ellis_vener_photography Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 yes I'm definitely fishing for comments and you can see the photo at http://www.photo.net/photo/7663967 Photo specs: D3 / 60mm f/2.8 AF-S Micro-Nikkor / ISO 1600 / 14 bit per channel NEF processed to DNG in Lightroom 2.0 No manipulation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tri-x1 Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 I'm a D300 user so I may be prejudice, but I think that camera could handle that particular lighting as well as the D3 did. Is the circle in the background part of the original photo? Almost looks like it was added later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_darnton1 Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 Ellis believes the photo is so spectacular that someone will desire to steal it, so he has taken the precaution of debasing it with a huge copyright symbol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rene11664880918 Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 Wayne... That's Elli's copyright symbol! Ellis.... Sorry! I am not up to critique your work but I can comment! Great shot under a very difficult lighting! Rene' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 If we never had to worry about even the smallest, compressed JPEG being swiped for use as thumbnail sized stock art, sure, copyright symbols wouldn't be necessary. However, since Ellis is an actual working professional photographer, yes, it's in his best interest to copyright everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted August 12, 2008 Author Share Posted August 12, 2008 response to Lex's critique:<P> <I>It could be my monitor is off, but I'm seeing a bit of a pink or magenta cast along her hair. The book or object she's looking at is definitely pinkish, tho' this could be reflected from her clothing. Ditto the forearm.</I><P> What is going on in the hair is a result of many days at the swimming pool this summer and some weird JPEG compression artifact. The glossy apges of the little magazine she is reading is reflecting pink from her shirt (angle of reflection = angle of incidence) and the bounce from her shirt lighting up the inside of her arm with a pink "fill" light.<P><I> In terms of technical stuff like details, noise, etc., it's difficult to tell from a small JPEG.</I><P>NO kidding!<P><I> The stark lighting and hard shadows makes for an interesting alternative to the familiar soft approach to casual portraiture of children.</I><P>Well That is reality for you -taking you somewhere to a result you didn't expect. What motivated me to make the photo was her expression of concentration, her hand gestures, the play of light and shadow, light, the range of color, and the geometry of the composition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 Heh, I was gonna mention her locked-in concentration and every other factor you mentioned! Dunno why I second-guessed myself and omitted that. But you've virtually duplicated every detail that crossed my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_brown4 Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 Quite hard lighting for a child's portrait, yet it works well. I think that fact that the shadow side of her face doesn't go black is a big factor in why it works.. I really like the simplicity of colors, pink and tan. And her glasses stand out as a focal point of the image. Obviously crisp and well composed without extraneous content in the frame. A slight improvement would be a touch of light on her reading material, so it would seem that she could actually see it. But this is a minor comment on an otherwise fine image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted August 12, 2008 Author Share Posted August 12, 2008 Oh she could see it all right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted August 12, 2008 Author Share Posted August 12, 2008 thank you Rene', actually the light was easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captain_jack Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 Hi Ellis, Nice pic of the kid. Please share any pic you might have taken in dull light at high ISO, without using flash. Thanks Captain Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walterh Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 After all positive remarks let me add a bit of constructive critique: A slight bit of lower contrast might still give the same expression but give a bit more detail and light values of her right arm (similar to the level of the hand). Also a slight bit of more texture in the highlights might improve the image without disturbing the light effect. The "local" contrast could perhaps be kept. The horizontal lines in the background - actually all the background in the "second row" is a bit distracting. You asked for it :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_in_PA Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 I like the way the shadows behind her and the shadows on her work together myself. Call it "in the pink". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted August 13, 2008 Author Share Posted August 13, 2008 Captain Jack: No flash was used and why would anyone ever want to voluntarily take a picture in dull light? Walter: I like the contrast the way it is and the exposure levels the way they are, showing everything with flatter contrast does not always make for a strong photo i know because I just tried developing the raw for a flatter contrast effect and it definitely makes for a weaker photo. The horizontal lines in the table edge and in the background background is important as it establishes a visual rhythm that the diagonal slashes of light and shadow on her and the booth she is sitting play against. same thing with the colors (mostly pinks, tans, dark grays and blacks) working together and against each other in the composition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hudspeth Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 Hi Ellis, I downloaded your photo into NX2 and played with the slider for shadow protection under quick fix and it seemed to lighten up her cheek without losing the contrast that you like on the other parts of the photo. The D3 seems to have an enormous amount of data in the shadows. Do you use NX2? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oskar_ojala Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 Hah, only Ellis can pull this off! I'm allowing myself to critique, but not cutting any slack there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthuryeo Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 Ellis, I would use the U-point feature (in CaptureNX or NX2) to selectively open up the shadow a little on her right eye area. It may also help to run it thru the D-lighting with the High-quality option turned on and adjust downwards since this is a really high contrast situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted August 13, 2008 Author Share Posted August 13, 2008 maybe Arthur & Jim but I like it the way it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_in_PA Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 Ellis, I agree... I LOVE it the way it is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 I'm laughing at myself for violating my own rules regarding critiques. I misinterpreted Ellis' request, which led to my comments dwelling on mundane technicalities. Note to self: Remember to assume that the image presented is *precisely* as the photographer intended it to be, unless otherwise specified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthuryeo Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 BTW, why did you convert from NEF --> DNG --> JPG? What's the technical advantage for the middle step? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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