The black outline is actually from me not being careful enough in photoshop when I selected the iris to brighten/sharpen it.... oops!Originally Posted by conropl
The black outline is actually from me not being careful enough in photoshop when I selected the iris to brighten/sharpen it.... oops!
A shot of my dad.
500D, 17-55 f/2.8 @ 55mm, 1/60s, ISO320
This is my daughter Sophie. Looking for a little feedback. Curious what you guys will (or won't) notice about this one.
Used my 430 ex II camera left with the Gary Fong LightSphere (love that thing).
IMG_5453-2 by RVier199, on Flickr
Adobe, give us courage to edit what photos must be altered, serenity to delete what cannot be helped, and the insight to know the one from the other.
Canon EOS 7D - Canon EF-s 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM - Canon 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro - PCB Einsteins & PW Triggers
Hi, the first and overall impression is, of course, something like ”beautiful portrait of a pretty model”. But, since I got a feeling from your post that there could be some “secrets” about it, I put on my Sherlock glasses and had a closer look:
- The description says 430 EXII camera left, but the shadows look as if it was mainly lit from front, slightly above camera. The small but intense reflex in the center of her eyes could be on-camera flash. (The camera right shadows are less distinct and the corresponding eye reflex is not as intense.)
- Not a single hair pointing out in any direction means either an extremely well combed model or, as in this case, an extraction from the original photo put on a white background. Masking hair is a pain in…
- I get a feeling that focus hit the hand/nose rather than the eyes. It’s hard to tell from an image this size but at least that’s the impression I get. Such a difference in focus at such a small difference in distance would tell you used a wide aperture. Assuming your 17-55 stays on the camera by default, my guess would be that the photo is taken at 55mm, f/2.8.
- You named the file “…-2”. That indicates you made a second editing attempt that you are more pleased with. My guess is that in “…-1” the background looks different.
- Finally, I’m trying to figure out the reason for her somewhat aghast expression. Maybe you shaved your hair just to get the shot and revealed it just in time for the firing.
(Just to make things clear in case it's not obvius - I really like the portrait and my attempt to "analyze" the photo is by no means meant as negative criticism.)
Save some for the rest of us!I guess there's nothing else to say... wait, I do have a guess at her expression. Instead of a shaved head, I'm going to guess someone in earshot uttered a bad word.
HAHA! Well then.. heh. I did extract it from the original picture and put it on the white background. I was hoping that it wasn't SUPER obvious.. or at least well done. I think I did okay, but man.. a good backdrop with a strobe hitting it would be ideal. That took so long to make it look like it wasn't a copy/paste job.Hi, the first and overall impression is, of course, something like ”beautiful portrait of a pretty model”. But, since I got a feeling from your post that there could be some “secrets” about it, I put on my Sherlock glasses and had a closer look:
- The description says 430 EXII camera left, but the shadows look as if it was mainly lit from front, slightly above camera. The small but intense reflex in the center of her eyes could be on-camera flash. (The camera right shadows are less distinct and the corresponding eye reflex is not as intense.)
- Not a single hair pointing out in any direction means either an extremely well combed model or, as in this case, an extraction from the original photo put on a white background. Masking hair is a pain in…
- I get a feeling that focus hit the hand/nose rather than the eyes. It’s hard to tell from an image this size but at least that’s the impression I get. Such a difference in focus at such a small difference in distance would tell you used a wide aperture. Assuming your 17-55 stays on the camera by default, my guess would be that the photo is taken at 55mm, f/2.8.
- You named the file “…-2”. That indicates you made a second editing attempt that you are more pleased with. My guess is that in “…-1” the background looks different.
- Finally, I’m trying to figure out the reason for her somewhat aghast expression. Maybe you shaved your hair just to get the shot and revealed it just in time for the firing.
(Just to make things clear in case it's not obvius - I really like the portrait and my attempt to "analyze" the photo is by no means meant as negative criticism.)
Thanks for the compliments though guys. Love that girl.
Adobe, give us courage to edit what photos must be altered, serenity to delete what cannot be helped, and the insight to know the one from the other.
Canon EOS 7D - Canon EF-s 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM - Canon 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro - PCB Einsteins & PW Triggers
Save some for the rest of us!I honestly have no idea! I think she was blowing me a kiss. Only thing I can figure.
She's two years old so.. the only bad word she knows is "NO". Say that to her and you'll get an expression that puts Anjelica Huston's character in The Witches to shame!
Adobe, give us courage to edit what photos must be altered, serenity to delete what cannot be helped, and the insight to know the one from the other.
Canon EOS 7D - Canon EF-s 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM - Canon 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro - PCB Einsteins & PW Triggers
From a recent Valentine's portrait session with the girls:
"Be Mine"
EOS 5D Mark II, EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM @ 105mm, 1/200 s, f/9, ISO 100
"Sweet"
EOS 5D Mark II, EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM @ 105mm, 1/200 s, f/9, ISO 100
Both shots lit from camera high front/left with a PCB Einstein 640 in a 48" octabox and camera right with a 430EX II in a 24" Lastolite Ezybox. Some vignetting added in post.
Thanks for looking!
-John
Last edited by neuroanatomist; 02-19-2012 at 09:48 PM.
Lovely portraits John. Gorgeous subjects and artistic light.
Steve U
Wine, Food and Photography Student and Connoisseur
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
