BernardMiller

Mark

I appreciate your comment, and understand that, under normal circumstances, this is quite true. However, I personally think that this adds to, rather than detracts from this particular shot, which is not a formal portrait but rather a candid one, snapped in the midst of the swirl of Karneval. I think that having to work a bit to get to the subject's eyes adds a little bit of mystery to the photo, and, considering the young man's rather solemn expression despite his colorful costume, invites us to speculate on his mental processes.

What's the fun of photography if we can't break the rules once in a while?

Peace!

Christoph

 

Thanks for the compliment. I used a Sto-Fen Omnibounce, pointed directly at the spider. However, I don't think that is the reason for the appearance of the light, as there was nothing for it to bounce off of, really (I was not using a reflector). To be honest, I didn't really didn't know what I was doing back thenthis was largely a lucky shot, I suppose. The Sto-Fen may have softened the light a little, but probably the only thing it really did was effectively cut the maximum output of my flash by a stop or so.

Thanks for the compliments. To answer both of you, the shot was actually taken in the daytime (around 6 p.m.). I used an SB-26 flash with an off-camera cord (SC-17); the spider was obligingly still enough to allow me to set up the tripod. The shutter/aperture combination was such that the daylight was severely underexposed, and the only recorded light came from the flash--the background branches were far enough away that they weren't illuminated by it, enough to show up on film at least. This prevented the spider (and, unfortunately, I don't know what kind it is) from blending into a confusing background.

I like this pic. It has a sense of humor. Wish you could have avoided the shadows in the lower part of the picture, though.