Recent Works

[Arminw]

Graham I love those two images .... fantastic work !!!

Armin

[Frank Doorhof]

first one is stunning Graham.

[samuel_js]

I like both Graham. Great work!

[Sean H]

Graham,

I don't know how you did it, but these images are stunning. Congratulations.

Sean

[paulhu]

Hasselblad H3D-31, HC 50-110mm@65. f/9.5, 1/125 sec.

[Dustbak]

Helping out a friend. H2/CF39/35mm.

[thsinar]

Sinar Hy6 - eMotion 75 LV
Zeiss Planar 110/2
1/30 - f2
Cropped 25%

Thierry


[attachment=6360:attachment]

[samuel_js]

Sinar Hy6 - eMotion 75 LV
Zeiss Planar 110/2
1/30 - f2
Cropped 25%

Thierry
[attachment=6360:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192874\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thierry, that's a wonderful image. Any PS? or is just the effect of the f2?

[thsinar]

Thanks Samuel.

I did a slight contrast correction and brought the levels a bit up then USM.

The blur comes from the windy day, but I like the effect.

What I am not "happy" at is the rendering on the web (one more not happy with it!): I have posted the same image on Get DPI:

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1659

The image is originally in Adobe 98, size 1415x1772 saved as JPG maximum quality (12) ---> 1.1 MB compressed, and posted the same on both forums:

Have a look on the image in Get DPI:

- the contrast/saturation isn't corresponding with my original in CS3
- the sharpness is right

Have a look and compare here:

- the contrast/saturation IS corresponding to my original
- the sharpness is way out of my original

I am scratching my head now, loosing my hears, asking myself what I could do wrong, either here or there.

BTW: I am using Safari.

Any help would be welcome.

Thierry

Thierry, that's a wonderful image. Any PS? or is just the effect of the f2?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192880\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[Dustbak]

Even though Safari is color profile aware you should convert your image to sRGB for the web. I would normally convert with rendering of perceptual when going for the web.

After downsizing you could opt to sharpen it a bit again.

Image quality 12 is way too much BTW, 10 is more than enough and in many cases a good compromise between size & quality.

Even than, I still find a lot of times images turn out slightly different, even per website. Some websites strip the color profile from images and replace it with something sRGB'ish which can also account for the differences you are experiencing.

[thsinar]

Thanks Dustback!

A field where I have much to learn (from you all here), the web editing.

What puzzles me, is that I DID convert to sRGB for the post on Get DPI, but it appears as "untagged", though sharpness right.
And here I did NOT convert, left it in Adobe 98, and it shows "Adobe 98", BUT the sharpness is away!

 

Thanks for the hint to save with IQ 10: I'll do it next time.

Thierry

Even though Safari is color profile aware you should convert your image to sRGB for the web. I would normally convert with rendering of perceptual when going for the web.

After downsizing you could opt to sharpen it a bit again.

Image quality 12 is way too much BTW, 10 is more than enough and in many cases a good compromise between size & quality.

Even than, I still find a lot of times images turn out slightly different, even per website.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192885\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[James R Russell]

peethirtyplus, contax, about 1 billion iso

[attachment=6363:attachment]
©James Russell, Ann Rutherford 2008, New York
May not be reproduced without written consent.

[James R Russell]

pee twenty one  and one d ess two
[attachment=6381:attachment][attachment=6382:attachment]


all©James Russell, Ann Rutherford 2008, New York
May not be reproduced without written consent

[free1000]

peethirtyplus, contax, about 1 billion iso

[attachment=6363:attachment]
©James Russell, Ann Rutherford 2008, New York
May not be reproduced without written consent.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193000\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Love the tonality and shadows.  I just feel at the moment I want more shadows.

[juicy]

peethirtyplus, contax, about 1 billion iso

[attachment=6363:attachment]
©James Russell, Ann Rutherford 2008, New York
May not be reproduced without written consent.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193000\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

A fantastic combination of fashion photography, story telling and humor (love the tree) with a lot of room for viewer's own imagination. Cool indeed!

Cheers,
J

[Snook]

pee twenty one  and one d ess two
[attachment=6381:attachment][attachment=6382:attachment]
all©James Russell, Ann Rutherford 2008, New York
May not be reproduced without written consent
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193058\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

James Nice light  on the guy girl shot...:+}
Did you mix flash and ambient or was it all ambient.. very nice.
If you mixed how did you get all the same color?
All nice and soft..
Snook

[James R Russell]

James Nice light  on the guy girl shot...:+}
Did you mix flash and ambient or was it all ambient.. very nice.
If you mixed how did you get all the same color?
All nice and soft..
Snook
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193143\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

We selected this location because it had beautiful streaming light and lots of windows, of course the day we shoot it's pouring rain and about black outside.

I used the curtains and some blackout to direct the window light as the key and a hmi par bounched into the room for fill, then shot the peetwentyone at 400 iso, f 2.2 at 1/60th.

I like the peetwentyone for this type of color as I find it less color sensitive than the peethrity and more depth than just shooting with the Canons.

I processed in Raw Developer as Brian's software rocks for single image processing for almost any make of camera.  (I know Brian and though he is a techno guy you just know that somewhere deep in his dna is a lab rat).

Personally I love working with the Contaxs' for this type of work and can't believe that it's not an international law that all medium format lenses go to F2 and they shoot as smooth as the Contax.

Those old Contax's make even the dslr's seem like they vibrate.*

JR



*Please everyone do not go out and buy a Contax.  The prices keep going up and I assume someday they will costs as much as a new Bentley which I think is pretty much the price of a full HY6 kit


This is another image from that session, just a simple photograph.

[Snook]

We selected this location because it had beautiful streaming light and lots of windows, of course the day we shoot it's pouring rain and about black outside.

I used the curtains and some blackout to direct the window light as the key and a hmi par bounched into the room for fill, then shot the peetwentyone at 400 iso, f 2.2 at 1/60th.

I like the peetwentyone for this type of color as I find it less color sensitive than the peethrity and more depth than just shooting with the Canons.

I processed in Raw Developer as Brian's software rocks for single image processing for almost any make of camera.  (I know Brian and though he is a techno guy you just know that somewhere deep in his dna is a lab rat).

Personally I love working with the Contaxs' for this type of work and can't believe that it's not an international law that all medium format lenses go to F2 and they shoot as smooth as the Contax.

Those old Contax's make even the dslr's seem like they vibrate.*

JR
*Please everyone do not go out and buy a Contax.  The prices keep going up and I assume someday they will costs as much as a new Bentley which I think is pretty much the price of a full HY6 kit
This is another image from that session, just a simple photograph.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193146\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks a lot james for your input..
I know you are a busy guy...:+}
1/60th?  Wow.....
Would 400 iso on my Peethirty be more usaeble than on a peetwenty1?
Never even thought about trying it.. so far..
Ofcourse I never shot more than iso 200 on the 1DsMII either.. I am just a clean freak..:+}
Snook
Thanks again

[James R Russell]

Thanks a lot james for your input..
I know you are a busy guy...:+}
1/60th?  Wow.....
Would 400 iso on my Peethirty be more usaeble than on a peetwenty1?
Never even thought about trying it.. so far..
Ofcourse I never shot more than iso 200 on the 1DsMII either.. I am just a clean freak..:+}
Snook
Thanks again
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193149\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That last image was f 2.8 1/60th hand held with an 80.

I don't think or worry too much about noise as if need be it can be fixed.

400 on the peetwentyone is good, about the same as the peethirty.

800 is a stretch if you in low key light with a lot of shadows, though high key seems to make all digital look pretty smooth.

JR

[Frank Doorhof]

One from today.