DPD

Wow John!! That is a great shot. I am assuming you have used the 70-200 L for this.

_________________
Cheers
Pete

Canon 40D, Sigma 10-20mm, Canon 50mm f1.8, Canon 100mm Macro, Canon 18-200mm f3.5/5.6 IS, Canon 24-105mm L IS, Canon 100-400mm L IS, Lensbaby II and other stuff

Sure did Pete. 138mm focal length 1/250th sec at f4 and ISO 1000. I have always said that ISO is not a problem as long as it is exposed correctly. I love portraiture with a passion but just don't do enough of it. We must get a studio set up somewhere and get some of John T's models along! lol

_________________
Noddy (John)

A picture is worth a thousand words, but it uses up a thousand times the memory.

http://jgknight.smugmug.com

Canon 30D
Canon 18-55mm F3.5
Canon 28-80mm F3.5
Canon 70-200mm F4 L IS USM
Canon 100mm F2.8 Macro USM

Just to prove a point, any portrait, whether candid or formal can be very interesting even if the subject is very familiar. hehe.

Here is a perfect example:



and more examples: (My son Bart)



And then some:



Well, maybe this one has stepped over the bounds of decency lol.

_________________
Noddy (John)

A picture is worth a thousand words, but it uses up a thousand times the memory.

http://jgknight.smugmug.com

Canon 30D
Canon 18-55mm F3.5
Canon 28-80mm F3.5
Canon 70-200mm F4 L IS USM
Canon 100mm F2.8 Macro USM

He He! Some interesting stuff there. The makeover on the last shot is a vast improvement.

Good shot of Bart. Back in 2004 I bought a computer from Harvey Normans and had a bit of trouble with it. Bart worked there at the time and was very helpful. Nice bloke! Obviously comes from good stock.

_________________
Cheers
Pete

Canon 40D, Sigma 10-20mm, Canon 50mm f1.8, Canon 100mm Macro, Canon 18-200mm f3.5/5.6 IS, Canon 24-105mm L IS, Canon 100-400mm L IS, Lensbaby II and other stuff

I'm going to try to post more later this evening after work, hoping I have time from work. Work's picked up a lot here lately and seems to be picking up even more. IMHO, it may be a bit of both but for me, I'm more drawn to the technical aspects of it when I see a photograph, rather than the geographical aspects, if I may know them, etc. I will admit that some shots if it's something I don't often see but is not technically perfect so to speak, I may "award" (on Flickr) that image over a flower shot that I've seen over and over and over with various settings from different artists UNLESS it is a shot that pops out at me and is obvious it's a superb shot, technically speaking, of the same flower. Thinking more about this, the first thing that draws me in to a photograph of a "thumb" nail on flickr or what have you is the lighting. Once that draws me in, comp is the next, and then from there dof, colors, and so forth, and then may look at the settings if they're available to see if it is a shot that could have been attained without a lot of manipulation in post processing. We all play with our shots to an extent when we get home. But as we all know, some are just so over done and the settings are not consistent with the overall result of the shot; such as, I have a good friend on flickr, no names, and she posted a great still life shot, great lighting, very dark back ground, etc., and she said that she attained the results from her camera settings alone. When I looked at her exif date, there's no way, unless she's found another way to manipulate her camera while being in an auto "program" such as AV other than manual exposure to get that same result and to boot had the ISO at 3200 with f5.0 (a lot of light getting thru) and exposure of .013 and was taken during a bright afternoon as she said it was but the shot is extremely dark, the lighting is just so soft and gorgeous. Nothing against her and she's an absolute doll and love her to death but just makes you wonder sometimes.

If you ask them what they did with the shot in post processing, rather than claiming SOOC, it would be nice if they said, yeah, I darkened it a bit, I did this or that, etc., and this is the end result of it. Apologize to get off the subject of portraits for a second and I'm not saying that any of these shots have been heavily manipulated, etc., but it was just a thought processes that I had when thinking about pictures of ordinary things versus the technicalites of it and how the shots were ultimately achieved that made us go oooh, ahhhh, gorgeous shot type thing. BUT I do have to say that there are always exceptions and what can be achieved with the settings in your camera, just depends on available light, positioning of the light, what it's reflected off of, positioning of the sun in the sky, background objects and how dark they may be, etc., etc. As I have some of my own shots that were like, there's no way this could have been in broad day light and there wasn't a secondary lighting source, etc., with not much post processing manipulation but all in-camera adjustments in full manual mode such as 1/8000 exposure, ISO200 with f3.5 I think where it is backlit by the sun, but depending on the effect you're looking for. sorry to get off on the tangent.

Given that I am not that great with portraits, etc., and am interested in improving my skills in this area, would you guys be okay with posting the settings so that I can get some idea as to what works well. I know with me and my stubborness it's always hit and miss and trying different things before I figure out what appeals to me most.

Angie

I was hoping to be able to post again yesterday but unfortunately haven't had a lot of time. Working a lot still and probably will continue into next week. I saw a few shots that John posted that were just superb and so beautiful. The sunset shot is and was mesmerizing. Loved the lighting and comp, fiery skies but so serene looking and making me want to be there just to see it firsthand. Anyway, I may not be around for a few more days, not until next week sometime probably, depending on work. John and Chris are wanting to go to Vegas this weekend. Architectural shots are not much my thing either so figure I can practice this when I can out there in Vegas perhaps. I'll see though. Anyway, beautiful shots all the way around from everyone that has posted their portraits. Pete definitely has a flair for it.

I'm also looking forward to finally getting onto smugmug. Considering I don't use Flickr much for the social aspects of it which this is what it primarily revolves around, smugmug is a better bet for me. Plus I really like the option of the purchase feature. I have a few close friends that have asked for prints of some of my shots which flatters me deeply and given the higher quality prints that they offer it's also a huge lure for me. I've tried Flickr's photo buying option through QooP or whatever it is and when I got the prints, they were pretty bad. Color was not correct, parts of the photo was cut off because they didn't take into account the shot was horizontal and ended up cutting off the guy's head, etc. Or maybe it's the color calibration or whatever it is on my computer being off. I don't know. But the overall coloring of the shot was nothing like what was on my computer or on flickr.

Anyway, I hope everyone has a great weekend and will be back soon!!

I think you need to look a little more closely at the features at smugmug. If you want to sell your photos to make money yourself you need to set up the Pro account. The feature for printing in the two lesser accounts allows people to buy prints of your photos with no return to you what ever. For that reason I turn this feature option off in all my accounts. Exaclty how the pro account works I am not sure nor how the money is split up and sent to you. But I do know there are manyof those accounts set up there and the owners very happy with the way it works. you can see a the pro account printing price policy explained here
http://www.smugmug.com/help/print-pricing
They also have a very helpful forum for Smugmug found here at "dgrin" http://www.dgrin.com/

_________________
Regards
Ralph
Canon 50D,
Canon 100mm Macro, Canon 10-22mm
Canon 24-105mm f4 & 100-400mm, IS USM L,
Sigma 70-200mm f2.8, Canon 580EX11 Flash etc.
Dogs are not our whole life- but they make our lives whole!

Hi Ralph,

I was looking at that the last time I visited. I've been checking it out as much as I can when I have time. Considering as compared to Flickr, etc., it's not that much more expensive. The features alone are worth it I think. I was talking with John my other half and he has a few friends that are also on Smugmug that sell their work there and they are so far satisfied with them and say wouldn't go anywhere else. There's a few other similar sites that they belong to and haven't had any problems but the names escape me now of the sites. I wouldn't necessarily join smugmug just for that feature alone as I am not that interested in marketing so to speak anything that I do but still a nice feature. I also like the feature of being able to upload RAW files and HD videos.

Pete and John, the portraits you posted are wonderful!! It seems that b/w works a lot better with portraits, overall so much softer and dramatic as compared to portraits in color. I've also noticed this on flickr as well!! It also seems that higher ISOs do better as well. I've been looking at portraits on flickr and looking at the EXIF data and all are ISO400 or higher. I would assume that this helps a lot with softening any shadows on the face, neck, etc., if there is no flash used. John has also posted some of his settings and that also seems to be the case with portraits.

Hi Angie, I hadn't thought about ISO as you have described so had a look at my EXIF data to checkit out. On all these shots I used Aperture priority wide open and adjusted ISO accordingly depending on light. They were all naturally lit as well. I love natural lighting!! Like you, that's what draws me to a photo in the first instance. All the shots taken in China were in overcast conditions which also helps. The Cowboy was shot on a sunny day but he was in shade. Just out of interest these were the settings:

Chinese Woman: speed 1/250, aperture f5.6, focal length 260mm, ISO 800.

Chinese Man: speed 1/160, aperture f5.6, focal length 350mm, ISO 100 (should have gone higher to get speed up to about 1/400 and hence sharper! Ah well!)

Duck Herder: speed 1/40, aperture f5.6, focal length 400mm, ISO 100 (This amazed me when I saw the shutter speed. again should have increased ISO but considering this is hand held at 1/40 sec I'm reasonably happy. gotta love IS!)

Cowboy: speed 1/250, aperture f5.6, focal length 400mm, ISO 400.

_________________
Cheers
Pete

Canon 40D, Sigma 10-20mm, Canon 50mm f1.8, Canon 100mm Macro, Canon 18-200mm f3.5/5.6 IS, Canon 24-105mm L IS, Canon 100-400mm L IS, Lensbaby II and other stuff

I apologize, Pete, for taking so long on getting over here to talk. Work has been really heavy lately and then also trying to get my smug mug account straightened out when I can which is slow going right now. Thank you for posting your settings. It helps give me some type of an idea. I also sometimes prefer shade or trying to find an area where the sunlight is being filtered through something such as tree leaves from a tree or what have you or being reflected off of something. I too am a natural light junkie and prefer to work with what I've been given at the time. Even for my macros, I rarely use the mac light,, etc., for it but probably should. it's just that big ole mac light is funny looking and quite heavy in addition to the lens and weight of the body and being hand held. I picked up another tripod and probably should look into a much smaller one for macro shots, a monopod or something maybe. I don't know.

At any rate, I am hoping to be over here in the coming days to talk. As always, absolutely fabulous shots, love the cowboy shot, comp is stunning, light, posture of the man, everything!!! He looks very deep in thought