-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
portrait d3 + 50mm 1.4 G (C&C)
- Thread starter flhotelin
- Start date
georgehorning2003
Forum Enthusiast
Wow. Very Nice.
BiscuitMonster
Senior Member
Jim Hammond
Senior Member
GlennA
Leading Member
Adman222820
Leading Member
Sweet shot.
click click
Forum Enthusiast
i think the portrait is fine, but i will crop it so that the light are no longer in the picture, they will take your eyes away!!
the image is sharp enough and you don't need to demonstrate how your lens handles out of focus areas
the image is sharp enough and you don't need to demonstrate how your lens handles out of focus areas
AndreaRox
Active member
I really like it! but maybe it's true that the lights are a bit distracting.
thanks for sharing!!
thanks for sharing!!
marbles504
Well-known member
I don't think I would crop the lights out. The out of focus hallway and lights seem to give a depth to the guy that certainly wouldn't be there if the picture was just him. I don't mean physical depth, but some kind of depth about his character that is. Anyway, absolutely amazing portrait nonetheless.
VividExposures
Leading Member
Very nice. Seems to be a little yellow cast on his skin tone.
CYAN: is one third to one fifth of Magenta or Yellow channel
MAGENTA: magenta and yellow are close to each other
YELLOW: is higher then magenta
K: is zero
CYAN: is one third to one fifth of Magenta or Yellow channel
MAGENTA: magenta and yellow are close to each other
YELLOW: is higher then magenta
K: is zero
I know but this image was not planned, it was one chance and I only had with the d3 with that lens. Usually I shoot with my Noct or the 85mm 1.4.
http://www.kromofor.com
--
http://www.kromofor.com
DaveIsHere
Well-known member
I'm probably the only one who doesn't like the effect of the OOF hallway. I think the DOF is too shallow. I think just a bit more DOF, enough so that there is a bit more definition to the hallway and more "depth" to the image (not in the technical sense). Something so that the walls closest to him are somewhat in focus and it gradually fades to a blue as the hall recedes, rather than the totally OOF background.
And as someone else mentioned, there seems to be a definite yellow tint to his face.
Still, it's a better image than I've ever taken. He's got a lot of "character" in his face, and you've managed to capture that very well.
And as someone else mentioned, there seems to be a definite yellow tint to his face.
Still, it's a better image than I've ever taken. He's got a lot of "character" in his face, and you've managed to capture that very well.
- Dave
Very nice image.
And especially nice since you only had one shot.
I like the new G lens from Nikon I use it and the Zeiss 1.4 all the time.
Both are very good and very different.
As to the image, I would have liked to see this picture at f/4 or even 5.6 but I think f/4 would be enough just to get more of the back of his head to be in focus.
His ear is out of focus.
I also find the lights in the hallway somewhat distracting. At the same time though they do add to giving a nice perspective to the image as whole.
Nice image.
Congrats.
--
PhotoGo
And especially nice since you only had one shot.
I like the new G lens from Nikon I use it and the Zeiss 1.4 all the time.
Both are very good and very different.
As to the image, I would have liked to see this picture at f/4 or even 5.6 but I think f/4 would be enough just to get more of the back of his head to be in focus.
His ear is out of focus.
I also find the lights in the hallway somewhat distracting. At the same time though they do add to giving a nice perspective to the image as whole.
Nice image.
Congrats.
--
PhotoGo
DaveIsHere
Well-known member
It's possible I guess. =)
I was thinking it was more likely due to the industrial lighting, and that a bit of white balance change or some slight color changing would improve the image.
Whitebalancing in fluorescent lights can be a real beets.
They come in different warmness/coolness and on and on.
After shooting a lot under fluorescent lighting and never quite getting it perfect I started carrying a WhiBal card with me. Now I just shoot one image where I can see it somewhere in the image and bulk adjust all the images from that shoot.
--
PhotoGo
They come in different warmness/coolness and on and on.
After shooting a lot under fluorescent lighting and never quite getting it perfect I started carrying a WhiBal card with me. Now I just shoot one image where I can see it somewhere in the image and bulk adjust all the images from that shoot.
--
PhotoGo
I don't mean anything, but just saying that sometimes we are quick to judge people's pictures and tell them how it's supposed to look like when we were not even there to actually know how it looked like.
I don't mean you guys, but the comment reminded me of a post that I made at photo.net maybe a couple years ago, I was just posting something casual asking "When you take pictures, do you make them to look like how they are in real life, or do you make them to look 'right'?"
Meaning let's say if the actual picture is rather dark, do you expose until the picture looks 'right' as in normal, correctly exposed pictures, or do you leave your picture as how it looks like in real life - even if it means that it might look under exposed by people who don't know the actual story/condition behind the picture?
And I got sooo many condescending and arrogant replies, some of them said I should learn my craft agsain, some of them said something like: "We never take under exposed picture and all pictures we take were perfectly exposed...", bla bla bla... And one of the moderators replied to my thread in a very arrogant and condescending manner (can't remember what he exactly said) but it p|ssed the heck out of me.
So I went and checked his website. I found out that he makes a living taking pictures for small gigs and small sporting events, but that's what he is - taking pictures - no sense of art whatsoever. All of his supposedly 'best works' look at best only like snapshot style, all in B&W to give the sense of "pro" look but it was pretty crappy. And the guy had the nerve to talk as if he was the best photographer in the world. I gave him harsh replies (might've insulted his 'talent' too) but of course the other mods were quick in doing damage control and deleted his posts and mine.
Yeah enough rant about previous incident, but what I'm trying to say is, of course in certain situation it is easy to figure out how a picture is supposed to look like, but we can't really 100% tell how a picture is supposed to look like unless we are there.
Back to the example like the picture the OP posted, if in real life there was actually slight yellow tint there, I'd probably leave it as it is. It is just a normal shot, not a controlled studio portrait shot, so I tend to just leave things as natural as possible. But then again it might be just me though.
I don't mean you guys, but the comment reminded me of a post that I made at photo.net maybe a couple years ago, I was just posting something casual asking "When you take pictures, do you make them to look like how they are in real life, or do you make them to look 'right'?"
Meaning let's say if the actual picture is rather dark, do you expose until the picture looks 'right' as in normal, correctly exposed pictures, or do you leave your picture as how it looks like in real life - even if it means that it might look under exposed by people who don't know the actual story/condition behind the picture?
And I got sooo many condescending and arrogant replies, some of them said I should learn my craft agsain, some of them said something like: "We never take under exposed picture and all pictures we take were perfectly exposed...", bla bla bla... And one of the moderators replied to my thread in a very arrogant and condescending manner (can't remember what he exactly said) but it p|ssed the heck out of me.
So I went and checked his website. I found out that he makes a living taking pictures for small gigs and small sporting events, but that's what he is - taking pictures - no sense of art whatsoever. All of his supposedly 'best works' look at best only like snapshot style, all in B&W to give the sense of "pro" look but it was pretty crappy. And the guy had the nerve to talk as if he was the best photographer in the world. I gave him harsh replies (might've insulted his 'talent' too) but of course the other mods were quick in doing damage control and deleted his posts and mine.
Yeah enough rant about previous incident, but what I'm trying to say is, of course in certain situation it is easy to figure out how a picture is supposed to look like, but we can't really 100% tell how a picture is supposed to look like unless we are there.
Back to the example like the picture the OP posted, if in real life there was actually slight yellow tint there, I'd probably leave it as it is. It is just a normal shot, not a controlled studio portrait shot, so I tend to just leave things as natural as possible. But then again it might be just me though.
It's possible I guess. =)
I was thinking it was more likely due to the industrial lighting, and that a bit of white balance change or some slight color changing would improve the image.
stevedigiphoto
Leading Member
one word - superb. The extreme sharpness area emphasised by the restricted aperture makes the subject jump out - great job.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum