a few seconds.
Can always do a hide mask and touch it up a bit. Perhaps a tad of select color range to pop the center of the flower. However, as you read this you will become acutely aware that I have no idea what I am talking about!!
Would love to see your final results, however.
Jerry Snider

 

[Jerry Snider]

Are these pics shot such that you can combine the two? If on a tripod and never moved I think you would have the best of both worlds!
J. Snider

 

[Nedifer]

Hi Steve,

I think I like the first one better. The background is lighter and the backlighting seems to lift the flower, making it stand out better.

Before making the next comments, I'll preface them by saying that I think you are a much better photographer than I. But I'm trying to learn and this is what I see in the two pictures, so here goes...

I think that the second shot could have been improved by two things--1) reduce the output by around 1/4--3/4, which would have preserved more of the natural backlighting and 2) I think it would look better if the flash wasn't mounted on the camera, but rather coming in from the right to lighten up the inside of the left-hand petals and evenly light the inside of the flower.

Essentially, the effect I am thinking of is to try to preserve the halo effect caused by the backlighting while evenly lighting the inside of the flower just a little better.