.... but, I've been told repeatedly that when someone KNOWS what they're doing with flash, you can't really tell they used it. I've yet to see an example of that myself, but I've had my eyes open for it. Until then, I prefer natural lighting.
So, window light, studio light, off camera Speedlite or on camera Speedlite?
I guess I should have been more specific, using flash outdoors bothers me.
For this image, I'm guessing something other than ambient window light. Although it's obvious that IF something other than window light was used, it was dialed back in intensity.
Interesting opinion. I'm sure you know that if I didn't light her with anything and metered on her, then everything else would be completely blown.
Of course. I'd just wait for better light. Perhaps a less strong lighting would have been less obvious.
This isn't a knock against you but, I've been told repeatedly that when someone KNOWS what they're doing with flash, you can't really tell they used it. I've yet to see an example of that myself, but I've had my eyes open for it. Until then, I prefer natural lighting.
Yep, true. This shot was certain time of day, so either couldn't shoot down towards the water or use flash.
As you have said the time of the day and the angle of the sun you had to make the choice of taking the shot and use flash or do not get the shot at all. I shall always go for getting the shot.
Just one thing, the "obviousness" of the flash is basicaly due to couple of areas on the skin (and the rim of the glasses) with localized highlights/reflections which would not be there if flash is not used, and a bit of extra (cannot say overexposure) exposure on the entire body. It is upto your taste and liking - but you may want to thing about reducing that over exposure slightly and eliminating those highlights. My guess is that will give a more "natural look". Of course depending on your liking you may disagree.
I agree that dialing in some flash exposure compensation would have been ideal here.