Nice. I like the B&W, it looks good here.
One suggestion if I could....bump up the ISO to 800 or so (5D does have really good low-noise at higher ISOs right?) to shorten your Tv for less motion blur.
My two cents...
Damian
Nice. I like the B&W, it looks good here.
One suggestion if I could....bump up the ISO to 800 or so (5D does have really good low-noise at higher ISOs right?) to shorten your Tv for less motion blur.
My two cents...
Damian
One more... Flash bounced from the wall on the left.
Tamron 17-50 f2.8 1/125 iso 100
580exII set at 1/4th power.
[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/14/6116.4403613655_5F00_3f3c83570f_5F00_o.jpg[/img]
Originally Posted by DLS
Not sure motion blur is the problem - the strands of hair right against her cheek and chin are sharp and do not seem affected by motion blur.
A headshot on FF with a 35mm lens means the camera is very close to the subject - if the image is not cropped, the camera was ~18" from the subject, and that distance at f/1.4 it means the DoF is only ~0.5" thick. So the cheek is in focus (some skin features are visible, which I'd think would be gone with motion blur), but the(mostly obscured)eye is out of focus because it's outside the DoF. The general rule is to place focus priority on the eyes.
my mistake. thanks.
The ISO 50 was a very good point, though. To me, it doesn't make sense to use the L setting with a flash...
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
HopefullyAmerico wil enlighten us as to his setup decision...[]
Really great captures of your daughter by the way......what a little angel.
From the data below Americo
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
I would certainly use ISO 50 with flash (outdoors) if given the option. That would double the effiency of the ND filters I'm currently using to reduce ambient exposure. Indoors, not so much...
Originally Posted by DLS
Thanks! []
Originally Posted by DLS
Based on a previous post, Americo is using aVivitar 285HV flash - I don't know if that would show up in the EXIF data...
Ohhh, okay...
just curious: why is there so much data associated with that particular photo? I