However, I disagree with your conclusion that the sun should have been on the goats instead. OK, perhaps a stunning image, but certainly not *mine*. On a warm day, goats (like most furry animals, and most sensible humans) prefer the shade if available. As it is, I tried to show this little flock in harmony with their beautiful surroundings (the outskirts of Stockholm, not some exotic place). Had they been spotlit by the sun, the pic would have said "look at these cute goats!" or something; now I feel it shows a relaxed family at home. I probably wouldn´t even had exposed one frame if they had been sunlit.
BTW, it IS a digital shot, and as usual when there´s time, I spot metered and then checked the histogram to see if I´d got the full brightness range. There is a lot of detail both in the goat fur and the sunlit background, but then a black goat in shade IS, er, black...
Per, the black sheep... :-)
2003-11-15 kl. 23.04 skrev Bob Talbot:
Per Ofverbeck - Happy family Everything about this shot from the foreground to the goats is nice and sharp. Beyond that thought the high-contrast bright background has caused the foreground to under-expose. I want some light on the animals but the bight yellow background shouts too me.
It's a common problem: it looks worse on film than it did to the eye. Mmmm ... does the same apply to digital? I have a lot of bird shots with similar loud backgrounds. Ultimately I never show them, I can't.
Imagine this scene with a dark background and sun on the goats: that would have been stunning.
