up close - DPChallenge Forums

11/23/2007 07:13:04 AM · #26

I had a digi light kit but I sold it. does the Nikon SB-20 ttl with the d70 or is a manual flash. I have been looking for some shop light which my sister has in america they are like a siver bowl kind if thing with a lightbulb in the middle //electrical.hardwarestore.com/12-35-clamp-lights.aspx
I think they work fairly well for her with some white poster board, but I can't find them here in the uk.

Tez

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

11/23/2007 07:27:04 AM · #27

It TLLs with Nikon film cameras only. I use it as a backlight for my Canon and have no problems with it apart from it's a bugger to attach gels to it. And the lights you mentioned: are they continuous lights? I have a big dislike of them because the light colour is a weird yellow colour and you need a lot of them to make anything happen, plus they make the eyes of your subjects contract which can look a bit strange.

But whatever your budget is you can get some lighting related. I wasn't expecting to get much for $400/ Â£190 (about the price of a new Canon flash) but I got a whole rig pretty much apart from a backdrop system thing. I got my stuff from B&H in NYC and had it shipped over here to UK, Manchester to be exact.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

11/23/2007 07:51:32 AM · #28

def look into it. It is hard to use natural light all the time here in the uk. might use apature priority at 4.5 next time, see how i get on with that

danielv

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

11/23/2007 10:57:25 AM · #29

anni, you should definitely play around with different settings to see what gives best result. It will depend on many things, and only practice will eventually help you (detailed technical calculation are here to give examples, but too complex IMHO to use in practice).

For a natural light portrait with the 50mm, I'd go with 1/60-1/120, iso 200-400, f/4.0. If you don't shott manual, you should indeed shoot aperture priority at f/4.0 or so, and check that the camera uses a good enough speed (quicker than 1/60th or so). If not increase ISO.

Flash will allow you to get much "better" settings, ie higher speed, lower iso, but indeed on-camera flash is a no go.

by the way, studio portrait photography is commonly done at F/8.0 or more, hence the tack sharp effect. but on the other hand, aperture of 4.0 or less blurs the background which gives a nice effect with portrait. 2.8 and below even blur part of the head and body, which is nice... as long as it's not the eyes!

Message edited by author 2007-11-23 10:59:17.

FireBird

11/23/2007 12:24:35 PM · #30

Originally posted by Anni:

here is the example from far away it looks great. close up not so great, Could someone please put up what it is supposed to look like at view actual pixels. This is the biggest hurdle I am trying to get over to improve my photography.

xx

There is no "supposed to look like" Anni. This looks ok to me. Are you going to print this at 20x30, or 30x60 inches? Even so the viewing distance for big prints like that would 20 to 40 inches or more from the print. Viewing at 100 percent is like looking at a slide at 400 percent magnification. It takes a perfect shot to stand up to that scrutiny. If you want 100 percent or 200 percent crops to be sharp you're going to have to use a tripod, or with living moving subjects up your shutter speed to 1/500 or better to freeze any subject motion. To avoid noise you need to nail exposure as exactly as you can. Also try to shoot in RAW as it gives you a bit more latitude. With Nikon Capture, or Capture NS it also allows you to change contrast and color mode almost without penalty.

Message edited by author 2007-11-23 12:26:15.

FireBird

11/23/2007 12:36:39 PM · #31

Originally posted by Anni:

it was taken with my 50mm 1.8 and I had the apature

exposure manual
f 2.0
sutter speed 1/250
taken outside on a cloudy day.
the first images is straight from the camera

The before photo was straight out the camera in RAW. So I guess I am having white balance issues as well.

If it is a problem with focus I don't know what I am doing wrong. possibly I have my camera or something as most of my images come out like this.

At F2 aperture you appear to have missed the focus on this shot. If you shoot at this aperture a lot you're going to have to make sure you nail the eyes in focus to the exclusion of everything else. You're asking a lot of D70 autofocus. I'd use single focus sensor in the center and focus on the eye and then recompose without re-focusing and shoot. Better to just go to F4 or F5.6 and not have to worry about it. If you must shoot at F2 because of light, use a tripod and use manual focus to make sure the eyes are sharp.

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

11/23/2007 01:40:02 PM · #32

Originally posted by Anni:

thanks for the advice. As for depth of field calculations, I don't really get it while I am reading, let alone trying to calculate while I am in the middle of the session. Is there an easier way?

No, you need to learn how the equipment works or else trust to luck.

It's very simple. Given a certain focal length (50mm) and aperture (F2.0) and some fixed distance between you and the subject, there is going to be some fixed distance between you and the end of the universe which is in focus.

You use the calculator to give you what that distance is. In the case of that shot, there are basically 2 inches which are going to be in focus, roughly 1 inch in front of and behind wherever you are focusing. So if you aim at the kid's nose, 1 inch from the tip of his noise to you will be in focus and 1 inch from the tip of his nose towards the back of his head will be in focus.

If you don't want to have to worry about it you can always shoot at smaller apertures as someone suggested, though it is still worth referencing the calculator to get a feel for which aperture will give you the depth you're looking for. Do the reading and put it into practice and eventually you start getting comfortable making pretty accurate assumptions about what aperture will be appropriate for the situation given lens, distance, etc. Just takes a bit of practice like anything worth doing.

11/23/2007 03:14:08 PM · #33

Originally posted by mouten:

Thanks, I agree. I am up for learning all the jargon and technical stuff, but I don't want it to hender the passion I have. I just want to have a good photo every time not just a few lucky happenings in a shoot.I am just getting frustrated. I thought with buying a 50mm 1.8 would greatly improve my pics but they look just the same. Just goes to show you it isn't the camera, it isn't the lens.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

11/23/2007 03:23:12 PM · #34

Originally posted by fir3bird:

Originally posted by Anni:
it was taken with my 50mm 1.8 and I had the apature

exposure manual
f 2.0
sutter speed 1/250
taken outside on a cloudy day.
the first images is straight from the camera

The before photo was straight out the camera in RAW. So I guess I am having white balance issues as well.

If it is a problem with focus I don't know what I am doing wrong. possibly I have my camera or something as most of my images come out like this.

At F2 aperture you appear to have missed the focus on this shot. If you shoot at this aperture a lot you're going to have to make sure you nail the eyes in focus to the exclusion of everything else. You're asking a lot of D70 autofocus. I'd use single focus sensor in the center and focus on the eye and then recompose without re-focusing and shoot. Better to just go to F4 or F5.6 and not have to worry about it. If you must shoot at F2 because of light, use a tripod and use manual focus to make sure the eyes are sharp.

I have a tripod but I bought it when I still had my little ol cannon a70
I can't seem toget my D70 to fit on it.
I actually thought that about the single focus sensor, the center weight is more complex than I thought.That is how I have been doing the focus I was focusing in the middle and recomposing but on center weight. Also hard to use a tripod when photographing children (especially your own.)

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

11/23/2007 03:25:24 PM · #35

Originally posted by Anni:

It's really a shame that so many people (I saw it all the time when I was teaching) think that somehow having a sound grasp of the fundamentals of photography will in any way "hinder" their passion. In fact, the opposite is true â�� unless the basis of your "passion" is the search for the happy accident, and by your statement that's not the case.

Technical virtuosity is incredibly liberating. When you understand how your gear works, when you understand the interrelationships between all the variables, then nothing stands between you and your vision. The camera skills become integrated so they are second nature, and when you can stop worrying about the camera and start shooting instinctively and accurately you are in heaven.

Part of it is practice; the more you shoot the more instinctive it becomes. But practice has to be based on sound fundamentals; it does no good to practice the wrong thing over and over.

The work you are showing us is very good. The problem you are having is a minor one, and it comes from not understanding just how limited your DOF is at wide apertures. So, obviously, the solution is to STUDY the topic until you have it nailed :-)

R.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

11/23/2007 03:46:43 PM · #36

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Anni:

Thanks, I agree. I am up for learning all the jargon and technical stuff, but I don't want it to hender the passion I have. I just want to have a good photo every time not just a few lucky happenings in a shoot.I am just getting frustrated. I thought with buying a 50mm 1.8 would greatly improve my pics but they look just the same. Just goes to show you it isn't the camera, it isn't the lens.

It's really a shame that so many people (I saw it all the time when I was teaching) think that somehow having a sound grasp of the fundamentals of photography will in any way "hinder" their passion. In fact, the opposite is true â�� unless the basis of your "passion" is the search for the happy accident, and by your statement that's not the case.

Technical virtuosity is incredibly liberating. When you understand how your gear works, when you understand the interrelationships between all the variables, then nothing stands between you and your vision. The camera skills become integrated so they are second nature, and when you can stop worrying about the camera and start shooting instinctively and accurately you are in heaven.

Part of it is practice; the more you shoot the more instinctive it becomes. But practice has to be based on sound fundamentals; it does no good to practice the wrong thing over and over.

The work you are showing us is very good. The problem you are having is a minor one, and it comes from not understanding just how limited your DOF is at wide apertures. So, obviously, the solution is to STUDY the topic until you have it nailed :-)

R.

teach me oh great one! Yes I do want to learn but I have no idea where to start. I understand the basics of exposure in relationships to apature in shutterspeeds basic knowledge of composure. I want to get to the point where I spend virtually no time in photoshop. I just get frustrated in photoshop because crap in is crap out and I am not getting what I want not because I don't know how to use photoshop but because of the photos I am taking. frustrating!

BrianR

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

11/23/2007 04:31:09 PM · #37

First of all I am not a portrait or person photographer.

What hit me immediately was the amount of brilliance, IMO this will increase the visual pixels on the subject so I reduced this 25%
.[thumb]615834[/thumb]

I then zoomed in and ran Kents skin fix action over this set at 4.0 Pixels. IMO this has reduced the Pixels.
[thumb]615835[/thumb]

Then I did the same on the Full frame Brilliance -25% Skin Fix set at 6.0 Pixels.
[thumb]615837[/thumb]

My conclusion is that in your original the brilliance is what produced the high pixels when you enlarged this to a close up look. As to what it should look like IMO this would depend on the original take.

BUT YOU MAY BE LOOKING TOO CLOSE.