DSLRUsers.com

One from today's Outdoor Portrait Shoot in the Brisbane Mt Coot-tha Botanical Gardens...

Forum member CraigVTR's daughter, Jennifer, came along on the back of Dad's bike and kindly agreed to stand in front of the camera for us. We were lucky to have her there; like our other model, Anna, Jennifer's a very photogenic young lady and a natural in front of the lens. Having taken some great shots with Dad's D70s and her own recently purchased Canon 350D, we're looking forward to her joining as a member herself.

My dilemma - which of the following do you prefer? (If you've joined by now Jennifer: here's you chance to log your first post!:wink:
(Click for 800px versions)

Hi Manta. I like the first image the best, mainly because I don't like the soft processing on the other two. However I feel that her face could be lightened up a bit in the first image too.

Cheers,
Owen.

hi

i think the strong backlight was to no good. sorry forgot to say maybe if you can adjust it with levels or the shadow/highligh in photoshop. looking more at the photos the b/w does not look too bad....just needs a little extra something. maybe some highlights in her hair or eyes.

thanks for sharing

christian

The 2nd one does it for me Simon. Very nice treatment which IMHO turns a good shot into a great shot

Thanks guys.

I wish I'd used a touch of fill flash in the original shot and thought more about eliminating the strong background illumination. Still, that's what these minimeets are for: learning.

The treatments used in the next two were a way to try and work with the messy lighting in the first one. not sure how successful it's been. I prefer the last one myself, as it's quite extreme and makes no bones of the fact that it's supposed to be an arty sort of shot. Perhaps that makes sense to someone other than me?!

Oh, this shot was taken with the dreaded 70-300G so I guess it's in my good books again ...

I prefer the first one but perhaps something between #1 and #2 would work, something that doesn't look too processed, but something that is a little more flattering to the model.

Thanks Craig. There actually wasn't much work done at all between #1 and #2, just a tad of diffuse glow. Still, there's a wide gamut of settings within that filter so plenty of scope for fine tuning.

Here's a little bit of fill flash - just spent a minute in PS

I personally like the first one, probably with some adjustments to the curves.

Cheers Shakey - looks good. I did actually do a few similar versions myself in PS but, for me, the 'after-market' flash techniques don't measure up to a nice balanced fill on the day. There are many shots of Jennifer taken with flash & lightsphere that I have gotten around to processing yet.

Thanks Grev - good to meet you yesterday.

a nice shot...... the colour shot could be a little lighter, and the B&W works well.......

I agree with Alpha_7, somewhere in between 1 & 2 would be perfect!

Thanks for the comments guys.

Simon
Have not long got from work to have a look at the posts from the meet. I am so dissapointed there are so many shots posted of Jennifer and none of me yet. lol

Jennifer said she likes the shot and thinks the three placed in a row in series would be good. That way she could admire herself without the need for a mirror.

Will set a user id up for Jennifer in the next couple of days so we can both post some shots.
Craig

Hey Simon - nice shots ! I like the first one the best personally..... Slider just wanted to post something with IMHO !!! LOL

And Craig - there is a shot of you here

CraigVTR wrote:Simon
Have not long got from work to have a look at the posts from the meet. I am so dissapointed there are so many shots posted of Jennifer and none of me yet. lol

Jennifer said she likes the shot and thinks the three placed in a row in series would be good. That way she could admire herself without the need for a mirror.

Will set a user id up for Jennifer in the next couple of days so we can both post some shots.
Craig

Hi Craig and Jennifer - Pleased you both liked the shot. I've got plenty more, including a nice father daughter shot, but just haven't had time this weekend to get to them. Something to do over the next few days.

Look forward to Jennifer joining our ranks. Her monochrome work in your smugmug gallery shows great potential.

Thanks for your comments too, Rel. It was a great day.

I would have cheated and used two different exposures of the one RAW file. One for the background (I like how it looks in #1) and a lighter one for Jennifer, then blended the two together.

Very excited, I only just did my first image using that hack (in my wedding photography thread)

Nice composition though, and she does take a lovely, natural looking photo

I like the first image best also, has a good warmth to it!
~William

i like #1 but its too dark
i also like #3 but not sure if its because of the PP or her eyes and smile which seem to really hold my attention??
Maybe if #1 was lighter the eyes and smile would stand out more and i would like that one better.
As it is they are equal first.

I like #1 also Simon, love the OOF background and the pose. You're right Jennifer photographs well. I do believe it's a little dark and, as has been mentioned would have benefited by some subtle fill flash
cheers
marco

Hi Simon,

Did you use matrix metering?

simon,
wow!!! excellent shots... what a fantastic model!!!!!
Jennifer

Aha! I wondered when you'd show up, Jennifer.

Welcome to our newest member - I hope your time here is as entertaining and educational as it has been for all of us.

Don't leave it too long before sharing some of your great work with us.

(Pleased you like the shot - I'm still toying with some others.. Will probably post them all to my smugmug gallery so you can go there to see them. I'll let you know when they're up.)

welcome Jennifer.......... looking foward to seeing some of your shots

Welcome Jennifer, if your half as good on this side of the camera as you are on the other side then i will be looking forward to your posts

i will post some pics when someone teaches me how to use a computer!!!! until then i look forward to seeing more photos of ME!

babyvtr wrote:i will post some pics when someone teaches me how to use a computer!!!! until then i look forward to seeing more photos of ME!

Hi Jennifer welcome to the forums!

blacknstormy wrote:Hey Simon - nice shots ! I like the first one the best personally..... Slider just wanted to post something with IMHO !!! LOL And Craig - there is a shot of you here

Rel
Is that a shot of me? Must be the ugly guy who stole my hat.

babyvtr wrote:i will post some pics when someone teaches me how to use a computer!!!! until then i look forward to seeing more photos of ME!

Looks like Iam going to have to do some forum post training.
Craig

Dags !!!
Welcome to the forum officially Jennifer Now that we have you, you can never leave !!!!
Rel

Rel
What does IMHO stand for?
Craig

Rel,
gee, its lucky i don't want to leave yet then...

CraigVTR wrote:Rel
What does IMHO stand for?
Craig

In my humble opinion...

oli,
oh great, i'll tell the confused poor old man

babyvtr wrote:oli,
oh great, i'll tell the confused poor old man

\

great....... you are going to enjoy it here........

i am here and i don't think i will ever sleep again

oh great, i'll tell the confused poor old man

make that the confused little poor old man in the sweaty leather pants lol

and HOW could Mark have a 'humble opinion'???????

Rel,
thank you, he's quite flattered you were taking notice of his sweaty leather pants

Simon,

While I prefer the first of these, I'm not happy with the colour in it. I'm not quite sure what it is, but it's looking shady/grey-ish to me. Almost as if Jennifer - who joined today, btw, so welcome Jennifer - as a well tenned but sort of ashen colour to her skin.

Is the exposure correct on the image? It does look ok on what you've posted, but what I'm feeling from this might be attributed to trying to coax something from an underexposed image.

And while I feel that the image needs some warming up in some way, it's not really looking like the typical wb issue whereby there'd be the telltale blue cast over the image.

So .... I'm puzzled.

Just adding to my previous post ...

In looking at Mark's image of Jennifer, I'm seeing similar (what I'm seeing as) discoloration in that image as well. In Mark's image though, I'm seeing definite tinges of perhaps some green/grey - look (in that image) at the shadow areas in her neck. The shadows should be neutral i colour, but they're not.

But that still doesn't quite explain what I'm seeing in Simon's images, because both of these images are being rendered similarly, but both look very different from, as an example, the other images in Mark's post.

That suggests to me that Jennifer has quite exotic colouring, and if so, my apologies for not noting that already.

Despite that being the case, I'm not yet satisified that either of these images have got it quite right.

I see that Mark used auto wb; Simon, was your's also auto wb? If so, that would be where I suspect my answer lies - the exotic skin colour would, in the shaded location within which these images were shot, would be enough to confuse the camera in this instance.

Am I on the right track here?

Gary,
I do indeed have tanned skin if that helps your confusion at all. And for some parculiar reason i look even darker still, in most photos taken of me. Does that help you at all?

Simon - doing my usual (against the mainstream of thought) I would have to say that #2 is beautiful. The softness imparted to Jennifer has produced a memorable portrait. My only picky critique would be to remove the background.

babyvtr wrote:Gary,
I do indeed have tanned skin if that helps your confusion at all. And for some parculiar reason i look even darker still, in most photos taken of me. Does that help you at all?

Jennifer,

Thanx, and yes it does. That sort of toning does confuse most auto colour balancing systems, which are generally expecting to see something more traditional Anglo, if I may use that sort of terminology, than perhaps a person with olive or perhaps darker Asian colorations.

Consequently, they compensate for something that requires no real compensation - certainly not, IAC, in the direction that the compensation has been made. We usually see something like this in snow and beach scenes, but a tight portrait, such as these images - can similarly tricj the computers.

OK ... so how close do you think the toning that we're seeing is to your real colour? That is the key here: are either of the images close?

Or do you think that some adjustment is warranted?

I'm truly interested in this one ... and I'll be interested to see your view on this, noting that it's not often we can have one of the subjects of an image offer this sort of feedback.

Gary,
i'm not too sure, to tell the truth, as i don't see myself tanned at all, only others do. if i were to take a guess i'd probably say my skin tone would be 2 to 3 shades lighter than the photo portrays......

Gary,

I'm always keen to get your expert opinions on these matters. I'm not sure if I can throw too much light on this situation except to say that auto WB was used and Jennifer does have slightly tanned skin, though I wouldn't say it was overly so.

I did no colour adjustments to the first shot and it's interesting that you've seen the same cast in Slider's shots.

Definitely a bit strange.

i am not strange...

babyvtr wrote:i am not strange...

Sorry Jennifer - you've joined this pack of mad buggers so that automatically puts you in that category.

right, sorry... remind me to read the fine print next time

Simon,

Care to give me access to the raw? This sort of thing fascinates me, and I'm interested in spending a few minutes to see if I can understand what I'm seeing.

Jennifer, could you please email, me a sliver of your skin so that I may match the colour?

babyvtr wrote:i am not strange...

Not yet... give it a couple of weeks and all your friends will think your strange... this place is addictive!!!


Tim

tim,
someone could have told me i was doomed before now....
at least it's promising to as good kind of doomed.... if thats possible