lauren-

SystemSystem Registered Users Posts: 8,186 moderator
edited June 7, 2006 in People
got three quick shots of my son's girlfriend as she was coming out of the house-

used the lightsphere straight ahead with the top on-

72671324-L.jpg

george

Comments

  • John MuellerJohn Mueller Registered Users Posts: 2,555 Major grins
    edited May 31, 2006
    Very nice George.
    Did you use any FEC?
    My Smuggy

    Cincinnati Smug Leader
  • SystemSystem Registered Users Posts: 8,186 moderator
    edited May 31, 2006
    another candid at the same time as the previous with the lightsphere-

    72674850-L.jpg

    george
  • SystemSystem Registered Users Posts: 8,186 moderator
    edited May 31, 2006
    hi john-

    both were shot at 67mm iso 100 1/125 at f2.8-

    made no exp compensation-

    george
  • GiselleGiselle Registered Users Posts: 367 Major grins
    edited May 31, 2006
    She is very pretty, I like the first one best but I think I would like it better without the FX, only because it doesn't she off the color of her eyes. Nice job, so are you liking the lightsphere?
    Giselle
  • SystemSystem Registered Users Posts: 8,186 moderator
    edited May 31, 2006
    here's the first with a quick tweak on the eyes-

    72680410-L.jpg
  • SystemSystem Registered Users Posts: 8,186 moderator
    edited May 31, 2006
    this is the raw version-

    72680553-L.jpg
  • SystemSystem Registered Users Posts: 8,186 moderator
    edited May 31, 2006
    having used the ls maybe a total of fifteen minutes when I took these, I would have to probably say so; yes, I like it-
  • GiselleGiselle Registered Users Posts: 367 Major grins
    edited May 31, 2006
    Looks good, I like it better with the eyes brighter.
    Giselle
  • SystemSystem Registered Users Posts: 8,186 moderator
    edited May 31, 2006
    gotcha!

    thanks giselle-

    btw, you're still not ugly-
  • Scott_QuierScott_Quier Registered Users Posts: 6,524 Major grins
    edited June 1, 2006
    She is, indeed, a very pretty girl. I love the expression you captured in the first image. However, in the even you are interested in my opinion, 15524779-Ti.gif with Giselle about the FX. The brightened eyes greatly improve the photo, but I think the FX is just a touch heavy. If backed off by about 1/2, I think it might be better.
    gefillmore wrote:
    btw, you're still not ugly-
    15524779-Ti.gifShe's not even close to being plain.
    Scott
    My Photos
    Thoughts on photographing a wedding, How to post a picture, AF Microadjustments?, Light Scoop
    Equipment List - Check my profile
  • JimMJimM Registered Users Posts: 1,389 Major grins
    edited June 1, 2006
    Great shot, even raw, great shot. That lightspere does really nice, soft lighting!
    Cameras: >(2) Canon 20D .Canon 20D/grip >Canon S200 (p&s)
    Glass: >Sigma 17-35mm,f2.8-4 DG >Tamron 28-75mm,f2.8 >Canon 100mm 2.8 Macro >Canon 70-200mm,f2.8L IS >Canon 200mm,f2.8L
    Flash: >550EX >Sigma EF-500 DG Super >studio strobes

    Sites: Jim Mitte Photography - Livingston Sports Photos - Brighton Football Photos
  • SystemSystem Registered Users Posts: 8,186 moderator
    edited June 1, 2006
    scott-

    I am very much interested in your opinion, as well as giselle's, and most everybody else here, as very many on this forum are very well informed-

    will redo the first one per your (and giselle's) suggestion-

    thanks much for commenting-


    jim-

    thank you very much for your response-



    george
  • PhotosbychuckPhotosbychuck Registered Users Posts: 1,239 Major grins
    edited June 1, 2006
    Hi, gefillmore
    Nice photo but, the dark background makes the face look blown out to me.

    Take Care,
    Chuck,
    D300S, 18-200mm VR, 70-300mm VR

    Aperture Focus Photography
    http://aperturefocus.com
  • SystemSystem Registered Users Posts: 8,186 moderator
    edited June 3, 2006
    giselle, scott, chuck-

    better?- yes?- no?-

    73147756-L.jpg
  • Scott_QuierScott_Quier Registered Users Posts: 6,524 Major grins
    edited June 3, 2006
    gefillmore wrote:
    giselle, scott, chuck-

    better?- yes?- no?-

    73147756-M.jpg
    I believe this to be much better. The FX looks more natural, not so forced.
    Scott
    My Photos
    Thoughts on photographing a wedding, How to post a picture, AF Microadjustments?, Light Scoop
    Equipment List - Check my profile
  • SystemSystem Registered Users Posts: 8,186 moderator
    edited June 3, 2006
    scott-

    thank you and the others for your input-

    george
  • PhotosbychuckPhotosbychuck Registered Users Posts: 1,239 Major grins
    edited June 4, 2006
    better?- yes?- no?-

    Yes, much better!thumb.gif

    Take Care,
    Chuck Cassidy,
    D300S, 18-200mm VR, 70-300mm VR

    Aperture Focus Photography
    http://aperturefocus.com
  • GiselleGiselle Registered Users Posts: 367 Major grins
    edited June 4, 2006
    gefillmore wrote:
    giselle, scott, chuck-

    better?- yes?- no?-

    That's the one. clap.gif
    Giselle
  • SystemSystem Registered Users Posts: 8,186 moderator
    edited June 5, 2006
    chuck and giselle-

    thanks much for your advice-

    sometimes I overdo and need reining in-

    best
    george
  • tomthephotographertomthephotographer Registered Users Posts: 86 Big grins
    edited June 7, 2006
    I like the color in the second one but her Eyes say stalker. the first expression is better in my eyes. TY
    Canon 40D. Lens Sigma 170-500, Tamron 75-300, Quantaray 19-35,
    Bogan Tripod. Gaint Yukon 25' Bike,

    Like it or not we most often get what we deserve in the end.
Sign In or Register to comment.