First modelling assignment

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

I was asked by a friend to photograph her daughter who is entering quite
a prestigious pageant (Miss Teen SA) next week. Nervous as hell photo-
graphing a cute 15 year-old with her Mom breathing down my neck at every
shot! Luckily Simone knew exactly how to pose herself and I think she
has a very bright future in modelling.

Anyway, I think I did okay. Here are some of the images from the shoot:

http://www.dallasdahms.com/Fashion.htm

All shot in RAW using the D70 with the 18-70mm DX lens set to f/8, an
SB-800 on camera at ISO 500. No sharpening, some lifting of levels as I
was shooting at -1/3.

--
Look. See. Click. Share.
www.leica.co.za
www.dallasdahms.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

DD (Rox) wrote:
> I was asked by a friend to photograph her daughter who is entering quite
> a prestigious pageant (Miss Teen SA) next week. Nervous as hell photo-
> graphing a cute 15 year-old with her Mom breathing down my neck at every
> shot! Luckily Simone knew exactly how to pose herself and I think she
> has a very bright future in modelling.
>
> Anyway, I think I did okay. Here are some of the images from the shoot:
>
> http://www.dallasdahms.com/Fashion.htm
>
> All shot in RAW using the D70 with the 18-70mm DX lens set to f/8, an
> SB-800 on camera at ISO 500. No sharpening, some lifting of levels as I
> was shooting at -1/3.
>

Have you checked what they look like in B&W?
I'm asking because it seems to be working well for the thumbnails.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Uhhh, this 15 year old knows a lot more than you did when you were 15...

denny - old father type...

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Gormless wrote:

> "DD (Rox)" <roxy@empirerods.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1d90fa2a34a4f8c498970f@news.mweb.co.za...
>
>>http://www.dallasdahms.com/Fashion.htm
>>
>
> Your site really doesn't seem to work well in Opera or Mozilla .... unless
> it's just a strange design.

It does say, "For best results view with Internet Explorer 6.0+"

Actually, that should be, "For ANY results..." - clicking a thumbnail
causes Mozilla to just open another copy of the same page.

Which is odd, because it looks like it was built in DreamWeaver, which
doesn't usually produce such non-compatible code... I'd expect that from
something like FrontPage...


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0537-0, 09/12/2005
Tested on: 9/13/2005 11:06:34 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

DD (Rox) wrote:
> I was asked by a friend to photograph her daughter who is entering quite
> a prestigious pageant (Miss Teen SA) next week. Nervous as hell photo-
> graphing a cute 15 year-old with her Mom breathing down my neck at every
> shot! Luckily Simone knew exactly how to pose herself and I think she
> has a very bright future in modelling.
>
> Anyway, I think I did okay. Here are some of the images from the shoot:
>
> http://www.dallasdahms.com/Fashion.htm
>
> All shot in RAW using the D70 with the 18-70mm DX lens set to f/8, an
> SB-800 on camera at ISO 500. No sharpening, some lifting of levels as I
> was shooting at -1/3.
>

Nothing wrong with the photography but all the photos show up one of the
D70s worst traits... Shadow detail is lost. I believe there are some
custom contrast curves (not free) which help this problem... But then
we've been down this road before, haven't we Dallas?


--
Douglas,
My name is but a handle on the doorway to my life.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Pinky & Perky sing for royalty" <pigs@acommandperformance.com> wrote in
message news:3oomsdF6ul4rU1@individual.net...
>
> "DD (Rox)" <roxy@empirerods.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1d90fa2a34a4f8c498970f@news.mweb.co.za...
>>I was asked by a friend to photograph her daughter who is entering quite
>> a prestigious pageant (Miss Teen SA) next week. Nervous as hell photo-
>> graphing a cute 15 year-old with her Mom breathing down my neck at every
>> shot! Luckily Simone knew exactly how to pose herself and I think she
>> has a very bright future in modelling.
>>
>> Anyway, I think I did okay. Here are some of the images from the shoot:<<
>
>
> Her mother is pimping her - and you are assisting
>
>

And she's not all that attractive.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Gormless wrote:
> "DD (Rox)" <roxy@empirerods.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1d90fa2a34a4f8c498970f@news.mweb.co.za...
>
>>http://www.dallasdahms.com/Fashion.htm
>>
>
> Your site really doesn't seem to work well in Opera or Mozilla .... unless
> it's just a strange design.
>
>

picked the code apart, try these

http://www.dallasdahms.com/Simone1.htm
http://www.dallasdahms.com/Simone2.htm
http://www.dallasdahms.com/Simone3.htm
http://www.dallasdahms.com/Simone4.htm
http://www.dallasdahms.com/Simone5.htm

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

>Here are some of the images from the shoot:
>http://www.dallasdahms.com/Fashion.htm

Now THAT'S what I'm talkin about!

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Actually economically it is smart to code for just M$. That way you
still reach at least 95% of the market, and you don't have the extra
cost of cross browser development.

Maybe you should say it's not *nice* to code for just M$. I'd agree with
you there.


> Matt Ion wrote:
>
>> Gormless wrote:
>>
>>> "DD (Rox)" <roxy@empirerods.com> wrote in message
>>> news:MPG.1d90fa2a34a4f8c498970f@news.mweb.co.za...
>>>
>>>> http://www.dallasdahms.com/Fashion.htm
>>>>
>>>
>>> Your site really doesn't seem to work well in Opera or Mozilla ....
>>> unless
>>> it's just a strange design.
>>
>>
>>
>> It does say, "For best results view with Internet Explorer 6.0+"
>>
>> Actually, that should be, "For ANY results..." - clicking a thumbnail
>> causes Mozilla to just open another copy of the same page.
>>
>> Which is odd, because it looks like it was built in DreamWeaver, which
>> doesn't usually produce such non-compatible code... I'd expect that
>> from something like FrontPage...
>>
> Suggest you get a real web designer. Not smart to code for just M$/
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Gormless wrote:
>
> "DD (Rox)" <roxy@empirerods.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1d90fa2a34a4f8c498970f@news.mweb.co.za...
> >
> > http://www.dallasdahms.com/Fashion.htm
> >
> Your site really doesn't seem to work well in Opera or Mozilla .... unless
> it's just a strange design.


The site seems to work ok for me using Opera 8.02. Clicking on a
thumbnail opens the image in a new window - beware that pop-up
preventers don't stop it - and either closing the window or clicking on
the 'close' button below the image will return to the thumbnail screen.

Didn't work on Netscape 4.8 though, my usual newsreader.

Colin D.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <P4OdnUToONm1cbveRVnytQ@pipex.net>, simeon@gormless.com
says...
>
> "DD (Rox)" <roxy@empirerods.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1d90fa2a34a4f8c498970f@news.mweb.co.za...
> >
> > http://www.dallasdahms.com/Fashion.htm
> >
> Your site really doesn't seem to work well in Opera or Mozilla .... unless
> it's just a strange design.

I'll check that out, thanks. It was working previously without any
problems, but I think it might have to do with the Zoombrowser behaviour
I am using in Dreamweaver. For some reason whenever I update the core
template, I have to re-update those behaviours. Doesn't seem to be a
problem in IE.

--
Look. See. Click. Share.
www.leica.co.za
www.dallasdahms.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <8CBVe.2010$1G4.287442@news20.bellglobal.com>,
robc638killspam@sympatico.ca says...
> "DD (Rox)" <roxy@empirerods.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1d90fa2a34a4f8c498970f@news.mweb.co.za...
> >I was asked by a friend to photograph her daughter who is entering quite
> > a prestigious pageant (Miss Teen SA) next week. Nervous as hell photo-
> > graphing a cute 15 year-old with her Mom breathing down my neck at every
> > shot! Luckily Simone knew exactly how to pose herself and I think she
> > has a very bright future in modelling.
> >
> > Anyway, I think I did okay. Here are some of the images from the shoot:
> >
> > http://www.dallasdahms.com/Fashion.htm
> >
> > All shot in RAW using the D70 with the 18-70mm DX lens set to f/8, an
> > SB-800 on camera at ISO 500. No sharpening, some lifting of levels as I
> > was shooting at -1/3.
> >
> > --
> > Look. See. Click. Share.
> > www.leica.co.za
> > www.dallasdahms.com
>
> Very well done!
>

Thank you very much!

--
Look. See. Click. Share.
www.leica.co.za
www.dallasdahms.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"DD (Rox)" <roxy@empirerods.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d91f8b8ac1fe5ae989715@news.mweb.co.za...
> In article <P4OdnUToONm1cbveRVnytQ@pipex.net>, simeon@gormless.com
> says...
>>
>> "DD (Rox)" <roxy@empirerods.com> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1d90fa2a34a4f8c498970f@news.mweb.co.za...
>> >
>> > http://www.dallasdahms.com/Fashion.htm
>> >
>> Your site really doesn't seem to work well in Opera or Mozilla ....
>> unless
>> it's just a strange design.
>
> I'll check that out, thanks. It was working previously without any
> problems, but I think it might have to do with the Zoombrowser behaviour
> I am using in Dreamweaver. For some reason whenever I update the core
> template, I have to re-update those behaviours. Doesn't seem to be a
> problem in IE.

I got a message: "Popup blocked on Google toolbar". I clicked on the little
icon, and it said, "Always allow popups from Dallas Dahms" (or something
like that), and then I can expand the pictures to full size. I am using
Outlook Express version 6.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <07qdncexwqzFRbreRVn-oQ@comcast.com>, weg9@comcast.net
says...
>
> "DD (Rox)" <roxy@empirerods.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1d91f8b8ac1fe5ae989715@news.mweb.co.za...
> > In article <P4OdnUToONm1cbveRVnytQ@pipex.net>, simeon@gormless.com
> > says...
> >>
> >> "DD (Rox)" <roxy@empirerods.com> wrote in message
> >> news:MPG.1d90fa2a34a4f8c498970f@news.mweb.co.za...
> >> >
> >> > http://www.dallasdahms.com/Fashion.htm
> >> >
> >> Your site really doesn't seem to work well in Opera or Mozilla ....
> >> unless
> >> it's just a strange design.
> >
> > I'll check that out, thanks. It was working previously without any
> > problems, but I think it might have to do with the Zoombrowser behaviour
> > I am using in Dreamweaver. For some reason whenever I update the core
> > template, I have to re-update those behaviours. Doesn't seem to be a
> > problem in IE.
>
> I got a message: "Popup blocked on Google toolbar". I clicked on the little
> icon, and it said, "Always allow popups from Dallas Dahms" (or something
> like that), and then I can expand the pictures to full size. I am using
> Outlook Express version 6.

Yep, that's the way it should work. You have to allow both pop-ups and
Javascript, even if only temporarily. Rest assured I don't intend to
ever have any advertising on that site.

--
Look. See. Click. Share.
www.leica.co.za
www.dallasdahms.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Pix on Canvas <canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> As you probably know, I recently bought a Nikon D2X. It too has a
> relatively narrow contrast range out of the box, compared to my Canon
> cameras. The culprit's are sRGB colour space, colour saturation and
> contrast.

Well, if you're using sRGB you've already decided that quality isn't
important to begin with.

If you shoot properly, the contrast range of the D2X is not narrow,
relatively or otherwise.

> By flattening out the image before developing and using a wide gamut
> colour space, much more detail is available for enhancement.

Yeah... amazing how it's not the camera at all, but how you use it.

> The journo who gives me grief with her photos, decided to use her own
> camera because she didn't like "re-setting" the company cameras after
> other Photographers had used them... I have no problem finding shadow
> detail in their images!

Is she shooting JPEGs? If so, tell her not to do that. (Why in the name
of all that's holy would anyone get a camera like that and then shoot
JPEGs?) Both Nikon and Canon clip vast expanses of shadows to add "punch"
and hide any noise that might crop up. If you make the mistake of shooting
JPEGs, you're giving up at *least* two stops of dynamic range, probably
more with the D2X.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

>Nothing wrong with the photography but all the photos show up one of the
>D70s worst traits... Shadow detail is lost. I believe there are some
>custom contrast curves (not free) which help this problem... But then
>we've been down this road before, haven't we Dallas?

This will be a first in internet history, but I'll come to the aid of
Dallas and his Nikon here.
He sent me one of the raw NEF files and I can verify that there is
plenty of shadow detail available.
He probably just punched it up a bit for more contrast.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

>> Nothing wrong with the photography but all the photos show up one of the
>> D70s worst traits... Shadow detail is lost. I believe there are some
>> custom contrast curves (not free) which help this problem... But then
>> we've been down this road before, haven't we Dallas?
>
> I've since stopped using the custom curves in the camera and I also shot
> this in RAW. What is it with you guys and shadow detail??? Scared that
> the boogeyman might be hiding in there?
>
> I wasn't trying to expose for the shadows, I was exposing for the model
> and I used a fill flash to emphasise her.
>
> --

Shadow detail (or lack thereof) can show up in important places. The first
thing I noticed was that her hair looked flat. Part of it is lighting (a
reflector pointing at her hair would have helped), but I think a lot of it
is the loss of shadow detail.

Beyond that, they were very nice. I also agree that it would be interesting
to see what they look like in B&W.

Good job!

Walt

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems DD (Rox) <roxy@empirerods.com> wrote:
> All shot in RAW using the D70 with the 18-70mm DX lens set to f/8, an
> SB-800 on camera at ISO 500. No sharpening, some lifting of levels as I
> was shooting at -1/3.

Nice work! Can you talk a little about what kind of lighting you
were using?

--
Oh to have a lodge in some vast wilderness. Where rumors of oppression
and deceit, of unsuccessful and successful wars may never reach me
anymore.
-- William Cowper

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <dgalst$2pat$1@otis.netspace.net.au>, nospamthanks@nospam.com
says...
> Is it really nescessary to impose this restriction on the users. Surely
> it'd be better if it didn't prompt at all?
>
> Just as an example of another way that this kind of thing can be done.
> Have a look at http://www.tangerineearth.com.au/? [...] ojects_web
>
> This works cross browser in IE and Mozilla. I haven't been able to check
> some of the other Mac and Linux browsers though.
>
> And if you look at
> http://www.meroolonthemurray.com/? [...] es_gallery or
> http://www.peats.com.au/about/showroom.html you'll see an example that
> uses real popup windows but doesn't cause any security alerts.
>
> I know these aren't the fanciest pages around, but I think they
> illustrate a way to handle popup images without causing confusion for users.
>
> Feel free to swipe any of the code if you think it might prove helpful.
> I'm not anal about that kind of thing.

Eugene, thanks for the links. I must just state upfront that I am not a
"dab hand" at web design by any stretch of the imagination. I have
recently started using Dreamweaver MX 2004 and I haven't really come to
grips with hand coding HTML or Javascript. I'm pretty much just using
the built-in behaviours and a few others I have found on the web.

I would love to do a course on web design, but they use up a lot of
photography vouchers (money) and I don't know which one to do.

Did you hand code those sites?

--
Look. See. Click. Share.
www.leica.co.za
www.dallasdahms.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Yes these were hand-coded. I do also use some custom server side script
to automate some of the repetetive stuff, such as putting in all the
menu items, and adding all the images.

I kind of came from the other direction. I used to work for a web
development company where we hand coded everything. I'm actually not
familiar at all with things like Dreamweaver. When I first started
learning to make web sites, back in about 97, I used FrontPage, but I
gave up on that because it seemed too restrictive, and the code it
produced was just too messy.

I think it's a good idea generally to try to keep things neat and simple
and where possible avoid the use of tricky visual transitions and
behaviours. After a couple of clicks the user will most likely just
ignore them anyway and start to be more concerned about how fast the
images load etc. I know as a web user myself that I prefer sites that
are fast and neat and just work very well rather than sites that use
tricky visual effects.

>
> Eugene, thanks for the links. I must just state upfront that I am not a
> "dab hand" at web design by any stretch of the imagination. I have
> recently started using Dreamweaver MX 2004 and I haven't really come to
> grips with hand coding HTML or Javascript. I'm pretty much just using
> the built-in behaviours and a few others I have found on the web.
>
> I would love to do a course on web design, but they use up a lot of
> photography vouchers (money) and I don't know which one to do.
>
> Did you hand code those sites?
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

According to Eugene <nospamthanks@nospam.com>:

[ ... ]

> I think it's a good idea generally to try to keep things neat and simple
> and where possible avoid the use of tricky visual transitions and
> behaviours. After a couple of clicks the user will most likely just
> ignore them anyway and start to be more concerned about how fast the
> images load etc. I know as a web user myself that I prefer sites that
> are fast and neat and just work very well rather than sites that use
> tricky visual effects.

Amen! Things which *require* ShockWave Flash and other such
gimmicks tend to send me elsewhere *fast*.

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 ---

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

According to Eugene <nospamthanks@nospam.com>:

[ ... ]

> > Amen! Things which *require* ShockWave Flash and other such
> > gimmicks tend to send me elsewhere *fast*.

[ ... ]

> I'm also getting really tired of flash banner adds etc. It seems most
> developers just consider whether people *can* view flash, not whether
> they *want to* view flash.
>
> Even a couple of badly written flash banners on a page can significantly
> degrade the performance of the browser, and there's generally no way to
> stop these CPU hungry animations. I've actually dissabled flash in
> Mozilla for that reason, so that I can still use flash heavy sites
> without running my PC into the ground.

And I ripped it bodily out of the earlier version of Netscape
which I was running, and have refused to install it on later ones. I
did this because after I exited the browser once (on a unix system), I
found something still communicating with the Flash plugin. It *really*
should go away whenever you exit the browser -- without question.

One particular benefit that I find with Opera as a browser is
that it does not pop up those annoying offers to download the plugin for
flash every time you hit a page infected with it (sometimes two or three
times on a single page). I was starting to think of trying to write a
program which pretended to be the flash plugin but did nothing else,
just to get rid of those popups.

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 ---

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Mr.Happy" wrote:
>
> nice boobs!
> she wins hands down.

keeping your hands down is safest {:-)

Colin D.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

According to Bandicoot <"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com>:
> "DoN. Nichols" <dnichols@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
> newsgdiu601t7t@news3.newsguy.com...
> [SNIP]
> > One particular benefit that I find with Opera as a browser is
> > that it does not pop up those annoying offers to download the
> > plugin for flash every time you hit a page infected with it
> > (sometimes two or three times on a single page). I was starting
> > to think of trying to write a program which pretended to be the
> > flash plugin but did nothing else, just to get rid of those popups.
> >
>
> If you did, and maybe also a switch to let one easily toggle the browser
> between using the real Flash and your 'placebo effect' Flash, I bet you
> would find it very popular as shareware...

Hmm ... the only problem would be that I would be writing it for
a unix platform, not for Windows. (While I *have* a Windows box (for
Income Tax software), I don't trust it within reach of the net. :-) This
way, I don't have to constantly be downloading and applying patches
which may break various existing programs.

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 ---

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

According to Eugene <nospamthanks@nospam.com>:
> >>If you did, and maybe also a switch to let one easily toggle the browser
> >>between using the real Flash and your 'placebo effect' Flash, I bet you
> >>would find it very popular as shareware...

[ ... ]

> > Hmm ... the only problem would be that I would be writing it for
> > a unix platform, not for Windows. (While I *have* a Windows box (for
> > Income Tax software), I don't trust it within reach of the net. :-) This
> > way, I don't have to constantly be downloading and applying patches
> > which may break various existing programs.

> There's a plugin for Mozilla call "Flashblock" that might suit you.
> That's what I use. It allows me to choose whether or not I want to view
> a flash animation. It doesn't do anything annoying like prompt. It just
> shows an empty area with a flash logo, and to view the animation I can
> simply click in this area. I don't know if anything similar exists for
> IE, but generally if flash on a site is really starting to bother me I
> just switch browsers.

Well ... since I don't browse using a Windows box, whether it is
available for IE doesn't matter -- to me. :-)

The remaining thing to determine is whether it is available for
FireFox, as I find normal Mozilla too feature-heavy. (I don't use a web
browser for e-mail or newsreading, so I see no reason to have those
capabilities in the brower.)

I was running FireFox on (Sun's) Solaris 2.6 but have not taken
the time to compile one for Solaris 10. And Opera (already downloaded
and installed) works well on Solaris 10 for most things, including the
lack of bother from Flash sites. (I don't even *want* to be able to
view a site in Flash. If the site *requires* Flash, I go elsewhere. :-)
That includes the site which has been discussed for some time here
offering a slideshow of N.O. Katrina pictures. I get nothing but a
blank screen, so I don't bother.

Thanks,
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 ---