"Jasmine" looks to be exposed nicely, but that darn sky in the BG is blown out. (but you knew that). That would have been a great opportunity for a fill flash or reflector for the foreground and expose for the background. Of course, it's easy to say that now, sitting here........ That darn stuff is a challenge sometimes, and I don't know about you, but I don't carry a reflector with me to WDW.![]()
I like the composition!![]()
"Jasmine" looks to be exposed nicely, but that darn sky in the BG is blown out. (but you knew that). That would have been a great opportunity for a fill flash or reflector for the foreground and expose for the background. Of course, it's easy to say that now, sitting here........ That darn stuff is a challenge sometimes, and I don't know about you, but I don't carry a reflector with me to WDW.![]()
I like the composition!![]()
lol.... I was typing my response when you put in your last post, so that was my thoughts before you said it. And the one of your neice is even more so.
I can see Jasmine's shadow, so she does not look photoshopped to me, but the one of your neice does.
I'm not sure exposing for the background would have kept the sky from blowing out , since the background was in the shade.
I actually did use fill flash, with Jasmine being in sun and shadow, then adding fill, to me it almost looks like she was photo shopped in,
that's why I decided not to use it....didn't want any controversy.
I had the same effect with a shot of my niece...
The only thing that bothers me about that picture is that the feet are cut off (I always do that, too!)
It's a little bright, but that doesn't really take away from the subject, in my opinion.