I woke up at 3am and realized what it was about the lighting. The sunlight is reflecting off the water as well. So we have as our key light the sun above lens axis and as a fill what would amount to a strip of sunlight (as seen by the bird) across the water filling in underneath. This would completely surround the bird in light leaving no chiaroscuro whatsoever. This is a common lighting arrangement for vain actresses in decline as its flatness fills in any wrinkles and refused to describe any bulges bags or sags. The difference would be that usually a softer reflector would be used such as a 4x8 sheet of foamcore reflecting light from an even softer source such as a soft box or umbrella. In this case the primary light source is a pinpoint 150 thousand kilometers away and the reflector an inefficiently mirrored surface. So? Sharp, flat, flinty lighting. Cruel and cold. Good for photographing dental work, I suppose. r wildimages@lineone.net wrote: > > <<Sorry for the mistake. I do feel that the lighting in the shot to terribly > lacking in any sense of romance. >>> > > Jim > > I have to agree with Robert on this: perhaps it is the lighting that was > really the thing I didn't take to. t
