The Photography Thread

[North Star]

I don't recall that Nikkor behaving that way wide open. In any case, if I'm shooting with a large aperture and find the 'walls creeping in' I take care of it in Photoshop. Is it as apparent SOOC? The 50mm I most often use is a 1.2 and while there's fall off it's not as pronounced.

Crop - I was thinking of removing just a touch from the top to allow the lake to dominate just a little more. The lake already gives me the impression that it's almost brooding as it reaches out to pull the viewer in. As I said, it's a fine shot as it stands.

e: here's the 1.2 for comparison. The bottom of the frame is untouched. Also, take in to account that I always use a vented RF hood and gaffer tape with this lens. Don't ask. 

That's the only example I have at hand and it's raining outside, so I've already been soaked once this morning during my run. The hell with a repeat performance. 

Oh, it's not that apparent SOOC, of course. What I meant was, that's what I get when I pump the contrast sky high in post. 

Crop: Alright, I see. Yes, that's a good suggestion. And yes, brooding indeed.

Re: 1.2 - yeah, that's more vignette than the 1.8, of course.

[NikF]

Oh, it's not that apparent SOOC, of course. What I meant was, that's what I get when I pump the contrast sky high in post. 

Good. I'm glad, because for a moment there I was thinking "What kind of sick, twisted individual was responsible for North Star using such a crappy lens?!  "   

Crop: Alright, I see. Yes, that's a good suggestion. And yes, brooding indeed.

Yes. And that crop is even better than I imagined it would be. Good stuff.
Keep in mind that when your subjects are like this I consider what I'm seeing on a screen, but also the impact of it printed and being displayed. In this case, when in an exhibition environment I feel the water in that image could almost be invading part of my personal space.

Re: 1.2 - yeah, that's more vignette than the 1.8, of course.

I only use a 1.2 because I don't want to carry my work 2.0 around with me all the time. I've had it for so long.



1.2 is cool if you're shooting handheld 1/15 or 1/8 or slower. But still, it's only half a stop (or if you measure it as a t-stop, maybe only one quarter) or so and wide open is never the best. I had a Noct-Nikkor which was great in the dark, but miserable otherwise.

But yeah, in my humble opinion that crop has worked great.

[North Star]

Good. I'm glad, because for a moment there I was thinking "What kind of sick, twisted individual was responsible for North Star using such a crappy lens?!  "   

Hah!

Yes. And that crop is even better than I imagined it would be. Good stuff.
Keep in mind that when your subjects are like this I consider what I'm seeing on a screen, but also the impact of it printed and being displayed. In this case, when in an exhibition environment I feel the water in that image could almost be invading part of my personal space.

But yeah, in my humble opinion that crop has worked great.

Yes, that's a good way to put into words what I was trying to convey with image.
Agreed, re: crop.

I only use a 1.2 because I don't want to carry my work 2.0 around with me all the time. I've had it for so long.

1.2 is cool if you're shooting handheld 1/15 or 1/8 or slower. But still, it's only half a stop (or if you measure it as a t-stop, maybe only one quarter) or so and wide open is never the best. I had a Noct-Nikkor which was great in the dark, but miserable otherwise.

Yeah, I think I'd rather get a body that has relatively little noise at some crazy high ISO's than go with a 1.2 wide open for very low light stuff.

[North Star]

[NikF]

In this instance the mouth should be either fully closed or the lips parted fuller.



Also, despite having such a relatively small nose there's always a risk of breaking the line of the cheek - which I don't consider a good thing.

[aligreto]

In this instance the mouth should be either fully closed or the lips parted fuller.



Also, despite having such a relatively small nose there's always a risk of breaking the line of the cheek - which I don't consider a good thing.

I understand and agree with the second point but what is the thinking behind the first point please? I am seeing a very natural pose.

[NikF]

I understand and agree with the second point but what is the thinking behind the first point please? I am seeing a very natural pose.

As always, I can only speak from my experience.
Yeah, it's natural, but it isn't something you would turn in to a client or an agency and expect them to take you seriously. That type of natural is fine for a snapshot or some kind of candid capture.
This is what I wanted -


Or on the way to this, because here there's at least the basis of something to work with when retouching -


e: but thanks for questioning it. It's good to question, and the lack of questioning allied to the general echo chamber/circle jerk of most photography message boards is part of the reason I no longer post on them; years ago one popular forum banned me for politely pointing out that an "expert glamour photographer" member who had a book published on the topic of 'vintage Playboy style glamour photography', had failed to even mention a hugely important aspect of the work that is integral to the look he's an expert on.

[aligreto]

Thank you for that and for the visuals to help with the point.

[NikF]

Thank you for that and for the visuals to help with the point.

You're welcome.



In other news...


This photo from the above post -

We shot this in the garden. It has been edited, but it's basically the result of an orange #21 filter.

This was taken the same day, but with a long lens on medium format digital -



'Completely Untouched Toots'

[aligreto]

All great portraits BTW 

[North Star]

[North Star]

[NikF]

Of the two, this one by far. It's more together as a composition - which makes it more immediate for me - and I find it more interesting, despite it being relatively simpler than the other shot.
At this point I usually say something such as "...and have you considered perhaps trying..." but I will refrain from doing so. 

[North Star]

Of the two, this one by far.

Agreed.

At this point I usually say something such as "...and have you considered perhaps trying..." but I will refrain from doing so. 

Drat!

[North Star]

Thread duty

[NikF]

Drat!

Okay, but apologies if you're already thinking and considering or even started working this way.
I find when employing a shallow DOF to still life, that manipulating the lighting ratio can often work with it, almost hand in hand. A piece of white card (we use sheets of polystyrene) or proper reflectors are good. Sometimes the addition of more specular-like highlights can be interesting - in which case the aforementioned card covered with tinfoil/kitchen foil is good. In my little shoulder bag that goes nearly everywhere with me I carry one of those folding windshield reflectors, although this can make Leica users look at you with horror and exclaim "On no, he is a poor".

[NikF]

Thread duty

And this is of even more interest. Good stuff.

[North Star]

Okay, but apologies if you're already thinking and considering or even started working this way.
I find when employing a shallow DOF to still life, that manipulating the lighting ratio can often work with it, almost hand in hand. A piece of white card (we use sheets of polystyrene) or proper reflectors are good. Sometimes the addition of more specular-like highlights can be interesting - in which case the aforementioned card covered with tinfoil/kitchen foil is good. In my little shoulder bag that goes nearly everywhere with me I carry one of those folding windshield reflectors

Apologies unnecessary, even if I had.  Of course I have thought about them, but don't recall using them, apart from a white sheet of paper once. I can't say I've considered before that it could be especially useful with shallow DOF still-life, although obviously using window light, they would be useful in modifying the light.

although this can make Leica users look at you with horror and exclaim "On no, he is a poor".

And this is of even more interest. Good stuff.

Thanks.

[Szykneij]

I took this one a couple of months ago. My timing was good. The next day, most of the leaves were gone.

[NikF]

Apologies unnecessary, even if I had.  Of course I have thought about them, but don't recall using them, apart from a white sheet of paper once. I can't say I've considered before that it could be especially useful with shallow DOF still-life, although obviously using window light, they would be useful in modifying the light.
Thanks.

You're welcome.

See, I view a reflector the same as simply another light source. In fact, I'll even include flags and scrims with that. It's all there and can be used as you see fit.
I don't really shoot still life, but I'll have a think and try to come up with an example.

I took this one a couple of months ago. My timing was good. The next day, most of the leaves were gone.

Yes, your timing was good - as is the resulting shot. I like looking at photos, so thanks for posting it.