I'm on a roll, or.....

divamum

"Swartzy, if I weren't already married, I'd propose"


Halloween 2009: MiniDiva as Alice Cullen (Twilight)
1


2 (not sure where the golden tone in this one came from - I think it may have been a flash whoopsie as the batteries were on the edge towards the end)


3


Here's the deal: it was nearly dark (~6.15pm), so I had to use flash. Thanks to that exchange w/Elaine and Swartzy last week (which is also partly what triggered the Manual Revolution going on here) AND those sunset shots Dave posted a few days back, I knew how to underexpose ambient and then add flash (no choice there - even at 1600 1/60 and wide open using the 50mm I couldn't get above -2 stops under). And then ::drumroll:: I bounced the flash off the side of the (light grey) porch..... and it worked, it worked!!!!! Guess reading planetneil has helped, too

Ok, so yes they're a tad underexposed so noise wasn't as well controlled as I'd have liked when I bumped it up in post, but it WAS nearly dark, so I'm not complaining. I'm so excited I could spit (but I won't, I promise :lol3)

My only disappointment is that I didn't remember to turn the FEC down on the full body shots, which had some pretty leaves in the background as well, but oh well - next time....

Ok, I'll calm down now, I promise. I'm just so excited that this is starting to not only make sense, but be *reproduceable*. Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is getting really fun now!!

adbsgicom

:ivar :ivar :ivar

Swartzy

There is nothing more fun or satisfying than seeing the "lights turn on" (no pun intended! I do a great deal of instructing and it is this very thing that makes it all worth it! So glad you are wrapping your head around the concepts..eventually, you'll know how to use the flash off camera as those relationships are applicable as well. Great for you Diva! Hehehe..proposing eh? Way funny! Nicely done.

Elaine

Niiiiiiiiccce, Diva! Great colors and soft light! I love it when things start to click! :smo

PS - #1 looks a bit cool compared to 2 and 3.

PPS - Seriously...#2 looks like an 18 year old!

kidzmom

Chaaaa Chiiiiing! You, Divamum....have hit the jackpot! WAY TO GO! I'm very excited for you too! I must say your new 1.4 50 was well worth the investment! That is an awesome idea of underexposing and using bounced flash. What a neat idea....I can't belive I never thought of that, ! These are your best yet! I'm excited to see more....and motivated to go practicing myself. Those village shots I did a few weeks ago were my first full M shots and I really think that is what makes ALLLLLLL the difference in the world. Being in control is what it is all about. Imagine an artist that has to rely on preset brush strokes.. In art you HAVE to have full control. I'm lovin' it!

pyry

Diva, that first shot is stunning! Well done!

Scott_Quier

divamum wrote:

Here's the deal: .... Thanks to that exchange w/Elaine and Swartzy last week ...


Ok, so yes they're a tad underexposed so noise wasn't as well controlled as I'd have liked when I bumped it up in post, but it WAS nearly dark, so I'm not complaining. I'm so excited I could spit (but I won't, I promise )

Ok, I'll calm down now, I promise. I'm just so excited that this is starting to not only make sense, but be *reproduceable*. Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is getting really fun now!!

I guess I missed the exchange - care to include a link to that thread - I can't seem to find it.

As to the photos - very very cool. These are some sweet shots!

Like Swartzy, I do a bit of teaching (all for free, through a local photo club to which I am a member) and about a month ago, I covered the bounce the flash off "stuff" to get a diffuser. We used a wall in my living room (which was white) and a wall in my den (which is yellow) and then discussed how to correct for the cast imparted by using diffusers/bounce targets of different colors. I was a blast watching the concepts gel in their minds.

And getting reproducable results is like striking gold - it is soooo exciting!! I'm very happy for you that this is starting to hang together for you!

Elaine

"I guess I missed the exchange - care to include a link to that thread - I can't seem to find it."

divamum

Elaine beat me to it! Yes, that's the thread Nothing in there was "new" as such - I grokked in its fullness the concept of underexpose-ambient-then-add-flash (which goodness knows plenty of folks have written about in here with considerable eloquence and detail), but had never QUITE figured out *how* to do that in a reliable manner - for some reason, it clicked this time. Must be the power of toasters...

Thanks everybody for the kind comments and cheering squad - I knew y'all would "get" why I was bouncing about something so seemingly minor to "normal" people. I'm just so happy I thought to use the house as a giant softbox and even more excited that it *worked*

Kidzmom, there is TONS written here and elsewhere about how to balance ambient+flash, but if you like the idea of on-camera flash providing you with off-camera-flash results, then read planetneil.com - he's all about bouncing and using your surroundings to create the light. Verrrrryyy interesting stuff, and he's an entertaining and clear writer. It's a fun read.

Scott, the focus in all these was exactly right as per the indicated AF points in dpp. I'm also finding that this lens can be very finicky at 1.4, but if I bump it up to 1.6 (in that poor light, I couldn't stop down much further since I was already at iso 1600), that tiny difference in dof seems to be enough to make "close enough" = "dead on the mark". Interesting.

Elaine, that first one was intended to be a touch cool to get the appropriately vampire look (Alice is the "nice" vampire, of course, but even so). I may even play around with trying out the "Twilight lighting" that was used for the movie poster - I seem to remember an article about it at the Strobist, and I'm sure minidiva would think it was cool (personally I can't stand the books - not so much content as that they're just so mediocrel!! I held out against them longer than most parents, but since she was really good and didn't "sneak read" them behind my back and waited as she was asked I finally agreed, if only to try and establish a healthy pattern for the other "everybody's doing it" activities that we'll no doubt be facing over the next few years. Sigh.)

In any case, thanks all! Been a good week here in divatog land ...

Scott_Quier

divamum wrote:

Elaine beat me to it! Yes, that's the thread Nothing in there was "new" as such - I grokked in its fullness the concept of underexpose-ambient-then-add-flash (which goodness knows plenty of folks have written about in here with considerable eloquence and detail), but had never QUITE figured out *how* to do that in a reliable manner - for some reason, it clicked this time. Must be the power of toasters...



Yeah, it's fun!! Been a good week here in divatog land ...

And yet another facet of your personality has been revealed if you KNOW from whence "grok" comes (author's name, title of the work, and character's name ).

divamum

Scott_Quier wrote:

And yet another facet of your personality has been revealed if you KNOW from whence "grok" comes (author's name, title of the work, and character's name ).

I had a boyfriend in college who thought Stranger in a Strange Land by Heinlein was the greatest thing ever, and I read it to keep up and display my amazing breadth of literary activity So yeah, I read the whole thing even though it's not really my bag!! I admit I can't remember the character's name without looking it up, so at least 1 demerit there That said, the word "grok" is awesome, regardless of provenance - not only the meaning, but it's just so angular and cool sounding

Scott_Quier

divamum wrote:

I had a boyfriend in college who thought Stranger in a Strange Land by Heinlein was the greatest thing ever, and I read it to keep up and display my amazing breadth of literary activity So yeah, I read the whole thing even though it's not really my bag!! I admit I can't remember the character's name without looking it up, so at least 1 demerit there That said, the word "grok" is awesome, regardless of provenance - not only the meaning, but it's just so angular and cool sounding

"Two out of three ain't bad", especially as it's not your bag. The character name is Michael Valentine Smith. And, I agree ... grok is an amazing word, especially when used as defined by Heinlein.

Darren Troy C

1 & 2 are really nice. Great job!