 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / July 2005Would appreciate some feedback ...
Hi all, I've been experimenting with some indoor portraits - the best I've come up with so far is at ... http://www.fototime.com/A1C3CF984E1334E/orig.jpg (Approx 3.5 Mb) Just wondering if anyone would care to take a look - point out my mistakes - and give me some pointers? It was taken with a Canon 350D / standard 18-55mm lens (pretty much at the 55mm end), and a Speedlite EX380. The aperature was wide open at F5.6 and as I wanted to use the flash in "fill in" mode I went for aperature priority, giving 1/4 second exposure @ 100 ISO (used tripod and remote shutter release) (I was using higher isos, but wanted to keep the "ISO side-effects" to a minimum. White balance was set to 'flash'. I haven't corrected the photo in any way (yet) - I know that the temperature is off (the wall behind is actually cream coloured) - and I can see the shadow to her left (can't do much about it). I wasn't thrilled with the focusing, but that's all she's giving at this point in time (hopefully a better lens will produce a sharper result). Any pointers anyone? Many thanks in advance. CC > Just wondering if anyone would care to take a look - point out my mistakes - > and give me some pointers? I would crop just above the head.  SignatureThe backup's not over 'til the FAT table sings. Good idea - unfortunately I only had my laptop handy, with no editing tools :( Thanks for that. It looks sharp to me. Focus should be on the eyes, as you did. Any unsharp areas of the picture are due to the limited depth of field. > Hi all, > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > CC What's a good aperture for an appropriate DOF when doing portraits? I think I recall someone saying nothing less than F5.6? (which is what I shot it at). For doing portrait work would you literally select just one AF point, and put that on an eye? or is it usually acceptable just to let the camera choose the closest point and let a sufficient DOF take care of the rest? I somewhat curious to know how the image would have looked if taken with a prime L series lens. > Hi all, > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > CC That shadow on the wall can be made to go away with anything from using the speedight bounced off the cieling to using a dedicated fill light. I have two AC powered slaves with stands and umbrellas that only cost $70 (US) each and do the job nicely. Even a little $20 slave on a table top will fill that shadow. The 18 -55 lens will sharpen up a bit with more light, and more light is what you need for all the faults in the shot as far as I can see. Shoot RAW Use as much light as you can get unless you are trying to set a special mood Dont let the camera make ANY choices for you. You use the flash in MANUAL, YOU focus, YOU choose the apeture, YOU choose the shutter speed, and YOU fix the white balance/color temperature when converting from RAW. If you dont have PhotoShop CS2 Then get Elements (about $90) you really need one or the other.. Its a tool of the trade that allows you MUCH more flexibility. SignatureLarry Lynch Mystic, Ct. Thanks Larry, I thought initially that the shadow was caused by an overhead room light, but I realised afterwards that it's to the left because I had the camera rotated 90 deg on the tripod, with the 380EX mounted on top. I'll invest in more flash gear fairly soon, but sounds like the best I can hope for in the meantime is to ty and do this kind of work when the natural light is as bright as possible (rather hard at the moment - it's the middle of winter here). I didn't think of bouncing it off something - I'll try to experiment with that. I'll don't have Photoshop yet, but plan to give the 30 day trial a go shortly - so far I've had a quick play with the software that came with the camera, but frankly, I can't stand it. Like they say "there's no problem that money can't solve!" Thanks again. > That shadow on the wall can be made to go away with anything from using > the [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > one or the other.. Its a tool of the trade that allows you MUCH more > flexibility. > I'll don't have Photoshop yet, but plan to give the 30 day trial a go > shortly - so far I've had a quick play with the software that came with [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Thanks again. Lets face it, if you can't get PSCS then you have to get Elements 3.0, now, just do it, you know you want to. In the mean time get Irfanview, it will do most of what you need for no cost. > meantime is to ty and do this kind of work when the natural light is as > bright as possible (rather hard at the moment - it's the middle of winter > here). Where's "here" Colin? Toa New Zealand >> meantime is to ty and do this kind of work when the natural light is as >> bright as possible (rather hard at the moment - it's the middle of winter >> here). > > Where's "here" Colin? South of the equator somewhere I guess. > South of the equator somewhere I guess. Good guess Pete. Not long out of school huh <g> Toa >> South of the equator somewhere I guess. > > Good guess Pete. Not long out of school huh <g> Second childhood? LOL > Where's "here" Colin? > > Toa > New Zealand I'm in Nelson - how about you? > I'm in Nelson - how about you? Auckland here. I don't often get through that way but plan on it some time early March Toa Thanks amazing - I didn't know there was any life North of the Bombay hills :) What sort of photography are you into? Professional? Hobby? > What sort of photography are you into? Professional? Hobby? It's all hobby for me. I make a living working out how many beans make five so cameras and motorcycles help to keep me sane. Been taking photos since I was a teenager (all my kids are beyond their own teenage years now) but I've got much to learn. I've never taken a lesson in my life so am taking some night classes starting in a couple of weeks. I need to learn about better use of available light plus grab some tips on composition I like taking photos of people, specially when amongst groups of friends and family. Here's a bunch I took when on holiday a few weeks ago. Mostly just holiday snaps. http://photobucket.com/albums/v70/toa1614/Boscobel-Kanab/ They were taken mostly with a P&S Pentax 5MP and a P&S Fuji 3MP. That latter had a 6X zoom. I've been reasonably pleased with them but always annoyed at the shtter lag, specially on the Fuji so figured it was time to splash out onj a real camera. I still had my old Minolta SLR and a couple of lenses to grabbed a 7D last weekend. Combined with my 70-300 I should be able to get closer shots without getting physically too close (which tends to make some people a bit self-concious). Now for the learning curve <g> Toa > Auckland here. I don't often get through that way but plan on it some time > early March Would the last person to leave New Zealand please turn out the lights? SignatureComputers can never replace human stupidity. > On Sun, 24 Jul 2005, at 11:44:00 [GMT +1200] (09:44:00 Sunday, 24 July > 2005 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Would the last person to leave New Zealand please turn out the lights? Ho ho ho, that's a great one!! > Would the last person to leave New Zealand please turn out the lights? <chuckle> I intend to be here for a few more years <g> Toa > Would the last person to leave New Zealand please turn out the lights? I don't get it - our population is increasing. And with all the terrorism going on in other places, I wouldn't mind betting it'll be increasing even faster. > Hi all, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Just wondering if anyone would care to take a look - point out my mistakes - > and give me some pointers? 1) Bad lighting leading to unpleasant shadows. Shadows in a portrait should serve some compositional purpose: they shouldn't just be distracting blobs of darkness hanging about the picture. 2) Terrible background. The checked fabric conflicts with the knitted shawl/afghan, both of which clash with the young woman's top. The expanse of blank wall is distractingly boring. 3) Wrong color temperature-- it looks as is the shot was made in ambient tungsten lighting with no regard for white balance. 4) Bad posing of the subject. Except for mug shots, having a portrait subject stare intently into the camera's lens is rarely effective. 5) A little makeup on the facial blemish might have been appropriate. 6) Combing and arranging the young woman's hair wouldn't have hurt. 7) I just love the pointlessly-open pocket flap on her right upper arm 8) through 100) I simply don't have the time to list them all. You have a very pretty subject who should make an attractive portrait if properly posed and lighted. As it stands now, the portrait looks as if it were intended to be delivered to the girl's parents in a stained manila envelope, accompanied by a block-printed, crudely-spelled ransom note and one of her fingers in a little box. Seriously, this is an effort to spam the newsgroup, right? > 1) Bad lighting leading to unpleasant shadows. Shadows in a portrait > should > serve some compositional purpose: they shouldn't just be distracting > blobs > of darkness hanging about the picture. I'm the first to admit it's less than desireable, but I don't have anything to augment it just yet. I wondering how a couple of 250 watt halogens (on a stand) from the local hardware store would go? > 2) Terrible background. The checked fabric conflicts with the knitted > shawl/afghan, both of which clash with the young woman's top. The expanse > of blank wall is distractingly boring. Any tips for a better background that would be readily available in the average home? > 3) Wrong color temperature-- it looks as is the shot was made in ambient > tungsten lighting with no regard for white balance. Yes, I realised that already. I'll didn't think to experiment with this first - but now I've learned something thanks to the group effort - so thanks for that. As I mentioned, the backgroud wall is actually cream coloured, but I don't have the tools to correct it at hand. > 4) Bad posing of the subject. Except for mug shots, having a portrait > subject stare intently into the camera's lens is rarely effective. Not the way it was intended - I actually shot a burst of around 20 shots in a short time - many got discarded due to poor photos and gawky expressions - this one was the best of the batch. It wasn't an intense stare, just the way this particular shot panned out. Personally, I liked the pose in this one. > 5) A little makeup on the facial blemish might have been appropriate. Point taken, but it was outside the scope of the exercise (and our available equipment) (it's only an experimental exercise - I doubt any will ever even get printed) > 6) Combing and arranging the young woman's hair wouldn't have hurt. Again, not part of the exercise (yet) - will keep it in mind though. > 7) I just love the pointlessly-open pocket flap on her right upper arm Same as above. > 8) through 100) I simply don't have the time to list them all. The first 7 were great - many valuable things for this amatuer to consider - thank you for those. > You have a very pretty subject who should make an attractive portrait if > properly posed and lighted. As it stands now, the portrait looks as if it > were intended to be delivered to the girl's parents in a stained manila > envelope, accompanied by a block-printed, crudely-spelled ransom note and > one of her fingers in a little box. Lol - actually just a friend of my daughter who likes having her photo taken - and hence an opportunity for me to go from (hopefully) the "roll over" to the "just starting to crawl" stage of my photographic hobby (I usually fly aeroplanes for a hobby - the aircraft I love, it's just some of the people around them that I can't stand!) > Seriously, this is an effort to spam the newsgroup, right? Seriously? I was quite surprised by your comment. I'm the first to admit that I'm at the bottom end of a steep learning curve - on the other hand I'm a smart guy who learns fast and doesn't have an ego that stops me asking for help from others who are better at this than I am - hence the reason for my post. I'm surprised that wasn't / isn't more obvious to you. Thanks again for your input - much appreciated. > Seriously? I was quite surprised by your comment. I'm not. Having been around various newsgroups over the years I've seen various folk with various approaches to life. Some are helpful, some not and some are a mix of both. You've stumbled across the latter. It's the old story about wheat and chaff and having to sort one from the other Toa >> Seriously? I was quite surprised by your comment. > I'm not. Having been around various newsgroups over the years I've seen > various folk with various approaches to life. Some are helpful, some not > and some are a mix of both. You've stumbled across the latter. It's the > old story about wheat and chaff and having to sort one from the other It's cool - I've been around Usenet forever as well - I think people often read something between the lines that just wasn't meant to be there. Egos of course come into it a lot as well. I found the post very helpful, although a surprisingly detailed response if he really did consider it to be spam (does he mean troll?) >> 1) Bad lighting leading to unpleasant shadows. Shadows in a >> portrait [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > watt > halogens (on a stand) from the local hardware store would go? I have a flyer from Craftsman: 1000W twin-head worklight quick-release mounted on a tripod, tilts 90 deg, swivels 130 deg, 12-ft cord, up to 70-in tall. "Variable switch switch lets you select from four levels of light; 250 W, 500W, 750W and 1000W." Item #73825, reg 29.99, 19.99 (USD) July 27-30. How can I pass that up? SignatureFrank ess > I have a flyer from Craftsman: 1000W twin-head worklight quick-release > mounted on a tripod, tilts 90 deg, swivels 130 deg, 12-ft cord, up to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > How can I pass that up? You've got me thinking about how many watts I need. I've seen a unit at the local hardware store consisting of 2 x 250 watt halogen lamps mounted on a tripod. I can't remember the specifics but I think various bits go up and down / left and right etc. At least I'll be able to hook it all up to my variac and get anything from 0 to 500 watts per unit :) >> I have a flyer from Craftsman: 1000W twin-head worklight quick-release >> mounted on a tripod, tilts 90 deg, swivels 130 deg, 12-ft cord, up to [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >At least I'll be able to hook it all up to my variac and get anything from 0 >to 500 watts per unit :) With the consideration that the color temperature will change as you adjust the Variac. I'm not sure how much it happens with a halogen lamp, though I believe that below a certain temperature, the halogen remains as a solid precipitated out on the filament and the bulb inside surface, so I would expect a sudden C.T. shift as you slowly increased the voltage. And -- again below a certain temperature, I believe that the erosion of the filament (which is normally protected by the halogen vapor cloud) will increase, resulting in a shorter lamp life. Enjoy, DoN. SignatureEmail: <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 --- >I have a flyer from Craftsman: 1000W twin-head worklight quick-release >mounted on a tripod, tilts 90 deg, swivels 130 deg, 12-ft cord, up to >70-in tall. "Variable switch switch lets you select from four levels >of light; 250 W, 500W, 750W and 1000W." Item #73825, reg 29.99, 19.99 >(USD) July 27-30. >How can I pass that up? That's lots of red and green light for your sensor; but very deficient with blue. About 2 stops. So, if you shoot at ISO 400. lets say, the blue channel's exposure indevx will be ISO 1600, with only 10 bits of capture. You really need some deep blue filters that are big enough that they can be far enough away not to get real hot. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > I have a flyer from Craftsman: 1000W twin-head worklight quick-release > mounted on a tripod, tilts 90 deg, swivels 130 deg, 12-ft cord, up to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > How can I pass that up? I have that stand ( a pair of them actually) and they WILL make shadows disolve.. but even in winter, they will heat a room past any reasonable comfort level in very short order. SignatureLarry Lynch Mystic, Ct. [ ... ] >> 2) Terrible background. The checked fabric conflicts with the knitted >> shawl/afghan, both of which clash with the young woman's top. The expanse >> of blank wall is distractingly boring. > >Any tips for a better background that would be readily available in the >average home? Well ... I don't know your home, and *mine* is certainly not the "average home", but ... Various bed sheets come to mind. Some are nicely patterned, others nice pastel shades. This should be large enough so there is no transition between the background and the wall surface. You'll need to stretch the top fairly tight, and then perhaps add a bar across the bottom to minimize wrinkles. Ideally, look for ones where a fitted bottom sheet has died, and the matching top sheet is still in good condition. You'll probably have to cut off any fitted corners (if present) on the top sheet, hem it, and iron it before use. Once you do this, you may want to keep it rolled up on some tubing (mailing tube or PVC pipe) to keep folds from showing later. The traditional non-obtrusive background is seamless paper, rolled on just such a tube, falling vertically behind the subject, and then gently curving to under the subject to hide any corners at the bottom. It can be relatively expensive, and awkward to store, which is why I suggested the sheets. Or -- as already suggested by others -- space your subject a greater distance in front of a background, and shoot with a lens fairly wide open. For my Nikon D70, I would probably use the 50mm f1.4 indoors, and go pretty close to wide open, or outdoors, I might use the 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 zoomed in fairly tight, and near the maximum aperture available. (The 180mm f2.8 would give lots of depth-of-field isolation, but it would put you a bit too far from the subject for comfortable working. Enjoy, DoN. P.S. While I agree that most portraits don't work well straight on, this one does, for me -- helped by the subject's expression. SignatureEmail: <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 --- > Hi all, > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > CC I find the shot technically okay, but I find the pose to be boring. Look directly at the camera, with your body squared up to the lens, and smile, doesn't always get you an interesting portrait. Also, if you can pull the subject away from the wall and use less depth of field you can virtually eliminate the background. I recently took a portrait with a borrowed lens (105mm 2.8). The subject was sitting on the couch, but I had her turn sideways while I sat on the other end of the couch. I tightened up on the face and with plenty of distance between her head and the background, the background just fell away. Also, no shadows. > I find the shot technically okay, but I find the pose to be boring. Look > directly at the camera, with your body squared up to the lens, and smile, > doesn't always get you an interesting portrait. Also, if you can pull the > subject away from the wall and use less depth of field you can virtually > eliminate the background. It was actually one of a burst of about 20 - I was mostly working on "part A" (ie getting lighting / focus / DOF etc good) rather than "part B" (pose / makeup / hair etc). I only have a 18-55mm lens - the first series I shot were from about 2m away, but when I zoomed in on the face and shoulders I'd lost too much detail, so I moved the camera in to about 1m and got the results you see. As someone mentioned, a good crop would help a lot - but I didn't have any tools handy to do it. > I recently took a portrait with a borrowed lens (105mm 2.8). The subject > was sitting on the couch, but I had her turn sideways while I sat on the > other end of the couch. I tightened up on the face and with plenty of > distance between her head and the background, the background just fell > away. Also, no shadows. I'll have to give that a try as well. > Hi all, > > I've been experimenting with some indoor portraits - the best I've come up > with so far is at ... > > http://www.fototime.com/A1C3CF984E1334E/orig.jpg I feel ok about this: http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/origcopy.jpg I cropped, cloned the blemish away, adjusted the color levels on different hues, sharpened slightly, and did some burning and dodging in a new layer with an overlay mask at 30%. (I should have taken some shine off the right cheek.) Get closer to the subject and, as someone said, leave out background space and clutter. And yeah, bounce the flash off the ceiling. I think if you want to get serious about digital photography you need photoshop CS. Also, the 350 should have a white balance setting for flash. But you can change the film temperature when you look at the RAW into Photoshop. I know this sounds like a lot. It is a lot. Be patient. Peace. Signaturehttp://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/ > > Hi all, > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > a new layer with an overlay mask at 30%. (I should have taken some shine > off the right cheek.) That's an improvement but I think the crop is too tight. Greg > I cropped, cloned the blemish away, adjusted the color levels on > different hues, sharpened slightly, and did some burning and dodging in > a new layer with an overlay mask at 30%. (I should have taken some shine > off the right cheek.) Thanks for that - I appreciate the effort, although unfortunately it was a bit small for me to have been able to appreciate all of your good work. > Get closer to the subject and, as someone said, leave out background > space and clutter. And yeah, bounce the flash off the ceiling. I think I need a longer lens - I was already about 1m from the subject with the 18-55mm lens at 39mm. I'm going to try bouncing the flash, and will also pick up a couple of 250 watt halogens from the local hardware store (cheap as). > I think if you want to get serious about digital photography you need > photoshop CS. I'm the first to agree - I'm just evaluating my options to get a legit copy at the best price. > Also, the 350 should have a white balance setting for flash. But you can > change the film temperature when you look at the RAW into Photoshop. I deliberately set the white balance for flash - which is why I'm surprised the cream coloured wall came out looking like it did. I've never worked with RAW files - but I guess they're a logical progression once I get photoshop. > I know this sounds like a lot. It is a lot. Be patient. Thanks for that - it is a lot to learn, but I'll get there - 2 weeks ago I couldn't even remember if I needed to open or close the aperture to increase the DOF! >> I cropped, cloned the blemish away, adjusted the color levels on >> different hues, sharpened slightly, and did some burning and dodging in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Thanks for that - I appreciate the effort, although unfortunately it was a >bit small for me to have been able to appreciate all of your good work. Well ... you warned of a 3.5 MB image file, but what was on the web site was only 35785 bytes -- rather severely jpeg'd compared to what I had expected. [ ... ] >> Also, the 350 should have a white balance setting for flash. But you can >> change the film temperature when you look at the RAW into Photoshop. > >I deliberately set the white balance for flash - which is why I'm surprised >the cream coloured wall came out looking like it did. I believe that you said that you set the camera so the flash was being used only for fill. That would (since you were using the camera's built-in flash, I believe) would have meant that your subject would have gotten a bit more of the flash compared to the ambient light than the somewhat more distant wall, but both would have gotten most of their light from the ambient, which I suspect was tungsten, not fluorescent. > I've never worked with >RAW files - but I guess they're a logical progression once I get photoshop. Or other ways, if your preferred computer is not a Windows or a Mac machine. :-) (Those are all that Photoshop seems to support.) Enjoy, DoN. SignatureEmail: <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 --- > >> I cropped, cloned the blemish away, adjusted the color levels on > >> different hues, sharpened slightly, and did some burning and dodging in [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > somewhat more distant wall, but both would have gotten most of their > light from the ambient, which I suspect was tungsten, not fluorescent. Ahhhh....very good point. Nice catch. > > I've never worked with > >RAW files - but I guess they're a logical progression once I get photoshop. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Enjoy, > DoN. Signaturehttp://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/ > Well ... you warned of a 3.5 MB image file, but what was on the > web site was only 35785 bytes -- rather severely jpeg'd compared to what > I had expected. Hmmm - that's weird. I definately uploaded a 3.5mb file - and when I did a test download it was still 3.5mb - but when I test it now it's a lot smaller - I don't get it. (you'll notice that the link has ORIG at the end - for Original) I'll do some more testing :( Thanks for pointing it out >> Well ... you warned of a 3.5 MB image file, but what was on the >> web site was only 35785 bytes -- rather severely jpeg'd compared to what [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Thanks for pointing it out I sussed it out - I've apparantly blown the 50MB bandwidth limit of my trial account. Does anyone know of a good (free) ftp server that I could use to put up the occasional photo for review? > Does anyone know of a good (free) ftp server that I could use to put up > the occasional photo for review? Go to www.yousendit.com Upload the file by sending it to yourself. You'll get an email advising you of the URL to collect the file. Copy/paste that URL into a message to here and folks can download the file. I think there may be some limits as to how many times it can be downloaded (not sure exactly) but it's quite an efficient way of distributing large files. The file size limit is huge (1GB) Toa > > I cropped, cloned the blemish away, adjusted the color levels on > > different hues, sharpened slightly, and did some burning and dodging in [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > I'm the first to agree - I'm just evaluating my options to get a legit copy > at the best price. You might want to go the the Corel web site and download the trial of Paint Shop Pro 9 and see how you like it or just do a Google for "Paint Shop Pro 9 vs Photoshop" and make up your mind. If you like the idea of PSP9, you can go here to get a copy for $40 US with the Amazon guarantee: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/offering/list/-/B0002W2UMW/used/ref= olp_pg_used/103-7556241-7381469 ... and before any net cops get cranked up, no this isn't spam because I don't own Amazon or even care if he buys it.. or where. It's just one suggestion on a cheap way to get a full function editor for a beginner. Picasa2 is also free, but the edit functions are limited and there is another free one that was already mentioned (Irfanview, I think) that is pretty full featured as well, so putting it off because of money shouldn't be an issue. > > Also, the 350 should have a white balance setting for flash. But you can > > change the film temperature when you look at the RAW into Photoshop. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > couldn't even remember if I needed to open or close the aperture to increase > the DOF! > You might want to go the the Corel web site and download the trial of > Paint Shop Pro 9 and see how you like it or just do a Google for "Paint > Shop Pro 9 vs Photoshop" and make up your mind. If you like the idea > of PSP9, you can go here to get a copy for $40 US with the Amazon > guarantee: Thanks for that, but I ended up downloading the 300MB+ trial version of Photoshop CS - had a play with it today - obviously very powerful - my biggest concern was (is?) that I'd be too thick to be able to figure it out - but after plowing through a few of the tutorials for an hour today I got to play with some of the basics and got to stick my big toe in the water. Again, a really steep learning curve, but I think I'll be OK. I'll work with the images I took tonight then put them up for the group to flame-broil :) CC, ping me offline will ya. I have some photoshop CS stuff you may be interested in Toa > Hi all, > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Many thanks in advance. My suggestions: Ditch the speedlight. Invest $20 in some cheap 50 watt halogens. DSLR will allow you to handhold at iso400 or more, no problems, aperture wide. (Save the speedlight for outdoor portraits, where you may need fill flash) Shoot raw - adjust colour balance later. Get rid of the patterned background. If it's so close behind the subject that you can't blur it out, then move them somewhere else. Get a prop. A book, a dog, cat, anything. Consider B&W http://www.geocities.com/angels2000photos/ninabw.jpg |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.