Young woman

Jean Kelly · 06-05-2004, 11:45 PM

A friend of mine stopped over tonight after attending a wedding. I finally got a tripod, so she became my impromtu model. We threw this together and I'm wondering what you think. She has a beautiful profile so I decided to highlight that. There is a mix of daylight, flourescent, and incandescent light, and I corrected the color slightly in my photo program. I've been learning much more about the settings on my camera, and am now in totally manual mode!

Jean

Michele Rushworth · 06-06-2004, 10:25 AM

Very nice. Looks like there's still too much red in the skintones, though, so you probably need to do a bit more color correction.

You set yourself up with a difficult task by having natural light, incandescent and fluorescent going at one time. Why not just the natural light?

Jean Kelly · 06-06-2004, 12:23 PM

Hi Michele, I added the extra light because it was 7:30 pm and even with a south facing window the light was very low. I'll come back on later with more explanation (camera settings etc), I've got to go to a graduation. Be back later.

Jean

Jean Kelly · 06-06-2004, 11:40 PM

Hello again,

I've removed red and more yellow from the original. On my screen the background matches perfectly at this point, a silvery gray green. Since this was really "on the fly", I neglected to turn off the small incandescent light in the room. That is the only reason it's there, no planning or set up. The flourescent was to her left and pointed away from her. It's a small bulb on a pole lamp. I haven't set up the Chroma 50 bulbs yet in the dining room. Slowly the dining room is becoming more of a studio than anything else, it's a good thing my husband loves me.

I was just delighted that I was finally able to get a decent photo without using any automatic features on the camera. This has been a long intense learning experience with thousands of deleted photos. I'm considering using this for a painting or should I just do it again with better planning (no stray light bulbs)?

Jean

Michele Rushworth · 06-07-2004, 12:28 AM

Go ahead and paint it as is. I really couldn't tell there were other light sources. Have fun!

Jean Kelly · 06-07-2004, 11:47 AM

Thanks Michele, I have close-ups of her face and hands (minus the watch). She's also available for sittings, so this may be a go at some point. The tripod has helped tremendously as I have shaky hands. Shutter was set at 1 and f-stop was 5.3, ISO 50. I've found that there is no pixelation or little spots of color (?) at the lower ISO (sensitivity). I was about 14' away from her and focused on her midpoint (not the face) so no distortion! Thank you Sharon for that tip long ago. And in the high res image I can see every eyelash. My friend is excited as this shows a side of her that is rarely seen, she looks regal. It's kind of a "fantasy" portrait.

Jean

Michele Rushworth · 06-07-2004, 02:14 PM

I like the watch actually. It's a nice bit of sparkle down there that brings more attention to her hands. I look forward to seeing the completed painting or work-in-progress!

Jean Kelly · 06-07-2004, 05:24 PM

She feels that it is "clunky", she has to wear a watch due to her profession. She's a Nurse Practitioner with a speciaty in geriatrics. We are going to replace it with something else that is sparkly though.

Jean

Mike McCarty · 06-10-2004, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Shutter was set at 1 and f-stop was 5.3, ISO 50.

Jean,

I hesitate to break in here when you're on a roll but I thought I'd say a word about your ISO setting.

It's true that a lower ISO will produce a denser image. But, in my experience, and for our purposes, I believe an ISO of 200 will produce a fine enough and dense enough image. I could make the same argument for 400, but, certainly 200.

And, this ISO 200 will bring that shutter speed up considerably. Using a shutter speed of 1 second will allow only the most stoic (or dead) subjects to remain still enough. I don't think the difference in quality would be measurably different between a 50 and 200 ISO, except possibly at a print size which is two feet tall.

A metered shutter speed of a 60th of a second produced with an ISO of 200 will be doubled to 125th of a second using ISO 400. This can make a big difference in your success.

My new camera does not even have a setting lower than 200. What I'm saying is that I think you could be helped considerably by increasing the shutter speed and the image would not suffer appreciably.

Jean Kelly · 06-10-2004, 08:10 PM

Hi Mike, I was hoping you would jump in here. I've been reading your "photographic adventure" thread with interest. You started a discussion about ISO settings in there and now I see that you started another one. Thank you!

I've been playing around with the settings on my camera and so far have gotten a lot of noise at the higher ISO settings. I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong yet, so I'll keep try some of the settings you mentioned. My friend has no problem with coming back. She was "still as a statue".

Jean