Goshawk Posted March 6, 2015 Posted March 6, 2015 Nice bokeh, which lens? Cheers . . . Tamron SP90 2.8 Di VC USD macro. Effectively a 135mm on the D7100.
iamguava Posted March 7, 2015 Posted March 7, 2015 Filmgirl, this is my favourite portrait. I think it meets all your criteria? Although it was not posed and some may say it is a snapshot, I felt a certain connection with her that I believe made the shots that afternoon. Her eyes say it all.....
fimgirl Posted March 7, 2015 Author Posted March 7, 2015 Fimgirl to Filmgirl - love it. For someone so devoted to film I never saw this connection! For someone who's guidance of the production of your superb Halloween images completely changed my perception of photography and post processing, you sure don't need my opinion. As it is, I like the shot very much.
fimgirl Posted March 12, 2015 Author Posted March 12, 2015 Leica KE-7A, Elmarit M 135 2.8 @ f5.6, 1/125th sec, Tri-X 400, Hassie Flextight X5 scanner...gettin there... IMG_0251a copy1.jpg IMG_0252a copy1.JPG Quite nice shots Sunshine but where's the grain? Tri-X in 35mm and no grain? Shame on you Seriously, looks as though maybe you went for the noise(grain) removal which is a shame really as the grain is the essence of film. (IMHO) btw, why are the images carrying the _IMG Canon designation?
sunshine51 Posted March 13, 2015 Posted March 13, 2015 ^^^ FG...Playing around with grain removal and removed waaaaay too much. Not really happy with it, then again I didn't spend a heap of time perfecting amounts of grain for each try. Now spending time sorting out the X5's settings so when Tri-X is used the machine doesn't increase the grain..or seem to. Designation came from a mass rename of data as there was Can, Nik & Leica data scattered throughout the images I was working on then renamed everything starting with Can images.....all the rest had Can on them too. Won't let that happen again. I use a mass rename bit of sw and it copies everything from the first file in the queue. More px will come after the LIMA gig...they'll be better...hopefully.
Phra Ek Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 Another 'home studio' attempt ... single off-camera flash bounced off a portable reflector ....
sunshine51 Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 Heads Up!!! Hey PE...please be careful..... http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/809062-underboob-selfies-illegal-here-culture-ministry/ It would be terrible if you two got into any troubles.....
Phra Ek Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 Heads Up!!! Hey PE...please be careful..... http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/809062-underboob-selfies-illegal-here-culture-ministry/ It would be terrible if you two got into any troubles..... Thanks Sunshine51 - I didn't realize Underboob was an issue in Thailand 'till I saw the report about the Facebook postings ..... but is it still 'underboob' if she's lying down?
sunshine51 Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 ^^^ PE...That is a very valid question you just raised. Actually from my POV the shot is a 3/4 under-side boob shot! Using todays terminology in IMO. Nicely done too I must say. And to me shows nothing that in anyway can be misconstrued as "offensive". One sees more on any Thai TV entertainment programme. True?! Whether or not it is going to be an issue depends on the Culture Ministry and Yupha Thaweewattanakijborworn, whoever, whatever that puritanical person is...director or not. Anyway...for the threads here, the pic is acceptable but for an us vs "them"...well...better safe than sorry as the gov't seems to be on a website shutting down binge also. Odd ...sideboobies were never mentioned though!!!! Hmmmmm...hard to make a call. Perhaps we should get Mod Oilinki to comment.
bundycat Posted March 17, 2015 Posted March 17, 2015 so beautiful on her wedding day ..dress no. 3 !! My cooky
bundycat Posted March 17, 2015 Posted March 17, 2015 can I do this? please compare/comment- or should I put this type of request in Evaluate My Pic? thankyou
Dancealot Posted March 19, 2015 Posted March 19, 2015 I really love that photo, fimgirl. Thanks for sharing.
Goshawk Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 She melts me . . . (and i don't even know her....) big view - https://www.flickr.com/photos/moonboots69/16550388899/in/photostream/lightbox/
MJP Posted March 28, 2015 Posted March 28, 2015 ^^Good. You know I can never leave the sharpness and clarity sliders alone and always push them way high. Portraits ain't my thing.
bundycat Posted March 28, 2015 Posted March 28, 2015 all i did was crop it and put a frame..everytime i try to "shop " stuff i end up undoing everything and just leave it as is..so ok heh? i'm a pussa , we like things as they are..
sunshine51 Posted April 4, 2015 Posted April 4, 2015 Night Portrait, mother & child, 58mm @ f2, ISO ???, rather noisy, went for soft look.
FracturedRabbit Posted April 4, 2015 Posted April 4, 2015 IMG_0114.JPG Night Portrait, mother & child, 58mm @ f2, ISO ???, rather noisy, went for soft look. Looks more smeared than soft, especially on the child's head. A step too far with noise reduction?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now