Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Would appreciate some feedback ...

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 2:07:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Hi all,

I've been experimenting with some indoor portraits - the best I've come up
with so far is at ...

http://www.fototime.com/A1C3CF984E1334E/orig.jpg

(Approx 3.5 Mb)

Just wondering if anyone would care to take a look - point out my mistakes -
and give me some pointers?

It was taken with a Canon 350D / standard 18-55mm lens (pretty much at the
55mm end), and a Speedlite EX380.

The aperature was wide open at F5.6 and as I wanted to use the flash in
"fill in" mode I went for aperature priority, giving 1/4 second exposure @
100 ISO (used tripod and remote shutter release) (I was using higher isos,
but wanted to keep the "ISO side-effects" to a minimum. White balance was
set to 'flash'.

I haven't corrected the photo in any way (yet) - I know that the temperature
is off (the wall behind is actually cream coloured) - and I can see the
shadow to her left (can't do much about it). I wasn't thrilled with the
focusing, but that's all she's giving at this point in time (hopefully a
better lens will produce a sharper result).

Any pointers anyone?

Many thanks in advance.

CC

More about : feedback

Anonymous
July 24, 2005 2:07:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005, at 22:07:56 [GMT +1200] (20:07:56 Saturday, 23 July
2005 where I live) "Cockpit Colin" wrote:

> Just wondering if anyone would care to take a look - point out my mistakes -
> and give me some pointers?

I would crop just above the head.

--
The backup's not over 'til the FAT table sings.
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 2:07:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

It looks sharp to me. Focus should be on the eyes, as you did. Any unsharp
areas of the picture are due to the limited depth of field.


"Cockpit Colin" <spam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3GoEe.2819$PL5.284005@news.xtra.co.nz...
> Hi all,
>
> I've been experimenting with some indoor portraits - the best I've come up
> with so far is at ...
>
> http://www.fototime.com/A1C3CF984E1334E/orig.jpg
>
> (Approx 3.5 Mb)
>
> Just wondering if anyone would care to take a look - point out my
mistakes -
> and give me some pointers?
>
> It was taken with a Canon 350D / standard 18-55mm lens (pretty much at the
> 55mm end), and a Speedlite EX380.
>
> The aperature was wide open at F5.6 and as I wanted to use the flash in
> "fill in" mode I went for aperature priority, giving 1/4 second exposure @
> 100 ISO (used tripod and remote shutter release) (I was using higher isos,
> but wanted to keep the "ISO side-effects" to a minimum. White balance was
> set to 'flash'.
>
> I haven't corrected the photo in any way (yet) - I know that the
temperature
> is off (the wall behind is actually cream coloured) - and I can see the
> shadow to her left (can't do much about it). I wasn't thrilled with the
> focusing, but that's all she's giving at this point in time (hopefully a
> better lens will produce a sharper result).
>
> Any pointers anyone?
>
> Many thanks in advance.
>
> CC
>
>
Related resources
July 24, 2005 2:07:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <3GoEe.2819$PL5.284005@news.xtra.co.nz>, spam@nospam.com says...
> Hi all,
>
> I've been experimenting with some indoor portraits - the best I've come up
> with so far is at ...
>
> http://www.fototime.com/A1C3CF984E1334E/orig.jpg
>
> (Approx 3.5 Mb)
>
> Just wondering if anyone would care to take a look - point out my mistakes -
> and give me some pointers?
>
> It was taken with a Canon 350D / standard 18-55mm lens (pretty much at the
> 55mm end), and a Speedlite EX380.
>
> The aperature was wide open at F5.6 and as I wanted to use the flash in
> "fill in" mode I went for aperature priority, giving 1/4 second exposure @
> 100 ISO (used tripod and remote shutter release) (I was using higher isos,
> but wanted to keep the "ISO side-effects" to a minimum. White balance was
> set to 'flash'.
>
> I haven't corrected the photo in any way (yet) - I know that the temperature
> is off (the wall behind is actually cream coloured) - and I can see the
> shadow to her left (can't do much about it). I wasn't thrilled with the
> focusing, but that's all she's giving at this point in time (hopefully a
> better lens will produce a sharper result).
>
> Any pointers anyone?
>
> Many thanks in advance.
>
> CC
>
>
>

That shadow on the wall can be made to go away with anything from using the
speedight bounced off the cieling to using a dedicated fill light.

I have two AC powered slaves with stands and umbrellas that only cost $70
(US) each and do the job nicely.

Even a little $20 slave on a table top will fill that shadow.

The 18 -55 lens will sharpen up a bit with more light, and more light is what
you need for all the faults in the shot as far as I can see.

Shoot RAW
Use as much light as you can get unless you are trying to set a special mood
Dont let the camera make ANY choices for you. You use the flash in MANUAL,
YOU focus, YOU choose the apeture, YOU choose the shutter speed, and YOU fix
the white balance/color temperature when converting from RAW.

If you dont have PhotoShop CS2 Then get Elements (about $90) you really need
one or the other.. Its a tool of the trade that allows you MUCH more
flexibility.
--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 2:07:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Cockpit Colin" <spam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3GoEe.2819$PL5.284005@news.xtra.co.nz...
> Hi all,
>
> I've been experimenting with some indoor portraits - the best I've come up
> with so far is at ...
>
> http://www.fototime.com/A1C3CF984E1334E/orig.jpg
>
> (Approx 3.5 Mb)
>
> Just wondering if anyone would care to take a look - point out my
mistakes -
> and give me some pointers?

1) Bad lighting leading to unpleasant shadows. Shadows in a portrait should
serve some compositional purpose: they shouldn't just be distracting blobs
of darkness hanging about the picture.

2) Terrible background. The checked fabric conflicts with the knitted
shawl/afghan, both of which clash with the young woman's top. The expanse
of blank wall is distractingly boring.

3) Wrong color temperature-- it looks as is the shot was made in ambient
tungsten lighting with no regard for white balance.

4) Bad posing of the subject. Except for mug shots, having a portrait
subject stare intently into the camera's lens is rarely effective.

5) A little makeup on the facial blemish might have been appropriate.

6) Combing and arranging the young woman's hair wouldn't have hurt.

7) I just love the pointlessly-open pocket flap on her right upper arm

8) through 100) I simply don't have the time to list them all.

You have a very pretty subject who should make an attractive portrait if
properly posed and lighted. As it stands now, the portrait looks as if it
were intended to be delivered to the girl's parents in a stained manila
envelope, accompanied by a block-printed, crudely-spelled ransom note and
one of her fingers in a little box.

Seriously, this is an effort to spam the newsgroup, right?
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 2:07:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Cockpit Colin" <spam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3GoEe.2819$PL5.284005@news.xtra.co.nz...
> Hi all,
>
> I've been experimenting with some indoor portraits - the best I've come up
> with so far is at ...
>
> http://www.fototime.com/A1C3CF984E1334E/orig.jpg
>
> (Approx 3.5 Mb)
>
> Just wondering if anyone would care to take a look - point out my
> mistakes - and give me some pointers?
>
> It was taken with a Canon 350D / standard 18-55mm lens (pretty much at the
> 55mm end), and a Speedlite EX380.
>
> The aperature was wide open at F5.6 and as I wanted to use the flash in
> "fill in" mode I went for aperature priority, giving 1/4 second exposure @
> 100 ISO (used tripod and remote shutter release) (I was using higher isos,
> but wanted to keep the "ISO side-effects" to a minimum. White balance was
> set to 'flash'.
>
> I haven't corrected the photo in any way (yet) - I know that the
> temperature is off (the wall behind is actually cream coloured) - and I
> can see the shadow to her left (can't do much about it). I wasn't thrilled
> with the focusing, but that's all she's giving at this point in time
> (hopefully a better lens will produce a sharper result).
>
> Any pointers anyone?
>
> Many thanks in advance.
>
> CC
>
I find the shot technically okay, but I find the pose to be boring. Look
directly at the camera, with your body squared up to the lens, and smile,
doesn't always get you an interesting portrait. Also, if you can pull the
subject away from the wall and use less depth of field you can virtually
eliminate the background.

I recently took a portrait with a borrowed lens (105mm 2.8). The subject
was sitting on the couch, but I had her turn sideways while I sat on the
other end of the couch. I tightened up on the face and with plenty of
distance between her head and the background, the background just fell away.
Also, no shadows.
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 2:07:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <3GoEe.2819$PL5.284005@news.xtra.co.nz>,
"Cockpit Colin" <spam@nospam.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I've been experimenting with some indoor portraits - the best I've come up
> with so far is at ...
>
> http://www.fototime.com/A1C3CF984E1334E/orig.jpg

I feel ok about this:

http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/origcopy.jpg

I cropped, cloned the blemish away, adjusted the color levels on
different hues, sharpened slightly, and did some burning and dodging in
a new layer with an overlay mask at 30%. (I should have taken some shine
off the right cheek.)

Get closer to the subject and, as someone said, leave out background
space and clutter. And yeah, bounce the flash off the ceiling.

I think if you want to get serious about digital photography you need
photoshop CS.

Also, the 350 should have a white balance setting for flash. But you can
change the film temperature when you look at the RAW into Photoshop.

I know this sounds like a lot. It is a lot. Be patient.

Peace.

--

http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 2:07:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"CFB" <look@u.com> wrote in message
news:look-0E7DA4.15371023072005@news3-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
> In article <3GoEe.2819$PL5.284005@news.xtra.co.nz>,
> "Cockpit Colin" <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I've been experimenting with some indoor portraits - the best I've come
up
> > with so far is at ...
> >
> > http://www.fototime.com/A1C3CF984E1334E/orig.jpg
>
> I feel ok about this:
>
> http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/origcopy.jpg
>
> I cropped, cloned the blemish away, adjusted the color levels on
> different hues, sharpened slightly, and did some burning and dodging in
> a new layer with an overlay mask at 30%. (I should have taken some shine
> off the right cheek.)
>

That's an improvement but I think the crop is too tight.

Greg
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 2:24:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Good idea - unfortunately I only had my laptop handy, with no editing tools
:( 

Thanks for that.
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 4:15:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

What's a good aperture for an appropriate DOF when doing portraits? I think
I recall someone saying nothing less than F5.6? (which is what I shot it
at).

For doing portrait work would you literally select just one AF point, and
put that on an eye? or is it usually acceptable just to let the camera
choose the closest point and let a sufficient DOF take care of the rest?

I somewhat curious to know how the image would have looked if taken with a
prime L series lens.
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 4:57:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Thanks Larry,

I thought initially that the shadow was caused by an overhead room light,
but I realised afterwards that it's to the left because I had the camera
rotated 90 deg on the tripod, with the 380EX mounted on top. I'll invest in
more flash gear fairly soon, but sounds like the best I can hope for in the
meantime is to ty and do this kind of work when the natural light is as
bright as possible (rather hard at the moment - it's the middle of winter
here).

I didn't think of bouncing it off something - I'll try to experiment with
that.

I'll don't have Photoshop yet, but plan to give the 30 day trial a go
shortly - so far I've had a quick play with the software that came with the
camera, but frankly, I can't stand it.

Like they say "there's no problem that money can't solve!"

Thanks again.



> That shadow on the wall can be made to go away with anything from using
> the
> speedight bounced off the cieling to using a dedicated fill light.
>
> I have two AC powered slaves with stands and umbrellas that only cost $70
> (US) each and do the job nicely.
>
> Even a little $20 slave on a table top will fill that shadow.
>
> The 18 -55 lens will sharpen up a bit with more light, and more light is
> what
> you need for all the faults in the shot as far as I can see.
>
> Shoot RAW
> Use as much light as you can get unless you are trying to set a special
> mood
> Dont let the camera make ANY choices for you. You use the flash in MANUAL,
> YOU focus, YOU choose the apeture, YOU choose the shutter speed, and YOU
> fix
> the white balance/color temperature when converting from RAW.
>
> If you dont have PhotoShop CS2 Then get Elements (about $90) you really
> need
> one or the other.. Its a tool of the trade that allows you MUCH more
> flexibility.
> --
> Larry Lynch
> Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 4:57:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

>
> I'll don't have Photoshop yet, but plan to give the 30 day trial a go
> shortly - so far I've had a quick play with the software that came with
> the camera, but frankly, I can't stand it.
>
> Like they say "there's no problem that money can't solve!"
>
> Thanks again.
>

Lets face it, if you can't get PSCS then you have to get Elements 3.0, now,
just do it, you know you want to. In the mean time get Irfanview, it will do
most of what you need for no cost.
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 2:03:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> meantime is to ty and do this kind of work when the natural light is as
> bright as possible (rather hard at the moment - it's the middle of winter
> here).

Where's "here" Colin?

Toa
New Zealand
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 2:03:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Toa" <toa1614@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:42e2bfb1@news.orcon.net.nz...
>> meantime is to ty and do this kind of work when the natural light is as
>> bright as possible (rather hard at the moment - it's the middle of winter
>> here).
>
> Where's "here" Colin?
>

South of the equator somewhere I guess.
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 2:34:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> South of the equator somewhere I guess.

Good guess Pete. Not long out of school huh <g>

Toa
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 2:34:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Toa" <toa1614@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:42e2c729@news.orcon.net.nz...
>> South of the equator somewhere I guess.
>
> Good guess Pete. Not long out of school huh <g>
>

Second childhood? LOL
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 3:16:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> Where's "here" Colin?
>
> Toa
> New Zealand

I'm in Nelson - how about you?
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 3:19:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005, at 11:44:00 [GMT +1200] (09:44:00 Sunday, 24 July 2005
where I live) "Toa" wrote:

> Auckland here. I don't often get through that way but plan on it some time
> early March

Would the last person to leave New Zealand please turn out the lights?

--
Computers can never replace human stupidity.
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 3:19:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"John Phillips" <flatulantdingo@deadspam.com> wrote in message
news:873948710.20050724111940@deadspam.com...
> On Sun, 24 Jul 2005, at 11:44:00 [GMT +1200] (09:44:00 Sunday, 24 July
> 2005
> where I live) "Toa" wrote:
>
>> Auckland here. I don't often get through that way but plan on it some
>> time
>> early March
>
> Would the last person to leave New Zealand please turn out the lights?

Ho ho ho, that's a great one!!
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 3:41:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Paul H." <xxpaulhtck@zzcomcast.yynet> wrote in message
news:16idnY3Be-N-9X_fRVn-oQ@comcast.com...

> 1) Bad lighting leading to unpleasant shadows. Shadows in a portrait
> should
> serve some compositional purpose: they shouldn't just be distracting
> blobs
> of darkness hanging about the picture.

I'm the first to admit it's less than desireable, but I don't have anything
to augment it just yet. I wondering how a couple of 250 watt halogens (on a
stand) from the local hardware store would go?

> 2) Terrible background. The checked fabric conflicts with the knitted
> shawl/afghan, both of which clash with the young woman's top. The expanse
> of blank wall is distractingly boring.

Any tips for a better background that would be readily available in the
average home?

> 3) Wrong color temperature-- it looks as is the shot was made in ambient
> tungsten lighting with no regard for white balance.

Yes, I realised that already. I'll didn't think to experiment with this
first - but now I've learned something thanks to the group effort - so
thanks for that. As I mentioned, the backgroud wall is actually cream
coloured, but I don't have the tools to correct it at hand.

> 4) Bad posing of the subject. Except for mug shots, having a portrait
> subject stare intently into the camera's lens is rarely effective.

Not the way it was intended - I actually shot a burst of around 20 shots in
a short time - many got discarded due to poor photos and gawky expressions -
this one was the best of the batch. It wasn't an intense stare, just the way
this particular shot panned out. Personally, I liked the pose in this one.

> 5) A little makeup on the facial blemish might have been appropriate.

Point taken, but it was outside the scope of the exercise (and our available
equipment) (it's only an experimental exercise - I doubt any will ever even
get printed)

> 6) Combing and arranging the young woman's hair wouldn't have hurt.

Again, not part of the exercise (yet) - will keep it in mind though.

> 7) I just love the pointlessly-open pocket flap on her right upper arm

Same as above.

> 8) through 100) I simply don't have the time to list them all.

The first 7 were great - many valuable things for this amatuer to consider -
thank you for those.

> You have a very pretty subject who should make an attractive portrait if
> properly posed and lighted. As it stands now, the portrait looks as if it
> were intended to be delivered to the girl's parents in a stained manila
> envelope, accompanied by a block-printed, crudely-spelled ransom note and
> one of her fingers in a little box.

Lol - actually just a friend of my daughter who likes having her photo
taken - and hence an opportunity for me to go from (hopefully) the "roll
over" to the "just starting to crawl" stage of my photographic hobby (I
usually fly aeroplanes for a hobby - the aircraft I love, it's just some of
the people around them that I can't stand!)

> Seriously, this is an effort to spam the newsgroup, right?

Seriously? I was quite surprised by your comment. I'm the first to admit
that I'm at the bottom end of a steep learning curve - on the other hand I'm
a smart guy who learns fast and doesn't have an ego that stops me asking for
help from others who are better at this than I am - hence the reason for my
post. I'm surprised that wasn't / isn't more obvious to you.

Thanks again for your input - much appreciated.
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 3:41:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Cockpit Colin wrote:
> "Paul H." <xxpaulhtck@zzcomcast.yynet> wrote in message
> news:16idnY3Be-N-9X_fRVn-oQ@comcast.com...
>
>> 1) Bad lighting leading to unpleasant shadows. Shadows in a
>> portrait
>> should
>> serve some compositional purpose: they shouldn't just be
>> distracting
>> blobs
>> of darkness hanging about the picture.
>
> I'm the first to admit it's less than desireable, but I don't have
> anything to augment it just yet. I wondering how a couple of 250
> watt
> halogens (on a stand) from the local hardware store would go?
>

I have a flyer from Craftsman: 1000W twin-head worklight quick-release
mounted on a tripod, tilts 90 deg, swivels 130 deg, 12-ft cord, up to
70-in tall. "Variable switch switch lets you select from four levels
of light; 250 W, 500W, 750W and 1000W." Item #73825, reg 29.99, 19.99
(USD) July 27-30.

How can I pass that up?

--
Frank ess
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 3:41:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <BAAEe.2896$PL5.293952@news.xtra.co.nz>,
Cockpit Colin <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>"Paul H." <xxpaulhtck@zzcomcast.yynet> wrote in message
>news:16idnY3Be-N-9X_fRVn-oQ@comcast.com...

[ ... ]

>> 2) Terrible background. The checked fabric conflicts with the knitted
>> shawl/afghan, both of which clash with the young woman's top. The expanse
>> of blank wall is distractingly boring.
>
>Any tips for a better background that would be readily available in the
>average home?

Well ... I don't know your home, and *mine* is certainly not the
"average home", but ...

Various bed sheets come to mind. Some are nicely patterned,
others nice pastel shades. This should be large enough so there is no
transition between the background and the wall surface.

You'll need to stretch the top fairly tight, and then perhaps
add a bar across the bottom to minimize wrinkles. Ideally, look for
ones where a fitted bottom sheet has died, and the matching top sheet is
still in good condition. You'll probably have to cut off any fitted
corners (if present) on the top sheet, hem it, and iron it before use.
Once you do this, you may want to keep it rolled up on some tubing
(mailing tube or PVC pipe) to keep folds from showing later.

The traditional non-obtrusive background is seamless paper,
rolled on just such a tube, falling vertically behind the subject, and
then gently curving to under the subject to hide any corners at the
bottom. It can be relatively expensive, and awkward to store, which is
why I suggested the sheets.

Or -- as already suggested by others -- space your subject a
greater distance in front of a background, and shoot with a lens fairly
wide open. For my Nikon D70, I would probably use the 50mm f1.4
indoors, and go pretty close to wide open, or outdoors, I might use the
28-105mm f3.5-4.5 zoomed in fairly tight, and near the maximum aperture
available. (The 180mm f2.8 would give lots of depth-of-field isolation,
but it would put you a bit too far from the subject for comfortable
working.

Enjoy,
DoN.

P.S. While I agree that most portraits don't work well straight on,
this one does, for me -- helped by the subject's expression.
--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 3:41:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <DKWdnfi8gZ_yRH_fRVn-1A@giganews.com>,
"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote:


>I have a flyer from Craftsman: 1000W twin-head worklight quick-release
>mounted on a tripod, tilts 90 deg, swivels 130 deg, 12-ft cord, up to
>70-in tall. "Variable switch switch lets you select from four levels
>of light; 250 W, 500W, 750W and 1000W." Item #73825, reg 29.99, 19.99
>(USD) July 27-30.

>How can I pass that up?

That's lots of red and green light for your sensor; but very deficient
with blue. About 2 stops. So, if you shoot at ISO 400. lets say, the
blue channel's exposure indevx will be ISO 1600, with only 10 bits of
capture. You really need some deep blue filters that are big enough
that they can be far enough away not to get real hot.

--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
July 24, 2005 3:41:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <DKWdnfi8gZ_yRH_fRVn-1A@giganews.com>, frank@fshe2fs.com says...
> I have a flyer from Craftsman: 1000W twin-head worklight quick-release
> mounted on a tripod, tilts 90 deg, swivels 130 deg, 12-ft cord, up to
> 70-in tall. "Variable switch switch lets you select from four levels
> of light; 250 W, 500W, 750W and 1000W." Item #73825, reg 29.99, 19.99
> (USD) July 27-30.
>
> How can I pass that up?
>
> --
> Frank ess
>
>
>

I have that stand ( a pair of them actually) and they WILL make shadows
disolve.. but even in winter, they will heat a room past any reasonable
comfort level in very short order.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 3:44:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> I'm in Nelson - how about you?

Auckland here. I don't often get through that way but plan on it some time
early March

Toa
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 3:47:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> Seriously? I was quite surprised by your comment.
I'm not. Having been around various newsgroups over the years I've seen
various folk with various approaches to life. Some are helpful, some not
and some are a mix of both. You've stumbled across the latter. It's the
old story about wheat and chaff and having to sort one from the other

Toa
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 3:48:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> I find the shot technically okay, but I find the pose to be boring. Look
> directly at the camera, with your body squared up to the lens, and smile,
> doesn't always get you an interesting portrait. Also, if you can pull the
> subject away from the wall and use less depth of field you can virtually
> eliminate the background.

It was actually one of a burst of about 20 - I was mostly working on "part
A" (ie getting lighting / focus / DOF etc good) rather than "part B" (pose /
makeup / hair etc). I only have a 18-55mm lens - the first series I shot
were from about 2m away, but when I zoomed in on the face and shoulders I'd
lost too much detail, so I moved the camera in to about 1m and got the
results you see. As someone mentioned, a good crop would help a lot - but I
didn't have any tools handy to do it.

> I recently took a portrait with a borrowed lens (105mm 2.8). The subject
> was sitting on the couch, but I had her turn sideways while I sat on the
> other end of the couch. I tightened up on the face and with plenty of
> distance between her head and the background, the background just fell
> away. Also, no shadows.

I'll have to give that a try as well.
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 4:01:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> I cropped, cloned the blemish away, adjusted the color levels on
> different hues, sharpened slightly, and did some burning and dodging in
> a new layer with an overlay mask at 30%. (I should have taken some shine
> off the right cheek.)

Thanks for that - I appreciate the effort, although unfortunately it was a
bit small for me to have been able to appreciate all of your good work.

> Get closer to the subject and, as someone said, leave out background
> space and clutter. And yeah, bounce the flash off the ceiling.

I think I need a longer lens - I was already about 1m from the subject with
the 18-55mm lens at 39mm. I'm going to try bouncing the flash, and will also
pick up a couple of 250 watt halogens from the local hardware store (cheap
as).

> I think if you want to get serious about digital photography you need
> photoshop CS.

I'm the first to agree - I'm just evaluating my options to get a legit copy
at the best price.

> Also, the 350 should have a white balance setting for flash. But you can
> change the film temperature when you look at the RAW into Photoshop.

I deliberately set the white balance for flash - which is why I'm surprised
the cream coloured wall came out looking like it did. I've never worked with
RAW files - but I guess they're a logical progression once I get photoshop.

> I know this sounds like a lot. It is a lot. Be patient.

Thanks for that - it is a lot to learn, but I'll get there - 2 weeks ago I
couldn't even remember if I needed to open or close the aperture to increase
the DOF!
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 4:01:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <dTAEe.2903$PL5.296041@news.xtra.co.nz>,
Cockpit Colin <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
>> I cropped, cloned the blemish away, adjusted the color levels on
>> different hues, sharpened slightly, and did some burning and dodging in
>> a new layer with an overlay mask at 30%. (I should have taken some shine
>> off the right cheek.)
>
>Thanks for that - I appreciate the effort, although unfortunately it was a
>bit small for me to have been able to appreciate all of your good work.

Well ... you warned of a 3.5 MB image file, but what was on the
web site was only 35785 bytes -- rather severely jpeg'd compared to what
I had expected.

[ ... ]

>> Also, the 350 should have a white balance setting for flash. But you can
>> change the film temperature when you look at the RAW into Photoshop.
>
>I deliberately set the white balance for flash - which is why I'm surprised
>the cream coloured wall came out looking like it did.

I believe that you said that you set the camera so the flash was
being used only for fill. That would (since you were using the camera's
built-in flash, I believe) would have meant that your subject would have
gotten a bit more of the flash compared to the ambient light than the
somewhat more distant wall, but both would have gotten most of their
light from the ambient, which I suspect was tungsten, not fluorescent.

> I've never worked with
>RAW files - but I guess they're a logical progression once I get photoshop.


Or other ways, if your preferred computer is not a Windows or a
Mac machine. :-) (Those are all that Photoshop seems to support.)

Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 4:01:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <dbuol8$f0h$1@Fuego.d-and-d.com>,
dnichols@d-and-d.com (DoN. Nichols) wrote:

> In article <dTAEe.2903$PL5.296041@news.xtra.co.nz>,
> Cockpit Colin <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> >> I cropped, cloned the blemish away, adjusted the color levels on
> >> different hues, sharpened slightly, and did some burning and dodging in
> >> a new layer with an overlay mask at 30%. (I should have taken some shine
> >> off the right cheek.)
> >
> >Thanks for that - I appreciate the effort, although unfortunately it was a
> >bit small for me to have been able to appreciate all of your good work.
>
> Well ... you warned of a 3.5 MB image file, but what was on the
> web site was only 35785 bytes -- rather severely jpeg'd compared to what
> I had expected.
>
> [ ... ]
>
> >> Also, the 350 should have a white balance setting for flash. But you can
> >> change the film temperature when you look at the RAW into Photoshop.
> >
> >I deliberately set the white balance for flash - which is why I'm surprised
> >the cream coloured wall came out looking like it did.
>
> I believe that you said that you set the camera so the flash was
> being used only for fill. That would (since you were using the camera's
> built-in flash, I believe) would have meant that your subject would have
> gotten a bit more of the flash compared to the ambient light than the
> somewhat more distant wall, but both would have gotten most of their
> light from the ambient, which I suspect was tungsten, not fluorescent.

Ahhhh....very good point. Nice catch.


>
> > I've never worked with
> >RAW files - but I guess they're a logical progression once I get photoshop.
>
>
> Or other ways, if your preferred computer is not a Windows or a
> Mac machine. :-) (Those are all that Photoshop seems to support.)
>
> Enjoy,
> DoN.

--

http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 4:16:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Thanks amazing - I didn't know there was any life North of the Bombay hills
:) 

What sort of photography are you into? Professional? Hobby?
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 4:22:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> I have a flyer from Craftsman: 1000W twin-head worklight quick-release
> mounted on a tripod, tilts 90 deg, swivels 130 deg, 12-ft cord, up to
> 70-in tall. "Variable switch switch lets you select from four levels of
> light; 250 W, 500W, 750W and 1000W." Item #73825, reg 29.99, 19.99 (USD)
> July 27-30.
>
> How can I pass that up?

You've got me thinking about how many watts I need. I've seen a unit at the
local hardware store consisting of 2 x 250 watt halogen lamps mounted on a
tripod. I can't remember the specifics but I think various bits go up and
down / left and right etc.

At least I'll be able to hook it all up to my variac and get anything from 0
to 500 watts per unit :) 
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 4:22:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <obBEe.2908$PL5.296714@news.xtra.co.nz>,
Cockpit Colin <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
>> I have a flyer from Craftsman: 1000W twin-head worklight quick-release
>> mounted on a tripod, tilts 90 deg, swivels 130 deg, 12-ft cord, up to
>> 70-in tall. "Variable switch switch lets you select from four levels of
>> light; 250 W, 500W, 750W and 1000W." Item #73825, reg 29.99, 19.99 (USD)
>> July 27-30.
>>
>> How can I pass that up?
>
>You've got me thinking about how many watts I need. I've seen a unit at the
>local hardware store consisting of 2 x 250 watt halogen lamps mounted on a
>tripod. I can't remember the specifics but I think various bits go up and
>down / left and right etc.
>
>At least I'll be able to hook it all up to my variac and get anything from 0
>to 500 watts per unit :) 

With the consideration that the color temperature will change as
you adjust the Variac. I'm not sure how much it happens with a halogen
lamp, though I believe that below a certain temperature, the halogen
remains as a solid precipitated out on the filament and the bulb inside
surface, so I would expect a sudden C.T. shift as you slowly increased
the voltage.

And -- again below a certain temperature, I believe that the
erosion of the filament (which is normally protected by the halogen
vapor cloud) will increase, resulting in a shorter lamp life.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 4:29:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

>> Seriously? I was quite surprised by your comment.

> I'm not. Having been around various newsgroups over the years I've seen
> various folk with various approaches to life. Some are helpful, some not
> and some are a mix of both. You've stumbled across the latter. It's the
> old story about wheat and chaff and having to sort one from the other

It's cool - I've been around Usenet forever as well - I think people often
read something between the lines that just wasn't meant to be there. Egos of
course come into it a lot as well.

I found the post very helpful, although a surprisingly detailed response if
he really did consider it to be spam (does he mean troll?)
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 8:12:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> What sort of photography are you into? Professional? Hobby?

It's all hobby for me. I make a living working out how many beans make five
so cameras and motorcycles help to keep me sane. Been taking photos since I
was a teenager (all my kids are beyond their own teenage years now) but I've
got much to learn. I've never taken a lesson in my life so am taking some
night classes starting in a couple of weeks. I need to learn about better
use of available light plus grab some tips on composition

I like taking photos of people, specially when amongst groups of friends and
family. Here's a bunch I took when on holiday a few weeks ago. Mostly just
holiday snaps.
http://photobucket.com/albums/v70/toa1614/Boscobel-Kana...

They were taken mostly with a P&S Pentax 5MP and a P&S Fuji 3MP. That
latter had a 6X zoom. I've been reasonably pleased with them but always
annoyed at the shtter lag, specially on the Fuji so figured it was time to
splash out onj a real camera. I still had my old Minolta SLR and a couple
of lenses to grabbed a 7D last weekend. Combined with my 70-300 I should be
able to get closer shots without getting physically too close (which tends
to make some people a bit self-concious).

Now for the learning curve <g>

Toa
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 8:12:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> Would the last person to leave New Zealand please turn out the lights?

<chuckle>

I intend to be here for a few more years <g>

Toa
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 8:47:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Cockpit Colin wrote:
> > I cropped, cloned the blemish away, adjusted the color levels on
> > different hues, sharpened slightly, and did some burning and dodging in
> > a new layer with an overlay mask at 30%. (I should have taken some shine
> > off the right cheek.)
>
> Thanks for that - I appreciate the effort, although unfortunately it was a
> bit small for me to have been able to appreciate all of your good work.
>
> > Get closer to the subject and, as someone said, leave out background
> > space and clutter. And yeah, bounce the flash off the ceiling.
>
> I think I need a longer lens - I was already about 1m from the subject with
> the 18-55mm lens at 39mm. I'm going to try bouncing the flash, and will also
> pick up a couple of 250 watt halogens from the local hardware store (cheap
> as).
>
> > I think if you want to get serious about digital photography you need
> > photoshop CS.
>
> I'm the first to agree - I'm just evaluating my options to get a legit copy
> at the best price.




You might want to go the the Corel web site and download the trial of
Paint Shop Pro 9 and see how you like it or just do a Google for "Paint
Shop Pro 9 vs Photoshop" and make up your mind. If you like the idea
of PSP9, you can go here to get a copy for $40 US with the Amazon
guarantee:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/offering/li...


.... and before any net cops get cranked up, no this isn't spam because
I don't own Amazon or even care if he buys it.. or where. It's just
one suggestion on a cheap way to get a full function editor for a
beginner. Picasa2 is also free, but the edit functions are limited and
there is another free one that was already mentioned (Irfanview, I
think) that is pretty full featured as well, so putting it off because
of money shouldn't be an issue.




>
> > Also, the 350 should have a white balance setting for flash. But you can
> > change the film temperature when you look at the RAW into Photoshop.
>
> I deliberately set the white balance for flash - which is why I'm surprised
> the cream coloured wall came out looking like it did. I've never worked with
> RAW files - but I guess they're a logical progression once I get photoshop.
>
> > I know this sounds like a lot. It is a lot. Be patient.
>
> Thanks for that - it is a lot to learn, but I'll get there - 2 weeks ago I
> couldn't even remember if I needed to open or close the aperture to increase
> the DOF!
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 10:01:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> Would the last person to leave New Zealand please turn out the lights?

I don't get it - our population is increasing. And with all the terrorism
going on in other places, I wouldn't mind betting it'll be increasing even
faster.
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 10:09:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> Well ... you warned of a 3.5 MB image file, but what was on the
> web site was only 35785 bytes -- rather severely jpeg'd compared to what
> I had expected.

Hmmm - that's weird.

I definately uploaded a 3.5mb file - and when I did a test download it was
still 3.5mb - but when I test it now it's a lot smaller - I don't get it.
(you'll notice that the link has ORIG at the end - for Original)

I'll do some more testing :( 

Thanks for pointing it out
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 11:28:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Cockpit Colin" <spam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:fgGEe.3017$PL5.300204@news.xtra.co.nz...
>> Well ... you warned of a 3.5 MB image file, but what was on the
>> web site was only 35785 bytes -- rather severely jpeg'd compared to what
>> I had expected.
>
> Hmmm - that's weird.
>
> I definately uploaded a 3.5mb file - and when I did a test download it was
> still 3.5mb - but when I test it now it's a lot smaller - I don't get it.
> (you'll notice that the link has ORIG at the end - for Original)
>
> I'll do some more testing :( 
>
> Thanks for pointing it out

I sussed it out - I've apparantly blown the 50MB bandwidth limit of my trial
account.

Does anyone know of a good (free) ftp server that I could use to put up the
occasional photo for review?
July 25, 2005 12:00:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Cockpit Colin wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I've been experimenting with some indoor portraits - the best I've come up
> with so far is at ...
>
> http://www.fototime.com/A1C3CF984E1334E/orig.jpg
>
> (Approx 3.5 Mb)
>
> Just wondering if anyone would care to take a look - point out my mistakes -
> and give me some pointers?
>
> It was taken with a Canon 350D / standard 18-55mm lens (pretty much at the
> 55mm end), and a Speedlite EX380.
>
> The aperature was wide open at F5.6 and as I wanted to use the flash in
> "fill in" mode I went for aperature priority, giving 1/4 second exposure @
> 100 ISO (used tripod and remote shutter release) (I was using higher isos,
> but wanted to keep the "ISO side-effects" to a minimum. White balance was
> set to 'flash'.
>
> I haven't corrected the photo in any way (yet) - I know that the temperature
> is off (the wall behind is actually cream coloured) - and I can see the
> shadow to her left (can't do much about it). I wasn't thrilled with the
> focusing, but that's all she's giving at this point in time (hopefully a
> better lens will produce a sharper result).
>
> Any pointers anyone?
>
> Many thanks in advance.
>
My suggestions:
Ditch the speedlight. Invest $20 in some cheap 50 watt halogens. DSLR
will allow you to handhold at iso400 or more, no problems, aperture
wide. (Save the speedlight for outdoor portraits, where you may need
fill flash)

Shoot raw - adjust colour balance later.

Get rid of the patterned background. If it's so close behind the
subject that you can't blur it out, then move them somewhere else.

Get a prop. A book, a dog, cat, anything.

Consider B&W

http://www.geocities.com/angels2000photos/ninabw.jpg
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 12:44:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> Does anyone know of a good (free) ftp server that I could use to put up
> the occasional photo for review?

Go to www.yousendit.com

Upload the file by sending it to yourself. You'll get an email advising you
of the URL to collect the file. Copy/paste that URL into a message to here
and folks can download the file.

I think there may be some limits as to how many times it can be downloaded
(not sure exactly) but it's quite an efficient way of distributing large
files. The file size limit is huge (1GB)

Toa
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 1:52:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> You might want to go the the Corel web site and download the trial of
> Paint Shop Pro 9 and see how you like it or just do a Google for "Paint
> Shop Pro 9 vs Photoshop" and make up your mind. If you like the idea
> of PSP9, you can go here to get a copy for $40 US with the Amazon
> guarantee:

Thanks for that, but I ended up downloading the 300MB+ trial version of
Photoshop CS - had a play with it today - obviously very powerful - my
biggest concern was (is?) that I'd be too thick to be able to figure it
out - but after plowing through a few of the tutorials for an hour today I
got to play with some of the basics and got to stick my big toe in the
water. Again, a really steep learning curve, but I think I'll be OK. I'll
work with the images I took tonight then put them up for the group to
flame-broil :) 
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 2:21:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

CC, ping me offline will ya. I have some photoshop CS stuff you may be
interested in

Toa
!