Re: D - Not Pentax but an interesting digital "save"...
The results look great. I cant help but feel that this picture has a 50's look to it. I wonder what it would look like if you "modernized" it a bit, perhaps by bringing back the rose in color? rg Tanya Mayer Photography wrote: Ok, so you all know that I'm not shooting digital with Pentax, but this is particularly relevant to all digital users. Just wanted to show you something that I have just worked on from the wedding I did on Monday. This was a GROSSLY underexposed image. Definitely one for the reject pile, but something about the expressions on their faces wouldn't let me ditch it. So, thanks to digital, I was able to "save" it... What do you all think of the results? The full res. file has some grain, as you would expect being underexposed, so I just added a bit more for effect... http://www.tanyamayer.com/experiment.jpg I have made a lrvly 8x10 inch print from it! Not bad for something that would have been in the trash if it had been shot on film! Also, thanks to you guys who advised me when I asked about using a 135mm lens with flash that only zooms to 105mm, I have been using a flash in manual with the Oly, and have been leaving it set at 28mm, through all focal lengths. This shot was taken at around 80mm, after a day of stormy, humid weather and believe me the bride and groom were SHINY. In fact, the bride barely had any makeup left on at all, and the groom's forehead, well, it actually had beads of perspiration along it. You can see, I was directly in front of them, and the shadow on the background is really quite soft. AND, there are NO hotspots on their faces!! (There were a couple of tiny ones on their teeth that I PS'd) Very little shine is present - the flash almost looks bounced, but it wasn't - it was direct... S, I have ditched my lumiquest stuff, and my stofen's and I am now shooting everything with my flash set at 28mm, the results are so much better. It just means that the flash range isn't quite as high (distance) and I simply move in a bit closer to accommodate... This was at first, a risky way to go about things, and again, it was only due to shooting digital and being able to immediately check the results that I am now confident enough to use flash this way... Any thoughts to add to this? tan.
Re: D - Not Pentax but an interesting digital "save"...
Absolutely great "save". IMO, one of the nicest benefits of shooting digital. Now, if I could only get the *ist D to not underexpose with the AF360FGZ. Bill - Original Message - From: "Tanya Mayer Photography" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 4:35 PM Subject: D - Not Pentax but an interesting digital "save"... > Ok, so you all know that I'm not shooting digital with Pentax, but this is > particularly relevant to all digital users. > > Just wanted to show you something that I have just worked on from the > wedding I did on Monday. > > This was a GROSSLY underexposed image. Definitely one for the reject pile, > but something about the expressions on their > faces wouldn't let me ditch it. > > So, thanks to digital, I was able to "save" it... > > What do you all think of the results? The full res. file has some grain, as > you would expect being underexposed, so I just added a bit more for > effect... > > http://www.tanyamayer.com/experiment.jpg >
RE: D - Not Pentax but an interesting digital "save"...
Works for me. Jeff. -Original Message- From: Tanya Mayer Photography [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 2:36 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: D - Not Pentax but an interesting digital "save"... Ok, so you all know that I'm not shooting digital with Pentax, but this is particularly relevant to all digital users. Just wanted to show you something that I have just worked on from the wedding I did on Monday. This was a GROSSLY underexposed image. Definitely one for the reject pile, but something about the expressions on their faces wouldn't let me ditch it. So, thanks to digital, I was able to "save" it... What do you all think of the results? The full res. file has some grain, as you would expect being underexposed, so I just added a bit more for effect... http://www.tanyamayer.com/experiment.jpg I have made a lrvly 8x10 inch print from it! Not bad for something that would have been in the trash if it had been shot on film! Also, thanks to you guys who advised me when I asked about using a 135mm lens with flash that only zooms to 105mm, I have been using a flash in manual with the Oly, and have been leaving it set at 28mm, through all focal lengths. This shot was taken at around 80mm, after a day of stormy, humid weather and believe me the bride and groom were SHINY. In fact, the bride barely had any makeup left on at all, and the groom's forehead, well, it actually had beads of perspiration along it. You can see, I was directly in front of them, and the shadow on the background is really quite soft. AND, there are NO hotspots on their faces!! (There were a couple of tiny ones on their teeth that I PS'd) Very little shine is present - the flash almost looks bounced, but it wasn't - it was direct... S, I have ditched my lumiquest stuff, and my stofen's and I am now shooting everything with my flash set at 28mm, the results are so much better. It just means that the flash range isn't quite as high (distance) and I simply move in a bit closer to accommodate... This was at first, a risky way to go about things, and again, it was only due to shooting digital and being able to immediately check the results that I am now confident enough to use flash this way... Any thoughts to add to this? tan.
D - Not Pentax but an interesting digital "save"...
Ok, so you all know that I'm not shooting digital with Pentax, but this is particularly relevant to all digital users. Just wanted to show you something that I have just worked on from the wedding I did on Monday. This was a GROSSLY underexposed image. Definitely one for the reject pile, but something about the expressions on their faces wouldn't let me ditch it. So, thanks to digital, I was able to "save" it... What do you all think of the results? The full res. file has some grain, as you would expect being underexposed, so I just added a bit more for effect... http://www.tanyamayer.com/experiment.jpg I have made a lrvly 8x10 inch print from it! Not bad for something that would have been in the trash if it had been shot on film! Also, thanks to you guys who advised me when I asked about using a 135mm lens with flash that only zooms to 105mm, I have been using a flash in manual with the Oly, and have been leaving it set at 28mm, through all focal lengths. This shot was taken at around 80mm, after a day of stormy, humid weather and believe me the bride and groom were SHINY. In fact, the bride barely had any makeup left on at all, and the groom's forehead, well, it actually had beads of perspiration along it. You can see, I was directly in front of them, and the shadow on the background is really quite soft. AND, there are NO hotspots on their faces!! (There were a couple of tiny ones on their teeth that I PS'd) Very little shine is present - the flash almost looks bounced, but it wasn't - it was direct... S, I have ditched my lumiquest stuff, and my stofen's and I am now shooting everything with my flash set at 28mm, the results are so much better. It just means that the flash range isn't quite as high (distance) and I simply move in a bit closer to accommodate... This was at first, a risky way to go about things, and again, it was only due to shooting digital and being able to immediately check the results that I am now confident enough to use flash this way... Any thoughts to add to this? tan.
