All these were taken with flash or they'd have been nothing but blur!
On your mark, get set,....
JUMP!
The End.
Aw Danna, not poopyheaded at all! You nailed it on the head when you said the other 2 pictures look "softer." I think the best way to describe flash -vs- no flash is this:
flash= flatter images (less dimensional, more distortion of color and depth of field, darker backgrounds.
no flash= more natural looking images, the natural lighting gives lots of depth to the subject matter and has less distortion, softer/less harsh images (like you said) and more natural colors and backgrounds. Basically, no flash is "what you see is what you get" meaning no distortion from the flash. More "soft" and natural. SEE! You nailed it smack on the head!
He's getting some serious air in that one picture!
I think you have to have an eye -- trained or just talented -- for this, Deb, b/c I just don't see it. I love all three pics, & the first one just seems clearer to me while the others seem softer? Anyway, I feel like I may fail you as a student of photography b/c I feel like I'm missing something half the time. I hope that's not poopyheaded to say!!!!