b l o w n ___ o u t

Jaraviss

just having fun with the strobes and over exposing...etc.







that's all.

thanks-for any comments!
-G

Seneca

Extremely high key. She looks like she has no neck.

I do like high key - I would bring it down just a tad.

Jaraviss

Seneca wrote:

Extremely high key. She looks like she has no neck.

I do like high key - I would bring it down just a tad.

thanks for the commment! that was a welcome surprise!
we're still new and have purchased books/magazines/etc and have just been shooting and figuring things out as we go.

she put this white jacket on and we were just shooting and i kept slowing down the shutter speed...and it kept getting brighter brighter....brighter.
it turned out "cool" to us....
i've seen the term "high key" in some of the books we've got (and online)....we weren't purposefully setting out to do this...but once we were dialing in the speed...we just kept going for it...so in a round about way...we go tthere

tahnks again for the comments!
-G

Scott_Quier

The first one is gone too far. The second one, I like!

As for your technique, by slowing down the shutter speed, you were allowing more and more influence from the ambient light. Opening the aperture would probably have produced the same results but at a higher shutter speed - thus limiting the chances and effects of model/camera movement in the photo (BTW, I don't see any here, these are sharp!).

Awais Yaqub

Great
but looks scary

Jaraviss

Scott_Quier wrote:

The first one is gone too far. The second one, I like!

As for your technique, by slowing down the shutter speed, you were allowing more and more influence from the ambient light. Opening the aperture would probably have produced the same results but at a higher shutter speed - thus limiting the chances and effects of model/camera movement in the photo (BTW, I don't see any here, these are sharp!).

thanks!
i asked her to hold still...i cant remember but i think the shutter speed was set at 1/30 for the slowest one.

i know it wouldn't matter on this type of shot.
but a quick question...to make sure i'm getting this right.
if ii was shooting a landscape or something with a background...
and i left the shutter speed alone but varied the aperture...that would change the depth of field, correct?
like a bigger apperture...f4 or whatever? would limit depth of field
and a smaller app...f32 would have a large depth of field?

or is it the other way around....
it mixes me up because 4 < 32... but really its the inverse of those numbers?
<img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/Laughing.gif&quot; border="0" alt="" > i'm probably just confusing myself more..but i think i get the "JUST" of it.

thanks for your comments, i do appreciate it!!

-G<img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/rolleyes1.gif&quot; border="0" alt="" >

Jaraviss

thank you

Awais Yaqub wrote:

Great
but looks scary

hehe thanks for checking it out....she *IS* scary.
hehe

-G

Scott_Quier

Jaraviss wrote:

thanks!
i asked her to hold still...i cant remember but i think the shutter speed was set at 1/30 for the slowest one.

i know it wouldn't matter on this type of shot.
but a quick question...to make sure i'm getting this right.
if ii was shooting a landscape or something with a background...
and i left the shutter speed alone but varied the aperture...that would change the depth of field, correct?
like a bigger apperture...f4 or whatever? would limit depth of field
and a smaller app...f32 would have a large depth of field?

or is it the other way around....
it mixes me up because 4 < 32... but really its the inverse of those numbers?
<img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/Laughing.gif&quot; border="0" alt="" > i'm probably just confusing myself more..but i think i get the "JUST" of it.

thanks for your comments, i do appreciate it!!

-G<img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/rolleyes1.gif&quot; border="0" alt="" >

Regardless of what you are shooting (I think), the smaller the aperture (larger f-stop number), the deeper the depth of field. May I suggest you check out these pages (link and link) for a very good discussion. Be warned, the first one is very heavy going. The second is pretty good.

Jaraviss

thank you very much!

Scott_Quier wrote:

Regardless of what you are shooting (I think), the smaller the aperture (larger f-stop number), the deeper the depth of field. May I suggest you check out these pages (link and link) for a very good discussion. Be warned, the first one is very heavy going. The second is pretty good.

after i finish off more turkey....i'll check those out!

happpy thanksgiving adn thanks again!
-G

Dogdots

Scott_Quier wrote:

Regardless of what you are shooting (I think), the smaller the aperture (larger f-stop number), the deeper the depth of field. May I suggest you check out these pages (link and link) for a very good discussion. Be warned, the first one is very heavy going. The second is pretty good.

Good links.....Your right the first one is heavy, but the second one is good. I like the Depth of Field calculator. Now I just have to learn meters

My hubby was trying to teach me as I was reading the article Not a pretty sight

Dogdots/Mary

Scott_Quier

Dogdots wrote:

Good links.....Your right the first one is heavy, but the second one is good. I like the Depth of Field calculator. Now I just have to learn meters

My hubby was trying to teach me as I was reading the article Not a pretty sight

Dogdots/Mary

Don't like the metric system? Check out this site (link).

Really, Google is your friend for things like this...

Dogdots

Scott_Quier wrote:

Don't like the metric system? Check out this site (link).

Really, Google is your friend for things like this...

Thank you....it will stop the mind from spinning Metric confuses me sometimes. Must be that I'm so old--well not that old yet. I remember back in the 70's I think----weren't we going to change to metric....wonder what happened

Google is good and I should have googled it myself. Sorry.

Dogdots/Mary

Scott_Quier

Dogdots wrote:

Google is good and I should have googled it myself. Sorry.

No worries!:D

Dogdots

Scott_Quier wrote:

No worries!:D