Quote:
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
I'd like to see a better shot of the blond with the red top in the upper left.
|
Your wish is my command!
This is one of the problems with the whole Photoshop thing... it has ruined our innocence and makes us suspicious of every picture we see. (Of course, in some ways, that's good.)
Anyway, your average dinky on-camera flash is rarely effective past 10 or 12 feet or so. This is why it doesn't do you any good to use flash to (say) take a picture of a stage from back in the audience. It's also one reason why you see professional and serious amateur photographers carting around monstrous-looking flashes that attach to the outside of the camera.
One of the issues of using a flash is that you light different parts of the scene differently. If you do this in a dark room or at night, you'll end up with the foreground subject lit and everything in the background dark. That's kind of what happened in this shot--the frog is lit (and looks a bit unnatural, because there was already daylight on it), but the rest of the picture is unaffected. But the flash does have the side effect of "stopping" the motion of the frog, at least a bit. So, all things considered, I'd be willing to believe this picture was legit.