Monotonic conversion performed in Canon's mighty Digital Photo Professional.
Canon EOS-5D Mark III, Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM
1/125s f/16.0 @ 85.0mm iso100
For anyone ever wondering about the capabilities of this cheap 85mm lens, have a look at the attached crop, which has been reduced to 50% from a 1:1 crop - the attached result is /after/ a skin retouch/softening routine (albeit very, very minor). By f/7.1, this thing is so sharp, you could cut with it. This little $360-odd beastie is used by famous photographers who shoot covers for Vogue. :O
Thank you for the compliment! The team was fantastic to work with. I look forward to doing more in the future in the studio.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ourkind
Stunning photo H!
Makeup, Accesories, Shadows and Tones all compliment the model really well. Her eyes are very soothing. Helmut Newton'esk style.
Larry,
Cheers! This one looked great in colour, but, once I started converting it to monotone it really started to pop out. The tones looked amazing and so I went forward with it. Thanks!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larryp
B&W images are even more stunning than the colour ones you posted previously, H!
Bojan,
I haven't done any astrophotography with this lens, as 85mm is a bizarre focal length to photograph the sky at. I suspect it would be fine for spectroscopy. The only images I've made of the sky have been a 30 second star trail image in Milford Sound while I was in New Zealand a couple of years back.
I'm not sure what the edge/corner performance is like, but, this lens is acceptably sharp at f/1.8 and gets sharper once stopped down a stop or two. By f/7.1, I have found it is like a razor. I shot this image at f/16, so, there'll be diffraction effects softening the image, also, which isn't such a bad thing for female portraiture.
I do have an EQ3 lying about; once the Moon disappears, I'll have a quick go at taking a 30 second exposure around the Pleiades at f/1.8 for you.
lol @ the wife not allowing you near her!
Quote:
Originally Posted by bojan
Interesting..
Do you have a photo of some dense and bright star field (Pleiades, for example, with fully open iris)?
EDIT:
(BTW, my wife would allow me to even come close to her with that lens... )
Adam,
Thanks, kind sir!
This one isn't clamshell lighting; it's straight up hard light from the beauty dish. I used to be all about the umbrellas and softboxes; nowadays, I can't get enough of the beauty dish. It has a hard look but is soft at the same time. Delicious!
The catchlight in the bottom of the eye is a reflector to bounce a little bit of light back into the face. I also used black reflectors to give some edge definition on the face.
I have done clamshell before and it is beautiful, but, I really wanted to shoot the diffused beauty dish on this shoot. I've just ordered a 10 degree grid to direct the light even further and to prevent spill. I like my backgrounds tending to black or a dark grey. Even at f/16, and the Profoto on its lowest power setting, the background lights up too much. The grid will help contain the spill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by adman
Beuatiful H.
Is that a clamshell type lighting setup - one high, one low and shoot through the middle?
Adam
Thanks all for looking and commenting. I've got some more I'm slowly making my way through from this shoot. I've also got some other models/teams I'll be working with in the next few weeks for a constant supply of images and fun.
Nice work. I like that you didn't over-light the top of the iris area, adds some mystery.
Incredibly sharp shot! I never quite dare go that sharp unless the models are teens with their ridiculously flawless skin, but it really works here for the eyes. I think at f7.1 it would have been too sharp.
The lighting and camera work is fantastic.
With the posing I probably would have tried to get the model to drop/roll her left shoulder down and back a little to make it look less square and wide, (get a more feminine curve to the shoulder area) and to minimise the neck creases as much as possible.
I think the grid will be a great addition to control the backgrounds. Look forward to seeing more shots.
Any chance of a look at the colour shot?
I miss doing studio work so live vicariously through others these days
Thank you for your critique and comments, of which I agree completely with. The pose annoys me because I can see the back of the shoulder. I however feel that the eyes tend to direct the eyes more to the face, so, it's not too bad. It's not perfect, for sure.
I made a version (initially) where I had smoothed the skin over a lot more, but, the lack of texture made it fall flat in monotone, where it worked in colour. Go figure. The skin texture works here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poita
Nice work. I like that you didn't over-light the top of the iris area, adds some mystery.
Incredibly sharp shot! I never quite dare go that sharp unless the models are teens with their ridiculously flawless skin, but it really works here for the eyes. I think at f7.1 it would have been too sharp.
The lighting and camera work is fantastic.
With the posing I probably would have tried to get the model to drop/roll her left shoulder down and back a little to make it look less square and wide, (get a more feminine curve to the shoulder area) and to minimise the neck creases as much as possible.
I think the grid will be a great addition to control the backgrounds. Look forward to seeing more shots.
Any chance of a look at the colour shot?
I miss doing studio work so live vicariously through others these days
Lewis,
Apart from a few well done images, most of the images that come out of that plugin/software end up with halos around contrasting lines (think of the Opera House against a blue sky -- much like bad HDR, there are very obvious halos and are very, very annoying -- once seen, cannot be unseen).
I tried the plugin for Photoshop last year, but after seeing the halos (in the best of the built-in presets), prefered to push my knowledge of Digital Photo Professional and Photoshop to come up with my own recipe. I can't speak for other people, but, for me, there is a far greater sense of accomplishment getting my own "look" in Photoshop, than just pushing sliders around in a plug-in, or worse, using the default presets. It's the techie in me that wants to know how things are done. As mentioned before in the copyright thread, I consider myself an artist and really like to do things for myself. The other thing is that if I do it my own way, then, I don't run the risk of having my image look like everyone elses. It doesn't bother me that it takes orders of magnitude longer, it's just who I am -- I enjoy the journey! And, another thing is that I've been using Photoshop for almost 16 years now, and am very comfortable with it. But, I never fail to learn something new each time I embark on a project whether astrophotographic or terrestrial. Things like 3% change in opacity can make all the difference in subduing highlights competing with midtones. Little things like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LewisM
Nik Silver Efex Pro 2 would be fun to play with on this shot
Agreed H, me too - IF I use Nik, I usually end up with about 5 adjustment layers on top ") I DO like their Film Noir though - even with the edge dilineation etc.
I wonder how a linear curve stretch in DPP would be on this shot?
My only critique of the shot, and NOT a technical one - is her left eye - one of her false eyelashes is sticking to a real eyelash or feather (or?) pulling the top down.
Easy edit
Have you tried rows of angled and layered feathers under the eye, much like how a wing is arranged? I think it would be interesting and work well.
One thing I found in mono work was how radically different B&W looks on screen vs when printing it.
Texture translates so differently to paper, and without the distraction of colour, texture is king.
Do you do much printing or is it mostly for on-screen viewing? How much more playing do you do if it is going to print?
I have my own large format Epson (24" wide) and print my landscapes (and, soon, will be doing a whole lot more of it!) as well as my own enlargements for wedding customers.
Black and white looks so different, as you've mentioned; all depending on the type of paper you use, too. I'm using archival/museum quality stuff at the moment and am quite happy with it. It's a warm off-white lustre/semi-gloss paper.
The model in this image is a theoretical physicist who has just moved to Melbourne. I will be doing several prints once I've processed all the images from our shoot.
Thanks, guys. Look forward to sharing some more soon as time permits.
The colour one of this was nice, but, I much prefer the black and white. That amazing texture in the skin just doesn't shine through in colour.
My apologies for not being in touch. I'm interstate this weekend shooting, returning Monday. I'll be in touch when I get back. You must come round and check out the studio.
I'll even try and tee up a shoot for a bit of fun.
