Her right arm is in a really akward pose, and it makes her look like she has a tiny midget arm. She needs to pull her elbow out or something to create a more dynamic angle there.
The cloth draped over her cuts her shoulder off(but also creates a fun sliming effect on the rest of her body)
Its a cool concept but I think the pose needs work.
Thanks EQ. Yeaa I was afraid about the arm as well. We were just trying to break it up a bit but this might be a bit too much
I have more images with a normal pose but they felt kind of boring. Posing is still very very difficult for me. Feels so good when I meet someone that does not just stand and look at me when we start shooting.
I think that arm would look better turned slightly, like EQ suggested, and her hand in her hair, like she's pulling it out of her way. The other arm looks uncomfortable too. It seems like her hand should be on her stomach/waist or something.
I like the concept too, she just looks uncomfortable.
Thanks as always, Disanki, for posting what you got! This latest one is really interesting; it feels like it tells a story. The one before was very close to being amazing too... just needed a more comfortable pose, and it'd be there!
Thanks Mezz. About that first picture I actually decided I love the pose I will probably work on more images from that same photo shoot but this was my favorite.
Talking about photos - what are your favorite portrait photographers? I would like to look at some more portrait photographs particularly from the sixties and seventies.
Here is one more image
Dude, awesome pictures!
Here's a picture I took in the Notre Dame, I liked the diagonal line of light and dark . (even though I'm an atheist, I can still appreciate art in churches as good as anywhere else). Priester in Notre Dame by Ilja Kocken, on Flickr
It looks like you love your new toy I just ordered the 85mm f/1.8 and I can't wait for it Once I get it this thread is all mine Because I could not trust the Bulgarian postal services I will have to wait for a friend of mine to come back from the states and bring it to me. I have been also checking the medium format TTL cameras on ebay for some time but I am still unsure of what is what
Yes I'm having a lot of fun with it, it can be pretty hard to control, but at the same time, offers a really unique viewport with the extreme perspective distortion. I actually thought I would have to do a lot more work to "de-fish" it, but the barrel distortion isn't so bad when shot level.
Its a 8mm 3.5 Fisheye for anyone who is wondering, manual focus in canon eos mount, Samyang aka pro-optic, rokinon, vivitar, etc etc.
The 85mm 1.8 should be the perfect lens for your portraits!
Really nice. The only thing I dislike is how cut out her upper body feels. I'd go in and mask out some of your sharpening post processing so it doesn't make that edge so hard.
Great suggestion Ben, thanks a lot. I think I went overboard with the sharpening all together after I resized it down, but it was like that even before I start doing anything on it. I will add a touch off blur near the edges Thanks again.
I don't know about lots of noise, image quality so far exceeds that what I've gotten out of the 5D, and that's quite a great camera in regards to low noise as well. I never do luminance noise reduction, I'd rather have it in there with all the details, than crank up a noise reduction slider and lose some fine stuff.
Plus I blame any fine processing errors from having to use Silkypix. It's horrible, slow, unintuitive program, but it's right now the only one that supports raw processing. I hate it's sharpening algorithm, and the color noise reduction doesn't seem to work anything like lightroom's.
Silkypix doesn't have any lens correction yet. When Lightroom supports the x100, it will remove it, but it's not "quite a bit" it's already been measured by a few websites using grid charts and all the pixel peeper measurements, and it's very slight for a wide angle lens. Lightroom's lens correction features are great. It can take my shitty 28mm lens on the 5D and remove all vignetting, most CA, and all distortion.
The big deal for me, is that I take this with me everywhere, and it delivers image quality in spades. I'm not a pixel peeper, these supposed flaws you guys are seeing don't bother me (and exist in most all cameras). I haven't had this much fun with a camera in months. Even when I was in Vienna with all the great architecture, lugging around a bulky dslr wasn't fun. Any lens with less distortion and body with less noise, is going to be like carrying a car battery with me, and it will quickly get left at home.
Once lightroom has x100 support, I can do all the fixes I do for making print resolution images. I'm uploading full size to show the detail level it can capture (which is impressive), but I really should just be uploading we resolution, since a computer monitor isn't good for anything but pixel-peeping on large images.
I know post processing and photography. I've made massive prints, and I do tons of post work. The X100 is sharp, has tons of dynamic range, and a great lens. Any flaws showing up are a shortfall of raw processing available at the moment, and the fact I'm just having fun and posting fast, not doing my full post workflow. this is a camera the size of a large point and shoot that is recording DSLR quality images made with expensive glass.
Oh yeah definitely, I'm just saying, in that particular image it's more noticeable than others due the the subject matter, and as you say pixel peeping, I wouldn't have seen the true extent of it had I not viewed at full res.
And I'm not doubting your ability as a photographer, as it seems you are thinking that, it's clear to me you're very experienced..
After you posted it in the DSLR advice thread, I myself read up on it, and it really is an amazing camera, and I instantly started looking for how much it would cost here, and was saddened deeply to find only one place selling it, and that was for R15 000 ($2252) - and the next which was the NEX5, going for R7 800 ($1171), which is basically the cost of a decent mid range DSLR.
Oh yeah definitely, I'm just saying, in that particular image it's more noticeable than others due the the subject matter, and as you say pixel peeping, I wouldn't have seen the true extent of it had I not viewed at full res.
And I'm not doubting your ability as a photographer, as it seems you are thinking that, it's clear to me you're very experienced..
After you posted it in the DSLR advice thread, I myself read up on it, and it really is an amazing camera, and I instantly started looking for how much it would cost here, and was saddened deeply to find only one place selling it, and that was for R15 000 ($2252) - and the next which was the NEX5, going for R7 800 ($1171), which is basically the cost of a decent mid range DSLR.
It can't replace a dslr unless you never needed a dslr to begin with. I have a 5D, a delightful 35mm lens, a cheap but good 50mm, and a fantastic 85mm. Plus tons of lighting equipment, stands, lighting modifiers, etc. When I go to make a "serious" image with a subject, a bag full of clothes, an assistant, etc, I take my 5D and make serious images with absolute quality. I can pump enough light to use ISO 100, drag the shutter using a tripod to properly expose the background to the level I want, and then spend 4-12 hours in post making sure every thing is flawless. I really enjoy this process, but it's "serious" (tm).
My problem is that I also love un-serious image making, and that bucket of gear is overkill to lug around all day. I still sometimes print these images, and I enjoy post processing nearly as much (sometimes more) than the image taking process, so the files need some quality to them, ruling out small sensor compacts. M4/3 or Nex would probably work ok, but none of the feature set I really enjoy came together till the x100 was released, and it has a better sensor than the other systems, and a beautiful lens in comparison. (only the panasonic 20mm 1.7 comes close, but has more CA).
So now I have an un-serious camera I can take with me everywhere, and take a lot more images before. It's put the fun back in daily photography for me, and as a hobby, that's all I ask from it.
I think most people who really enjoy photography need 2 cameras. A serious one that delivers strong image quality when you know you're in photography mode or on a trip, and then something small enough you'll take it everywhere. Most all photographers in the film days had an SLR or Medium format of some type, then an Olympus XA in their pocket for the days they aren't in Pro-Photographer mode. A good cheap option is a 20/30D and a canon s90. I opted to spend a little more for my 2nd camera, and plan to keep it for a long time.
For sure, and I like how you think regarding this.
Particularly carrying a small-ish camera, is good have to take shots of a lot of things going on around you, can be used for location scouting, colour swatches, inspiration for art(which is why i think all artists should carry a camera on them.
Then there is the fact, that often the opportunity arises for an amazing photograph when you least expect it, and carrying a small camera is a good idea for capturing those moments.
As for me, I love the technical side of photography, the light setup, reflectors and just the overall setting up of all the equipment and scene(i guess i really love the environment and atmosphere the most).
Then there is me trying to get my subject as perfect as possible when shooting, and then really pushing it further in post. Then there is the creative side of photography, and the direction I really enjoy. This all being pro studio type stuff i'm talking about.
Thanks Ben. The dynamic range is really big man I am supper surprised. I also sometimes wish i had a small camera to bring with me everywhere but for now I think I am going to keep playing with my big old 5D
Thanks Ben. The dynamic range is really big man I am supper surprised. I also sometimes wish i had a small camera to bring with me everywhere but for now I think I am going to keep playing with my big old 5D
I'm actually having to learn to shoot a bit differently than with the 5D. With the 5D I wanted the exposure "centered" as I could lift about the same amount of shadows as bringing back highlights. With the X100, I have about the same amount of highlight headroom, but at least 1 stop more dynamic range in the shadows. So now I'm basically making it so that very little or nothing clips in the highlight warning, and lifting the shadows back a lot in post. I basically can fit more into the exposure than with the 5D, I feel.
The cool thing, is that I can check in camera with the raw development feature. I just look at my shot with the properly exposed sky and dark foreground, and develop the raw with minus 2 exposure, and then examine that jpeg for details. At ISO 200 at least (base ISO) it's near flawless.
Just to show how much better I like Lightroom, I exported a flat 16 bit tiff from silkypix that had NOTHING touched. I'm sure it's still a crappy raw interpretation, but at least it wasn't trying to add any processing of it's own. Then I loaded it up in lightroom and went to town.
Walls in the foreground seem to be in sharper focus than the model, and the background bokeh is pretty distracting, would like to see a larger aperture there.
Yeah the focus was missed on this, but I really liked the soft affect it has on her face and hair. I was planning to use some lens blur on the foreground to hide that it's in focus, but forgot. Will do that tonight. As for background bokeh, it's always subjective. I like it. :-) (this is at f/2, remember it's an aps-c sensor so it won't have as narrow of dof as on a full frame, this is more like 2.8 on a FF camera)
Replies
The cloth draped over her cuts her shoulder off(but also creates a fun sliming effect on the rest of her body)
Its a cool concept but I think the pose needs work.
I have more images with a normal pose but they felt kind of boring. Posing is still very very difficult for me. Feels so good when I meet someone that does not just stand and look at me
I like the concept too, she just looks uncomfortable.
Xbox controller by SauceyJack, on Flickr
Thanks as always, Disanki, for posting what you got! This latest one is really interesting; it feels like it tells a story. The one before was very close to being amazing too... just needed a more comfortable pose, and it'd be there!
Talking about photos - what are your favorite portrait photographers? I would like to look at some more portrait photographs particularly from the sixties and seventies.
Here is one more image
Here's a picture I took in the Notre Dame, I liked the diagonal line of light and dark
Priester in Notre Dame by Ilja Kocken, on Flickr
Its a 8mm 3.5 Fisheye for anyone who is wondering, manual focus in canon eos mount, Samyang aka pro-optic, rokinon, vivitar, etc etc.
The 85mm 1.8 should be the perfect lens for your portraits!
----
- Rolleiflex Automat 6x6 - Model K4A
- Kodak 400TX
- Sekonic 308s
How much is that 7UP in the window? by SauceyJack, on Flickr
Really fantastic. Love how sensitive it is in the processing.
Some from the X100. So much dynamic range. Highlights only have a little headroom, bout the same as the 5D, but shadows have SO MUCH.
http://myx100year.blogspot.com/
Plus I blame any fine processing errors from having to use Silkypix. It's horrible, slow, unintuitive program, but it's right now the only one that supports raw processing. I hate it's sharpening algorithm, and the color noise reduction doesn't seem to work anything like lightroom's.
The big deal for me, is that I take this with me everywhere, and it delivers image quality in spades. I'm not a pixel peeper, these supposed flaws you guys are seeing don't bother me (and exist in most all cameras). I haven't had this much fun with a camera in months. Even when I was in Vienna with all the great architecture, lugging around a bulky dslr wasn't fun. Any lens with less distortion and body with less noise, is going to be like carrying a car battery with me, and it will quickly get left at home.
Once lightroom has x100 support, I can do all the fixes I do for making print resolution images. I'm uploading full size to show the detail level it can capture (which is impressive), but I really should just be uploading we resolution, since a computer monitor isn't good for anything but pixel-peeping on large images.
I know post processing and photography. I've made massive prints, and I do tons of post work. The X100 is sharp, has tons of dynamic range, and a great lens. Any flaws showing up are a shortfall of raw processing available at the moment, and the fact I'm just having fun and posting fast, not doing my full post workflow. this is a camera the size of a large point and shoot that is recording DSLR quality images made with expensive glass.
And I'm not doubting your ability as a photographer, as it seems you are thinking that, it's clear to me you're very experienced..
After you posted it in the DSLR advice thread, I myself read up on it, and it really is an amazing camera, and I instantly started looking for how much it would cost here, and was saddened deeply to find only one place selling it, and that was for R15 000 ($2252) - and the next which was the NEX5, going for R7 800 ($1171), which is basically the cost of a decent mid range DSLR.
It can't replace a dslr unless you never needed a dslr to begin with. I have a 5D, a delightful 35mm lens, a cheap but good 50mm, and a fantastic 85mm. Plus tons of lighting equipment, stands, lighting modifiers, etc. When I go to make a "serious" image with a subject, a bag full of clothes, an assistant, etc, I take my 5D and make serious images with absolute quality. I can pump enough light to use ISO 100, drag the shutter using a tripod to properly expose the background to the level I want, and then spend 4-12 hours in post making sure every thing is flawless. I really enjoy this process, but it's "serious" (tm).
My problem is that I also love un-serious image making, and that bucket of gear is overkill to lug around all day. I still sometimes print these images, and I enjoy post processing nearly as much (sometimes more) than the image taking process, so the files need some quality to them, ruling out small sensor compacts. M4/3 or Nex would probably work ok, but none of the feature set I really enjoy came together till the x100 was released, and it has a better sensor than the other systems, and a beautiful lens in comparison. (only the panasonic 20mm 1.7 comes close, but has more CA).
So now I have an un-serious camera I can take with me everywhere, and take a lot more images before. It's put the fun back in daily photography for me, and as a hobby, that's all I ask from it.
I think most people who really enjoy photography need 2 cameras. A serious one that delivers strong image quality when you know you're in photography mode or on a trip, and then something small enough you'll take it everywhere. Most all photographers in the film days had an SLR or Medium format of some type, then an Olympus XA in their pocket for the days they aren't in Pro-Photographer mode. A good cheap option is a 20/30D and a canon s90. I opted to spend a little more for my 2nd camera, and plan to keep it for a long time.
Particularly carrying a small-ish camera, is good have to take shots of a lot of things going on around you, can be used for location scouting, colour swatches, inspiration for art(which is why i think all artists should carry a camera on them.
Then there is the fact, that often the opportunity arises for an amazing photograph when you least expect it, and carrying a small camera is a good idea for capturing those moments.
As for me, I love the technical side of photography, the light setup, reflectors and just the overall setting up of all the equipment and scene(i guess i really love the environment and atmosphere the most).
Then there is me trying to get my subject as perfect as possible when shooting, and then really pushing it further in post. Then there is the creative side of photography, and the direction I really enjoy. This all being pro studio type stuff i'm talking about.
Bit of a derailment, so i'll shut up for now.
I'm actually having to learn to shoot a bit differently than with the 5D. With the 5D I wanted the exposure "centered" as I could lift about the same amount of shadows as bringing back highlights. With the X100, I have about the same amount of highlight headroom, but at least 1 stop more dynamic range in the shadows. So now I'm basically making it so that very little or nothing clips in the highlight warning, and lifting the shadows back a lot in post. I basically can fit more into the exposure than with the 5D, I feel.
The cool thing, is that I can check in camera with the raw development feature. I just look at my shot with the properly exposed sky and dark foreground, and develop the raw with minus 2 exposure, and then examine that jpeg for details. At ISO 200 at least (base ISO) it's near flawless.
Here is the lightroom version, and for reference, the best I could get out of silkypix is here: http://www.mr-chompers.com/net/blog/x100year/reykjavik.jpg
First long exposure from my X100. http://myx100year.blogspot.com/
2011_04_15a by mr-chompers, on Flickr
DSCF0602-Edit.jpg by mr-chompers, on Flickr