Photo-a-day

[Bobster]

This is my first post in this thread, it would be great to get some critical feedback on this picture I took when messing around with some lights in my kitchen.

http://i.imgur.com/P6cn48c.jpg

I took a whole load of pictures, here's a small selection in this album.

SS is too slow, increase ISO - don't shoot children from above, makes them look like they don't have a neck..

[rox0r]

Indeed, your shutter speed is too low for handheld hence the poor IQ. Either use a tripod or bump your ISO to achieve more clarity.

[g8ina]

I would also say that WB set to auto (?) has made these look very "warm", maybe look at other WB settings or take a custom WB ?

[KeyboardDemon]

Thanks for the tips guys, I've been reading up and have a couple of questions.

Would faster ISO be better than using a wider aperture? I think in this case I know the answer, but would be interested to know your thoughts on this.

Also I'm not sure why I have the ISO set to 400 when my camera's native ISO is 160, I guess I wasn't paying as much attention as I thought I was.

In this shot I had my focal length at 98mm so if I was following the focal length reciprocal rule I should have been shooting with a minimum of 1/100 shutter speed, so that would require an additional 5 stops on the exposure, if I'm not mistaken, would increasing the shutter speed to 1/100 and increasing the ISO to 1250 be the best way to approach this shot, or should I stay with multiples of the native ISO and set that to 1600 then shoot at 1/200 or 1/250?

I would also say that WB set to auto (?) has made these look very "warm", maybe look at other WB settings or take a custom WB ?

I had a mixture of lights, I was using a couple of 500 watt PhotoLux bulbs, the main one had a 70x100 softbox to the camera right, and the second had an 81cm umbrella to camera left, plus I had an old 500 watt Philips light on the wall behind. You can see the softbox and the tube light reflected in his eyes, but being in a south facing kitchen we also had some light coming in from the window, though I'm not sure how much of a difference that would have made with 3x500 watt lights, do you think I would have been better off picking Tungsten or maybe White light settings?

[Bobster]

what camera is it?

[kalniel]

Would faster ISO be better than using a wider aperture? I think in this case I know the answer, but would be interested to know your thoughts on this.

Ask what you are trying to do. Aperture has critical affect on depth of field, thus in portraiture I would decide on this first (fix it), then adjust other parameters to obtain a viable shot. IE if that photo has your desired d.o.f. then you cannot adjust aperture so you must adjust something else (shutter speed, sensitivity/ISO, or available light).

Also I'm not sure why I have the ISO set to 400 when my camera's native ISO is 160, I guess I wasn't paying as much attention as I thought I was.

In this shot I had my focal length at 98mm so if I was following the focal length reciprocal rule I should have been shooting with a minimum of 1/100 shutter speed, so that would require an additional 5 stops on the exposure, if I'm not mistaken, would increasing the shutter speed to 1/100 and increasing the ISO to 1250 be the best way to approach this shot, or should I stay with multiples of the native ISO and set that to 1600 then shoot at 1/200 or 1/250?

Depends on the camera and how good it is at different sensitivities. I've never heard of any camera care about multiples of native ISO. Gain is a pretty continual effect separated into stops (and fractions of) only for our own convenience.

Or use a tripod.

I had a mixture of lights, I was using a couple of 500 watt PhotoLux bulbs, the main one had a 70x100 softbox to the camera right, and the second had an 81cm umbrella to camera left, plus I had an old 500 watt Philips light on the wall behind. You can see the softbox and the tube light reflected in his eyes, but being in a south facing kitchen we also had some light coming in from the window, though I'm not sure how much of a difference that would have made with 3x500 watt lights, do you think I would have been better off picking Tungsten or maybe White light settings?

You shoot RAW so that you can adjust white balance in post process and see what's best.

[GoNz0]

Thanks for the tips guys, I've been reading up and have a couple of questions.

Would faster ISO be better than using a wider aperture? I think in this case I know the answer, but would be interested to know your thoughts on this.

Also I'm not sure why I have the ISO set to 400 when my camera's native ISO is 160, I guess I wasn't paying as much attention as I thought I was.

In this shot I had my focal length at 98mm so if I was following the focal length reciprocal rule I should have been shooting with a minimum of 1/100 shutter speed, so that would require an additional 5 stops on the exposure, if I'm not mistaken, would increasing the shutter speed to 1/100 and increasing the ISO to 1250 be the best way to approach this shot, or should I stay with multiples of the native ISO and set that to 1600 then shoot at 1/200 or 1/250?


I had a mixture of lights, I was using a couple of 500 watt PhotoLux bulbs, the main one had a 70x100 softbox to the camera right, and the second had an 81cm umbrella to camera left, plus I had an old 500 watt Philips light on the wall behind. You can see the softbox and the tube light reflected in his eyes, but being in a south facing kitchen we also had some light coming in from the window, though I'm not sure how much of a difference that would have made with 3x500 watt lights, do you think I would have been better off picking Tungsten or maybe White light settings?

this begs for a new thread, kinda defeats the topic and whole point of photo a day

[KeyboardDemon]

what camera is it?

Canon EOS 5d Mk ii

this begs for a new thread, kinda defeats the topic and whole point of photo a day

Good point, well made. I will not pursue this topic further in this thread and further requests for help/advice with this picture or any others will get a new thread entirely.

[j.o.s.h.1408]

527A7771.jpg by jonneymendoza, on Flickr


Canon 5d3 unleashed by jonneymendoza, on Flickr

[j.o.s.h.1408]

cheers mate

[TheAnimus]

527A7771.jpg by jonneymendoza, on Flickr

Dunno if its the machine I'm on here, but the colours in that look blown out, the blue is too saturated, the sharpness is lacking completely, the exposure looks like there was an odd graduated filter on it.

Was it taken through some plastic window? Did you have a circ pol on, some plastics commonly used in aviation split light in a manner which you can only see with a polariser on, which is why if flying something I can't open the window, I take my CPL off, even my lovely B+W one!

[Bobster]

one from the weekend

[j.o.s.h.1408]

Dunno if its the machine I'm on here, but the colours in that look blown out, the blue is too saturated, the sharpness is lacking completely, the exposure looks like there was an odd graduated filter on it.

Was it taken through some plastic window? Did you have a circ pol on, some plastics commonly used in aviation split light in a manner which you can only see with a polariser on, which is why if flying something I can't open the window, I take my CPL off, even my lovely B+W one!

Na no filters used mate. i climbed up a lil hill to take that shot

here is a similar shot taken same place


527A7774.jpg by jonneymendoza, on Flickr

[kalniel]

Colours look better on that second one. There's a strange cast to the first one.

[j.o.s.h.1408]

Colours look better on that second one. There's a strange cast to the first one.

I dont see the cast on my ips monitors at home. Second is more vivid but first one had less pp then then the other

[j.o.s.h.1408]

When I get home I will look at it