Simple: Either you or the subject didn\'t move, or there was very little natural light hitting the subject so that the main source of light was the flash...
n0b0 wrote:
No... I\'m trying to say that that flash duration has very little impact, if any, on the detail in a photo because if we follow your logic, any shots with slow shutter speed like mine or even slower for natural light macro would\'ve been soft due to that \"macro motion blur\" as you call it, don\'t you think so?
See above -it\'s possible that the flash was the only light source on the subject. One way to tell is to take two images, one with the flash and one without. If the subject is a silhouette then the flash is freezing the motion for you. The closer you get to the ambient exposure for the subject the more you\'re relying on the shutter. The further away you get from the ambient exposure for the subject the more you\'re relying on the flash to freeze motion.
It\'s very common for me to be out shooting on a brutally sunny day at 2x, F13, and 1/250 and if the flash doesn\'t fire there\'s still quite a bit of detail showing up in a scene. Most of the time it\'s the background and not the subject, and since it\'s out of focus motion blur won\'t make any difference.
Nov 08, 2009 at 06:50 AM
Previous versions of Dalantech's message #7747296 « Different diffusers »
