Mini-D in autumn light & leaves ...
(ETA: I've just realised something: on ones which look soft, click the "full size" icon - they sharpen right up. This has been bugging me for days now since MANY shots I've seen - from multiple sources - have looked soft and I couldn't figure out why....)
C&C always welcome! Man the leaves have been pretty this year! For once, the leaves seem to have stayed on the trees long enough to get some colour - nothing like Zoomer's amazing display out in Idaho or Heather's golden Alaskan landscape, but we still had some fun with it today.
This is actually a small tree-d area behind A's old elementary school - we've taken pictures here quite a few times in the autumn:
2008 (the test shots right after I got my xsi and jusssst when I was starting to take shooting more seriously)
2010
In any case, Mini-D was extremely cooperative this morning, and we had a great time! Beautiful, beautiful day here and the light was just gorgeous. 7d w/135L or 24-70L + 45" umbrella w/430ex as needed.
1. Lookinf alarmingly grownup
2. Clearly I'm trying to channel Heather (I can live in hope!)
3. So much colour.... :lust (actually, maybe a tad too much - may have got a little crazy with the Radlab trial... :rofl)
4. Zoomer, here's one of those "Shouldn't work but I love it so much I'll live with the flaws" shots. Comp is pretty much SOOC - I think I took a little off the top, but the fact that she's not quite in frame happened in camera by mistake... but I love it! (Am I just swayed by the cute expression, or does it work?)
5.
C&C always welcome! Man the leaves have been pretty this year! For once, the leaves seem to have stayed on the trees long enough to get some colour - nothing like Zoomer's amazing display out in Idaho or Heather's golden Alaskan landscape, but we still had some fun with it today.
This is actually a small tree-d area behind A's old elementary school - we've taken pictures here quite a few times in the autumn:
2008 (the test shots right after I got my xsi and jusssst when I was starting to take shooting more seriously)
2010
In any case, Mini-D was extremely cooperative this morning, and we had a great time! Beautiful, beautiful day here and the light was just gorgeous. 7d w/135L or 24-70L + 45" umbrella w/430ex as needed.
1. Lookinf alarmingly grownup
2. Clearly I'm trying to channel Heather (I can live in hope!)
3. So much colour.... :lust (actually, maybe a tad too much - may have got a little crazy with the Radlab trial... :rofl)
4. Zoomer, here's one of those "Shouldn't work but I love it so much I'll live with the flaws" shots. Comp is pretty much SOOC - I think I took a little off the top, but the fact that she's not quite in frame happened in camera by mistake... but I love it! (Am I just swayed by the cute expression, or does it work?)
5.
facebook | photo site |
0
Comments
Btw, if anybody knows WHY shots look so crappy at the posted size (until you click "full size" under the image) - and, more importantly, if there's some size/rez thing going on that means it's better to post at a specific size - please share. It really bugs me when I see shots that I KNOW are sharp looking like fuzz....
I think the shadows are a little harsh on #1.
#4 is very cute....
Who is wise? He who learns from everyone.
My SmugMug Site
A general issue I have with my daughters is that they like to have their photos taken after they have just done their hair. This leaves me with wet hair which I don't like. Mini D's hair has that same wet look in these. Is this her style with some sort of gel or is her hair freshly wet from washing?
http://clearwaterphotography.smugmug.com/
Thanks boys - sorry to "nag" the forum, but I thought these were kinda nice, so was surprised they got submerged quite as fast as they did. That said, I know it's easy to be swayed by the fact she's my kid and we had a nice morning shooting, which may cloud my judgement as to the actual photographic success/failure of the pix, therefore I do appreciate my dgrinner "extra eyes"!
This is an interesting location for AF - something really confuses it and I have to be soooo careful to be accurate with the focus point. This year's shots were consistently more in focus than last year's (last year I think I got about 5 frames that were sharp), but there is definitely something about this particular combination of shade/backlighting that makes it hard to nail, even with focus-assist from the flash. On a plus note, the stE2 fired the flash pretty much 100% consistently, even though I had the IR panel on the 430ex forward (instead of the to the side I was shooting on as I often need to do). I have no idea what's going on scientifically, but there's obviously something that makes the IR easier-than-usual to see, but focusing more challenging. Weird!
For downsizing for the web try this.
Resize to 2000 on the long side, go to filters Sharpen, click on Sharpen once, go back resize to 900. View actual pixels, should look sharp.
Something about this process just makes it perfect....every time.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21695902@N06/
http://500px.com/Shockey
alloutdoor.smugmug.com
http://aoboudoirboise.smugmug.com/
I thought I liked wet hair looks?! But with smiles and kids and all the cuteness, nah! Doesn't work for me. But yes, pick/don't pick that battle!
The transition from earliest cuteness to current cuteness is fun to see.
1. No: wet hair! But alarmingly grown up: Yes!
2. Don't like for two reasons. a) pet peeve; kids these days do not dress to accentuate the positive.
b) pose; a lean forward versus a lean back might've helped, but with wardrobe choice, maybe not.
3. Looks like two photos. One on the right with totally cute girl and great color. One on left with nice trees.
4. I think if this were mine, I'd like it. If for a client I wouldn't simply due to the body-crop.
5. Probably my fav of the bunch from pose and composition, but, the lack of hazy contrast on the left is drawing my eye away from subject.
Tom
Good points on all - you caught EXACTLY waht I don't like about 3, and was waiting for somebody to mention
As for the haze in the last one... er.... all added in post. I'm beginning to wonder if maybe I'm somebody who should never, ever, EVER be given a licence to use Radlab actions - I mean, why process when I can overprocess?!
Okay! for photo #5 how about this, reverse the haze? Put the haze on the left and decrease it as it gets closer to the mD? Just a thought.
Duck tape? Another good reason to love kidz!
I think #3 is set to be a 16x9 portrait crop!
1b I really do find headshots/close shooting so much easier! On a more serious note, while I can nail shallow focus when I'm close, I do find that my focusing is really mediocre once I'm shooting wider,as I was trying to do in this series so's to capture the beautiful foliage. Is that a "lens confusion" thing, or something technical that I can improve? Or is it just a "busy" environment like this one which makes it harder? I'd really like to improve this, as I'm finding it an increasing problem. My equipment is fine - this is definitely something to do with how I'm handling certain situations, I think
2b. The more conventionally-framed version of 4 above (neighbouring frame). I don't like the expression as much, but obviously the comp is more typically "right"
3b.Reprocessed from the ground up. I'm not actually sure which I prefer - I take the point that the haze does distract from the subject, but I kinda liked it too
Now 3b here, thats the 24-70 @ f 2.8 and about what 8 ft. away?
You know DOF master so if I'm right or close, then your margin of error is slim, right?
You're not focusing and recomposing, right?
And if it is that lens, it is a bit soft wide-open, right?
So I take it your just bothered about the clarity/sharpness?
You mention wider shots technically weak...please expand on that, unless you just mean the focus thing.
2b. I get it, yep, her expression was mucho betta in the first rendition. Her pose looks akin to a right triangle, and if I were looking thru the viewfinder, I'd typically put that straight line over to the left.
1b. Pretty. is the focus point to her right ( back) eye? Looks that way. Just curious...
[I've been shooting a bit here and there with a MF Prime (on my Canon). I like it just fine for wide shots, and I tend to shoot it at f/8 and just fudge the DOF master in my head and , it works pretty darned well. In fact, I just compose and don't refocus it, so long as I have my distance marks in my head.]
When I say "wider", I mean shots that include more than the main subject, and are filled with more of the surrounding environment as well. Since I've been pushing myself to try and shoot things a little more "environmentally" - and from a greater distance - I want to figure out what I'm doing/not doing that's resulting in less than super-sharp, clear shots in some cases. I do NOT focus recompose - use single-point, single shot focus and move the active focus point as necessary.
I think I could have stopped down more with many of these since the bulk of the background was far enough away that distance was doing a lot of the work for me (I think some of those yellow-leaf treas might even have been better in slightly sharper focus); it's just become habit to shoot at f4 and down! So, food for thought there. Soooo much of my shooting is done from a distance of 8ft or less that this just isn't something I need to worry about much of the time. Similarly, getting my lights close enough when shooting from way back - very different experience than the tight quarters I'm so often working in
Btw HERE'S what I'm accustomed to seeing from the 135l. Same location as the yellow trees, just pulled in tight - this is uncropped, because I couldn't back up enough fast enough to get all of her in frame as she gave me the look. It's also 100% SOOC - just let smug convert it from the raw. Focus clearly on the leading eye...
I remember over and over you having to deal with the tight confines of your normal space, so here you are in the wild and what to do with all this room? Yet the same rules apply in light/lighting, far away light is harsher and close up light is better and softer.
So on that 3b photo, which is cropped 'quite a bit' and is not what you like in sharpness, I blame the lens! I just don't think you have a tech problem there, unless somehow there is a bit of shake...I think it's resolution; aka lens/sensor. I found the same thing comparing Nikons D300 vs. the D700. I could take a photo with the same lens, same ISO, same everything. The D300 due to crop factor made it appear closer, the D700, not as much, right? Yet when I cropped and brought the D700 into the same range as the D300, I had a better photo out of the D700: Resolution for cropping. Now I know that 7D is a much lager sensor than the D300, but I think resolution is a big deal when we begin to crop....which is why I am predominately a Canon Shooter now. It fits my style better: Portraits.
I got a 135 recently and I like it...just getting used to it and refining my techniques. All I find wrong with it, is me, and most of the time, it's better than me, so that's a positive.
SO on the 3b the light was entering your lens? I know you used a hood...sometimes we have to hold out hands over the lens to shield, right?
So is mD ready to help you? Can you recruit her and play the Mommy needs-help-card and get her to work with you a bit in this environment to help you get yer stuff working right for you?
Your Skills are fine...but something in this , whether resolution, or f/stop, er sunlight into a lens is messing with you.
If it is the lens, it's an odd anomaly - the 24-70 gives me REALLY sharp shots, even wide open. Not as sharp as the 135L, but sometimes it's close to prime quality. But, clearly (you should pardon the pun) not in this shot.... It may well be from shooting into the light - I'm going to have to experiment, I think
Ha. Well, No hood and all makes sense. I'm not a hoody either and I have paid for that a time or two.
One thing I will mention, is that you said 3b was cropped quite a bit. I think that is a potential place for a problem. We all like having the Mpx's for cropping, me included. But I think it is a mistake to take a photo, crop it quite a bit and expect that it is going to look as good as a well framed shot or composed shot to being with. I've certainly seen that with my shots. I try and leave a tad-bit of room if I am shooting for someone else, but if I am shooting for me, I am as close composition/crop/framing wise as I can get. Even with the 5DMK2 now a days, same thing. I do have room to crop, but one can easily see image degradation when doing so, especially on a "major" crop: and this is with the 135L.
Another thing comes to mind as well. And that is time and purpose. It does take some time to get used to a given shooting space, even the great outdoors. Sometimes we have a vision, other times, not. I prefer to shoot visions, but have shot just for kicks, or to test my chops/eq. But time is a huge factor. If you're not truly getting the time out there to get through the bumps, and out the other side, it makes it hard to feel like you got somewhere in the result category.
I like that you chose to use one light. keeping it simple!:D
I just went to look at the camera. It is set to mraw, iow the files do not have the usual croppability without degredation of quality since they are only 10mp .... (I now have the vaguest memory of having down-rez'd the last time I took the camera to the dog park, and presumably forgot to set it back when we grabbed the bag and headed out on Sunday morning).
Oh well. At least it wasn't a paid shoot, right?! (where I always - ALWAYS - check all settings before leaving the house - it's part of my battery-charging routine precisely to avoid things like this. 'Course, doing a quickie with the kid, I didn't go through my whole "pack the bag" thing, but just grabbed and went. :bash)
I will say, Tom, that with the 18mp of the 7d I can usually crop - more steeply than I did these - without much degredation at all. BUT.... the smaller pixel density in these files explains A LOT. I can't believe I didn't twig that sooner!
Feeling better I hope!