Jump to content

jason_hall5

PhotoNet Pro
  • Posts

    1,111
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by jason_hall5

  1. <p>Amazing....simply amazing. I look forward to seeing a more complete sampling of her life's work. It is to sad that she will never get to see it appreciated. While it is so wonderful that the entire collection is in intact and so well preserved, I still find the whole story a bit sad as well. I sure hope that young man will handle the collection wisely once a dollar value starts to be placed on it. I also hope he is smart enough to document some things and get legal representation one the relatives come out of the wood work looking for their "share".</p>

    <p>Jason</p>

  2. <blockquote>

    <p>so what you are saying is that the background received more exposure than the foreground.</p>

    </blockquote>

    <p>Most likely it is more like 50/50. Put regardless of the number, that is the idea.</p>

    <p>Thanks Keith, I was taking some snaps of the kids while they played and noticed the effect on my little girl. So I turned off the flash and adjusted the exposure for the background with the rather slow shutter being on purpose. I then turned on the flash and dialed it down. It took several tries, but I simply told my son to duck as SOON as the flash fired. Of course it was set on first curtin sync. </p>

    <p>Thats the best I remember it going down. I was hand holding the camera while sitting on the sofa.</p>

    <p>Jason</p>

  3. <p>Below is a shot I took of my son several years ago. The exposure was over half a sec. He moved as soon as the flash fired. It was set to manual and the power was low enough it only partially exposed him. That is why he is so blue...being lit by the cool light of the flash in contrast to the rather warm lights of the ambient lighting.</p>

    <p><img src="http://jphotoarts.smugmug.com/photos/1138231621_nie24-M.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="400" /></p>

  4. <p>The cats tail was moving rather quickly and that is just were it was when the flash fired. However the over all exposure was a bit longer than that so the brightness of the fire behind the tail was exposed for the rest of the time the shutter was open. The tail was moving to fast and the abient light was to low to expose the tail at all. So it only shows up at the point it was when the flash fired.</p>

    <p>Jason</p>

  5. <p>A few ideas....</p>

    <p>Stick with what you know and do well. Often folks want to try and show wide verity, sort of a jack of all trades and master of none.</p>

    <p>It is far better to have a few really great shots than a bunch of Ok ones. No filler shots! Choose the photos that show your very best, even if you know they are not as good as you would want them to be.</p>

    <p>If you know an experienced photographer, ask if they can help you find your strongest photos....the ones that evolk emotion.</p>

    <p>Jason</p>

  6. <p>Well, speaking for myself...the photo must have relevance to what I am trying to document. Does it put the subject in a "good light". That is, if its a candid shot, will the person in the shot be ok with how they look in the final photo.</p>

    <p>I take into account the technical aspects, Is it sharp enough for the intended output? Does the composition work? Color, lighting...you get the idea.</p>

    <p>So basicly, if the execution is good and the photo is relevant and not redundant, its a keeper. There are times that techincal aspects can take a back seat...</p>

    <p>I was doing some family Christmas shots for nice couple. I was taking some shots of their little girl. I was using a 70-200 f2.8 at f2.8, so DOF was a bit shallow for baby shots. All of a sudden(when I was not completely ready) she stood up and took her very first steps. I fired off a set of shots as quickly as I could when I realized these were her first steps. I got a couple of shots but they were little out of focus. Not real bad, but enough that normally would have trashed them. I did not post the shots in their gallery because did not want folks to think that was my normal work quality. However I did give the couple a copy to do what what they wanted.</p>

    <p>This is mostly for event type work.</p>

    <p>Jason </p>

  7. <p>Tim,</p>

    <p>In the true context that the OP asked his question, you are right, most photogs would not have not have an issue.</p>

    <p>However, the subject of people claiming that digital photos are often too modified and somehow loose their link with reality due to heavy digtial manipulation, often gets rather heated. Many recall the "days of film" and how they had to be a better photographers because they did not have the digital tools of today to "fix" their photos.</p>

    <p>If you read this very thread you will see that right off the bat folks are defending the digital process and how post processing is simply a part of creating the intended image. In this case everyone stayed rather civil about it.</p>

    <p>I even started to do the same thing until I knew for sure what the OP's true intentions were for his question.</p>

    <p>It all comes from the arguments made by some that when you make any modification to a photo in the computer, it becomes digital art and is no longer a "photograph". Most do agree that at some point a photo does become digital art and not a "photo". However the opinion at which that transition take place varies greatly. To me, it's a mute point altogether. </p>

    <p>Jason</p>

  8. <blockquote>

    <p> As someone who is learning, seeing images that weren't touched with software alongside the same image finished with software would give me an idea of the possibilities.</p>

    </blockquote>

    <p>That was the impression that I got from your post. I just wanted to warn you that it could be a hot button topic for some. It has been talked about so much that many have developed a knee jerk reaction to the mention of the subject.</p>

     

    <blockquote>

    <p>I have no particular photographer I was curious about, and I don't know any locally that I would ask.</p>

    </blockquote>

    <p>I figured you could ask a photographer you saw here on Photo.net.</p>

    <p>Jason</p>

  9. <p>Jon, the problem here is an issue with exposure at the time of image capture. With the sky being blown out to solid white (and saved in JPEG) "simulating" a polarizing filter will be of no help.</p>

    <p>Sounds like a lesson to be learned...this is how we all learn at one time or another.</p>

    <p>Jason</p>

  10. <p>If you see a certain photo you would like to see the "before and after", you could contact the photographer and ask if they would share that info with you. Just don't be to shocked by the "No's" you may get. This can be a touchy subject and should be careful of how you approach them. However, if you make your intentions clear, I would think that most will be willing to let you take a look. </p>

    <p>Also, what you call "editing", others (such as myself) call it finishing. The post processing is just as much of a part of creating the photo as the image capture.</p>

    <p>I also think that all the points made above are rather good ones!</p>

    <p>Jason</p>

  11. <p>Yeah, I don't think that was a dig....and I think the ad shows why they are not present in the DSLR market. It gives the idea that there is no need to know a thing about aperture or shutter speed. Just turn the camera on and great pictures will happen. I think they should be sued for false advertiseing. :o)</p>

    <p>Jason</p>

  12. <p>I am pretty sure that the Rebel 300D does not have safety shift. But it has been a while since I used that camera. That was nearly 4 cameras ago....</p>

    <p>Since you seem to be getting worse results at 200mm, and the ghosting/blurr does seem to be directional, I would wonder if you are trying to use IS while mounted on a tripod. However you did not say you had the IS version of the lens, so most likely not the case. </p>

    <p>Jason</p>

  13. <p>Try the lens on another camera on a tripod. Then try your camera with another lens shooting the same subject and all setting and conditon being the same if you can. Check out the resulting photos and see if the problem stays with the camera or follows the lens.</p>

    <p>This should help with getting in the right direction to finding what is wrong. Let us know what you find.</p>

    <p>Jason</p>

  14. <blockquote>

    <p>From this I am going to try sticking paper towels on the wet negs (after photo flo) so it can absorb the water. Do you recommend this?</p>

    </blockquote>

    <p>Certainly NOT! The better solution is to get you a jug of distilled water at the store. Around here it is about $0.70 for a gallon at Wal-Mart. Just be sure you are getting "distilled water" and not "drinking water". I use the distilled water for all the steps on photo processing except for washing. I do use it for the final rinse in photoflo.</p>

    <p>The emulsion is soft when its wet (not nearly as bad as an older emulsion like Efke) and lint and fibers from the paper towel will stick like glue. You also run the risk of scratching it. That is the reason many folks do not like to use a film squeegee.</p>

    <p>So just use distilled water (or some other source of clean water) in the final rinse and you should be all set. If you do not want to buy the water, ask if you can get a gallon or two from the tap at the school darkroom. Just be sure to use a clean jug... :o)</p>

    <p>Jason</p>

  15. <p>Also, hang your film so that it is at a slight angle. This will cause the water to go to the edge of the film (and not the center) and run down to the corner and drip off.</p>

    <p>I do this buy useing something with some weight to it (like a gallon jug of distilled water) with a clip and string. I clip it to the bottom of the strip and move the weight to the side till it holds the strip at an angle instead of hanging straight down.</p>

    <p>Jason</p>

    <p>Jason</p>

  16. <p>My first question is what film are you useing. For most modern emultions, the ilford method of washing is enough. that is fill tank with water, invert 10 times, dump it and fill again. Then 20 inversions, dump it and refill. Give it 40 more invertions and you are good to go. Some folk like to wash for up to 20 mins.</p>

    <p>My next question is what ratio are you mixing the photoflo, its one of those thing that a dab will do ya.</p>

    <p>Are you useing distilled water? Do you have issues with hard water in your area if you use tap water?</p>

    <p>Jason</p>

  17. <p>Ok, I might as well take a stab at it as well.</p>

    <p>The difference in the image you linked to and your own photo is two fold. Your photo has the main light source comeing straight down. You did this by bounceing the flash off the ceiling. Much better method than using direct flash. However, it causes the eyes to fall in to shadow from the brow. Others pointed you to useing a bounce card to help with this and to add catch lights in the eye. That would certainly help.</p>

    <p>The image that was linked to is really well done. First thing I noticed that the angle of the main light(rather high angle at a bit more than 45 degrees off camera right) is such that it does an excellent job of lighting the eyes. Also you can see the catch lights that everyone is telling you about. Finally, to really make them pop, Post Processing was uses to brighten them and make the "white" part look more white, and not the light grey as they often do. Also they "enhanced" the iris a bit, this helped make the catch light stand out that much more.</p>

    <p>Jason<br>

    <img src="http://www.jphotoarts.com/Portfolio/Portfolio/MG2457/917053572_wvusc-S-1.jpg" alt="" /></p>

    <p><img src="http://www.jphotoarts.com/Portfolio/Portfolio/1691-2/669441418_Mt6bY-S-1.jpg" alt="" /></p>

    <p>jphotoarts.com</p>

×
×
  • Create New...