DSLRUsers.com

Tried out the new lens on my occassional partner in crime and I'm very pleased with the results.

Will have to pay closer attention to dof in the future though. Long time since I've used a fastish prime lens so the learning continues.

If anything it is too sharp. Had to pp them with a little gaussian blur to soften them up a bit otherwise I would have got beaten up!! Can't win sometimes.

Both 50mm, 1/60 sec, f3.2, iso 200







Cheers, John

Nice lighting John, natural light?

Glen,

At a guess I'd say it was naturally occurring flash on top of the camera.

I recall at a workshop with John Sexton some years back that someone asked what technique he used to get detail in the texture of the underside of a giant boulder. John replied that he preferred to work with 'available light' and that when he looked at his camera bag there was a Vivitar flash 'available' right in the left pocket.

Cheers,

On camera flash, Glen.

Overcast day so the room lighting was pretty dull. The pix were nice & crisp straight off the camera, a bit too good (you can see all my wrinkles ) but a bit of pp softened it nicely.

Got it it one, Sheetshooter. Handy "available light".

Cheers, John D

John,

Very nice.

What white balance setting were you using, and did you shoot raw or jpg? My guess is that you used auto wb, and, given that you used on-board flash, that's probably not the best setting for this type of shooting.

If you look at the skin colours, you'll see that they vary across the two images. That's probably not a good thing. Also, look into the whites of the eyes, and you may see a small colour cast in the first image; that cast is not present in the second.

As you were using a constant light source, the last thing you want is the colours from your subjects screwing up the wb, and thus either setting the wb to flash, or else using a preset wb, would help you achieve some consistancy in this area.

If you've shot raw, this can be adjusted in NC, but it's fixed at the time of maiking the original images.

Download the WB tutorial from our main page; you might find that helpful.

Hi JED
are you able to post a copy of the unPP'd image (or a crop of it at least)?

I'd be interested to see just "how sharp" the lens was....

Your guess was right, Greg. Auto wb but I did shoot raw so all is not lost.

Looking at the nefs in NC, the colouring seems to be consistent in both images to my tired old eyes so I am thinking that perhaps a slight difference in the pp may account for the variation. I'm also slightly colourblind (the joys of advancing age and diabetes) so I'm happy for any guidance there.

Are you still seeing a colour variation in the crops of the eyes?

Thanks for the heads up on the wb tutorial, will grab that.

Hi Aussie Dave,

These are 100% crops of the eyes. Just cropped out of NC into PS and converted to jpg with no pp. They show that I should have stopped down further for better dof. Camera to subject distance was about a metre so f3.2 wasn't good enough.

Apologies for the size, wanted you and Greg to get a decent look.





All tips/suggestions most welcome.

ps. Just previewed the post to make sure the links worked.....a bit scary having four eyes staring at you.

Cheers, John D

JED wrote:Your guess was right, Greg. Auto wb but I did shoot raw so all is not lost.

John,

Actually, I'm Gary , but thyat's ok. Just don't call me late for lunch!

Ok, good news in that you're shooting raw, and yes, I am still seeing a very minor difference between the colours of these two images. It's quite subtle, but let's look at the model's right eye in each image; that's the eye that appears further from us in each of the images. It's slightly in shadow (relative to the other eye) and I find that colour casts such as this are easier to spot in open shadow areas such as this.

I'm seeing, in eyes01, a very slight blue cast. Look closely at the white of her eye, immediately adjacent to the iris. While I'm not expecting a pure white here, I also don't expect to see the blue cast. To me the skin is also looking a little a little "jaundiced"

The second image appears (to me) to be more neutral, but as I say, this is a very subtle cast.

Here's my version, with just a very subtle nudge in the blue. While the eyes still don't look 100% neutral, the skin looks less jaundiced (to me)

Oops. Sorry Gary. I'd been talking to a Greg on the phone just before I did that post and my brain musn't have rebooted properly.

I can see what you've done and agree the skin tone has improved with the touch of cooling. As you said, it is very subtle, but these subtleties can make or break an image.

It's looks as though it will be a difficult balancing act (no pun intended) to get the right compromise. I've got a lot more playing to do.

Thanks very much for your help.

Cheers, John D

JED wrote:I can see what you've done and agree the skin tone has improved with the touch of cooling. As you said, it is very subtle, but these subtleties can make or break an image.

John, yes, this is very subtle, but that's probably why I persisted; you were so, so, so very close, but just missing it by that much!

While it's been a long time now, I have spent a lot of hours in a colour darkroom, and produced countless colour prints. I needed to look very critically at our output and this was exactly the sort of adjustment I needed to make.

I will say that it's so much easier to do on a PC than it is on a wet bench, but probably not as much fun.

Was playing around to fine tune the colour and decided to try a b&w version.

Pp'd it for a bit of glam and she loves it, so I've scored some brownie points

Did some darkroom stuff at school but it wasn't really my forte so computers have been a godsend for me.



Cheers, John

Very nice, I can see why she would be impressed. If my missus actually posed for photo's then maybe I could try to win some brownie points too!!
Well done.