Thoughts On The Lighting In This Pair Of D300 Photos?

[whoz_the_man_huh]

<p>James, can you please find me a photo editor equipped with a 'Pete S.' button?</p>

[whoz_the_man_huh]

<p>Ryan, I think your take has a 'shopped look but is extremely pleasing aesthetically nonetheless.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Like the second one a lot as is, maybe just a touch of contrast. I wouldn't saturate it, I don't find it flat. I like a nice overcast day soft light. The 1st one is perhaps a little flat, but I wouldn't do more than a little contrast. I don't like the versions here where people punched up the color, but that's just my taste. In other words, it's your pics, they are good enough that you can decide. I wouldn't have used fill flash either. You don't usually need it this kind of light as there's not an overly amount of shadow you need to "fill".</p>

[jeff_livacich]

<p>I've found overcast days can be great for outdoor portraits. The even illuminination is flattering, as it softens features and open shadows so the entire face is rendered well. When I first saw this, I thought "It's not the light, it's the color." The pink blossoms on the trees don't have the brightness one would expect, and her skin tone is, to me, bluish. Maybe a white balance adjustment should have been done first. Overcast days can be very good for bringing out color contrast, and can be excellent for floral shots. I would say experiment with settings, and you should find some very pleasing results.<br>

I disagree on the fill flash, which IS good for high contrast situations. If it were used on a very low setting it might be good to provide a little catch light in the eyes, but other than that it's not going to solve the problem. Fill flash evens out illumination, and the illumination is plenty even as it is.</p>

[aappelphotography]

<p>Got a lot of mojo.. and I like em. Adjust the curves to a slight S and you are there. Fill flash can help, but it is not a must and can blow out highlights, depends a lot on the situation.. I still use a diffusor outside on the flash when using fill flash, but it also depends on the distance. Go experiment! And feel the mojo :)</p><div></div>

[oistein]

<p>Hi Cal,<br>

I think your portraits are nice. Fill-flash might often kill the atmosphere that you get from natural light, so my recommendation would be to be very careful with that. If the light is of high quality (e.g. an octabox) it might blend in nicely though. But these portraits can be enhanced quite well with a few adjustments in photoshop. Overcast weather is like photographing with a huuuge softbox and is usually very good for portraits. You could fill in some light by bouncing light from a white reflector. <br>

The face should be the center of attention, hence you need to get a proper balance. Digital files often look a bit dull (especially if you take them from the raw converter at flat settings with regard to contrast) and might benefit from a contrast increase (e.g. copy background set to softlight at 40% opacity). I always think that bringing down the background by a curve adjustments layer and painting back the subject in focus works very well. People have different preferences on this so my opinion doesn't apply to everyone of course. Here is my quick contribution.<br>

Cheers,<br>

Oistein</p><div></div>

[oistein]

<p>sorry duplicate</p>

[john_reynolds10]

<p>Here is another version if I can figure out how to post it.</p>

[john_reynolds10]

<p>This might work.</p><div></div>

[henry_lapo3]

<p>You can also not save the jpg in Adobe RGB...looks much greyer and flatter when viewed in non-colorspace aware browsers. Just convert to SRGB for web viewing and the color returns to her cheeks.</p>

[whoz_the_man_huh]

<p>Thanks, Andre. I agree with you and many others here that there was probably no need for fill on this day.</p>

[whoz_the_man_huh]

<p>Thanks for your comments, Oistein.</p>

<p>I've always been against the artificial look of fill flash although that may be because I don't own the right equipment.</p>

[john_reynolds10]

<p>Dear, Dear Henry<br>

Assuming your comment was directed at my version: Actually the posted version is very close to the version I see on my screen (relatively that is) save loss of some detail in the black areas. I don't mean to burst your bubble but I don't share your love of 'rosy cheeks.' My version was entirely intentional except that I pandered to Calvins predilection for saturated colours, though I don't believe it works for this image. I was just having trouble with the posting procedure; sequence and size of file.<br>

Also, Calvin I would suggest you experiment with your on camera flash used as fill flash - sometimes it works wonders or at the very least produces interesting effects. Experience counts more than the opinions of others.</p>

[whoz_the_man_huh]

<p>Thanks, John, for your thoughts and your interpretation of the photo.</p>

<p>With respect to rosy cheeks, I believe they have their time and place, depending on whether they contribute to the atmosphere and intentions of a particular image.</p>

[john_reynolds10]

<p>Exactly my view Calvin. Not every image needs rosy cheeks. Now tell that to Henry.</p>

[henry_lapo3]

<p>John...you assume incorrectly that I was commenting on your version - how you reached this conclusion is beyond me. Anyway, the original files that Calvin posted are in the Nikon Adobe RGB colorspace, and whether you chose to believe it or not, viewing those files in a non-colorspace aware application WILL cause them to appear slightly washed out and flat - exactly what Calvin was concerned with.<br>

As for you bursting my bubble...trust me, you haven't. I made no mention of rosy cheeks and certainly did not make any representation of what MY preferences were, nor did I attempt to foist my preferences on the OP. Fact is Calvin was asking for input regarding a lack of "zip, spunk, mojo, what have you"...and had asked if there was anything he could have done about the "gray sunlight" and overcast lighting. I simply pointed out that using the correct colorspace for the intended audience could affect the viewing experience of said audience, and thereby affect the feedback he received.</p>

[john_reynolds10]

<p>I don't believe you. Your post originally mentioned rosy cheeks but it was edited.</p>

[ken_d__virginia_]

<p>IMO, Andrea and Oistein have contributed the best of the variations to the first photo, which in its "untouched" form I wasn't watch finding that appealing. I think it was a cropping issue, and the curves added a good deal too. I especially like the crop Andrea applied. As for the second photo, it's very pleasing as is. I'm with those who say that "pop" is not always what you want. It can be especially unnatural with photos of people.</p>

[henry_lapo3]

<p>John, believe (or don't believe) whatever you wish...it doesn't make it true. You jumped to conclusions and now stoop to unsubstantiated accusations. You've shown your colors, as I'm sure you will yet again in response to this post. I'm done with you...have a good day.<br>

Calvin, sorry your post was dragged off topic, there has been much good input on this thread and I hope you found what you were looking for.</p>

[whoz_the_man_huh]

<p>Thanks, Henry and John, for your ideas. Let's let the matter rest here.</p>

[david_ralph1]

<p>Mainly white balance adjusted using white control point on her blouse. Cloudy white balance setting was a logical choice on a cloudy day, but it just did not look right to me this time -- even in Capture NX. <br /> I moved the black cursor point in editing to the right to meet the start of data, which adds some contrast and pop. Most times these two edits will suffice for a majority of images.<br /> Her hair was dark and hard to see. So, I put a little shadow recovery and lightened her hair a smidgen with color control points.<br /> The EXIF data indicates that this D300 image (my own main camera) was apparently shot at ISO 100 equivalent, minus one EV. I am just curious why you made that choice since the camera's optimum ISO, and dynamic range, is usually regarded as ISO 200.<br /> I converted it to sRGB colorspace for posting here as that will look natural on a web browser. Adobe RGB will not look correct on a the web in a browser, only in the editing software, but will not produce correct colors in a web browser. The original files seemed to have a greenish color cast in my browser.<br /> Just to experiment, I did a very little smoothing of parts of her face with Photokit Sharpener plugin in PS CS3, and then output sharpened for web purposes. My fiance hates it, her sister too, when I take a portrait with a really sharp lens revealing every exquisite pore and hair on her face. I need to practice this more.<br /> Finally, you apparently took the shot with an 85mm 1.4. I think the image is really great, with background out of focus in a nice manner. How do you like using that lens?</p><div></div>

[david_ralph1]

<p>Calvin, that cloudy white balance might have looked satisfactory to you in Capture NX. We cannot tell what it looked like out here on the web since Adobe RGB color space was published. That white balance setting was baked in, though, when the images were saved as jpgs. Ergo my use of a white point in the jpg to modify the color balance.<br>

I do not know if you originally shot these in raw or jpg. Raw allows easy use of any white balance variation in the converter. <br>

In the case of the D300, a raw file has approximately five more stops of dynamic range than does a jpg. Raw would have provided a lot more room to recover detail, such as the details in her hair.</p>

[whoz_the_man_huh]

<p>Thanks for your work on the photo, David.</p>

<p>I would rather lose an arm than the 85mm F1.4 which some justifiably call the "king of bokeh". It's simply boss.</p>

<p>Finally I always shoot in RAW and minimal ISO because... well... that was what my mentors taught me. Heh.</p>

[david_ralph1]

<p>Calvin, on that cloudy day, with all that nice even light and low contrast, the LO setting on the D300 was probably just fine. In general theory, low ISO usually means better image quality. The small cost in this case would come in a high contrast situation. Part of a stop of highlight range is given up at the ISO 100 setting in the D300. At least so says Thom Hogan in his D300 guide. I believe Dpreview found the phenomenon.</p>

<p>Have fun with that 85mm 1.4 I am envious. </p>

[psul_aul]

<p>I agree about the photoshop mumbo jumbo .... capture the image the way you want the first time.... Lots of different ways fill flash could have been applied, but the most simple would be the pop up flash. You are mistaken if you think the pop up is inadequate for the job.<br>

Someone commented that the pop up flash gives kind of a harsh light for fill , but that is totally a matter of taste. You need to try it to see if you like it or not. I think it would have given these photos the pop you are looking for and been much quicker and more effective than all the "post" work in photoshop.</p>