Which looks better?

Photography knowledge exchange.

Moderator: Scott Waters

Post Reply
simus343
Posts: 566
Joined: March 30th, 2014, 12:16 pm
Location: Okaloosa ca, Fla.

Which looks better?

Post by simus343 » September 11th, 2014, 4:35 pm

From the view of the FHF photography community, which of these pictures below looks better - overall and then, separately, lighting wise?

I have a waterproof, shock proof Nikon COOLPIX AW100. This is the best camera I will have for a while, at least until I'm done with college or have a better paying job to allow me to save up for a better camera. I want to make my pictures as best as possible with what I have.

1) Image

2) Image

Thank you for your takes and opinions on these photographs.

User avatar
NewYorkHerper16
Posts: 140
Joined: August 13th, 2014, 6:50 am
Location: Long Island, NY

Re: Which looks better?

Post by NewYorkHerper16 » September 11th, 2014, 6:42 pm

Nice photos! I would have to say i like the first one better because of the lighting. The flash seems to almost always make pictures a little "clearer" (maybe not the word im looking for) than non-flash pictures. I think some people would like the second one better though because it has a more natural look in terms of lighting. Both are good pictures though!

PS, thats a really good-looking diamondback you found! :D

simus343
Posts: 566
Joined: March 30th, 2014, 12:16 pm
Location: Okaloosa ca, Fla.

Re: Which looks better?

Post by simus343 » September 12th, 2014, 7:21 pm

Yeah I'm 50/50 on the two myself for the reasons you mentioned. I think the flash brings out the color more. In the natural light photograph the rattlesnake is rattling, and so it blurs the rattle and the body that is behind the rattle it seems, when I look carefully.

And don't thank me, thank farmers/ranchers that are willing to help make a difference. My boss at work has given snake tongs to some of the local farmers that said they would give us snakes instead of killing them if they could do so safely. This one was given to us at work by one of these farmers/ranchers.

User avatar
Stohlgren
Posts: 603
Joined: November 6th, 2010, 9:59 am
Location: Athens, GA (Columbia, MO)

Re: Which looks better?

Post by Stohlgren » September 13th, 2014, 3:44 am

So there are some issues with both images. In the first image, the flash is very harsh, causing harsh shadows behind the palm fronds and over exposing some parts of the snake (especially along the lower edge of the body). In the second image, the natural light is much softer, but the slower shutter speed that was necessary has caused motion blur. Blur in the rattle is not a big deal, but the head is also fuzzy, which kills an image, in my opinion. You could look into flash diffuser options (or create some kind of homemade options) for your current camera which could help improve images when you use flash. I am a fan of natural light, personally, but motion blur will always be an issue when you are limited to slow shutter speeds.

User avatar
Biker Dave
Posts: 2844
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 6:56 pm
Location: Wittmann,AZ

Re: Which looks better?

Post by Biker Dave » September 27th, 2014, 2:39 pm

Number one .... number two looks too washed out.

Post Reply