Thanks guys ... thought my eyes were playing with me a bit. I somehow flipped my converter into a Hi-Saturation conversion profile. I automatically compensated for it a bit in my processing, but it was still bugging me. Just figured that out while looking through my settings. Glad this was the 1st image of the set ... would have sucked to have to redo a bunch of images. Misha - Ha ... you ain't seen nothing yet. Gimme another week to get to a couple of other events. :) And if you guys think you could rescue me from the likes of Miss Ingenue, you're nutz! :) Nilla - It's burlesque ... makeup can be a little heavier than normal ... although I think the hi-sat profile made the red a bit more red than normal. As for the arm ... I'm fighting a bit with the light here. Someone decided to put a tungsten light to the left, but not right so I had to use flash to fill in. Means 2 different light temps in same shot (3200k tungsten and 5800k flash). Blah. :)

My thought has always been, if someone doesn't want their picture taken, then I don't take their picture. Doesn't matter if they realize I've done it or not. I grew up in Baltimore and went to Penn. Dutch Country at least 2-3 times a year. I'd never want to offend anyone capable of making the incredible Snickerdoodle cookie (the real one ... not the stuff you get in stores). Sounds like you know the answer already, but you're kind of hoping that someone here will say it's okay. My take on it.

Whatever you use to change the contrast, just keep your eye on your histogram and on the image ... you should be able to see when the texture of the skin begins to blow out. If you still need contrast, you can keep going and then you can either use a clone stamp or some noise on an overlay layer to return some texture to the skin. As for the roots, yea ... if I really needed to do that, I would take care of that on a seperate layer, controlling the roots on their own so they don't go dark(er). And yup, I used curves and blending modes - a duplicate of the image blended with softlight and reduced opacity. -=>Donald

'chelle - Have I mentioned lately that I love you? :) Onslow - for that size print, a 6x4.5 format MF would do very well.. I've seen and used a few of them and I think any good name brand would work for you. Cash wise, I'd limit myself to probably Bronica or Pentax. That lets you get into MF without spending a grand and they are very dependable.

Stay away from Kievs and the like. Very finicky cameras, easy to break (their shutter is the worst piece of crap to ever come along) and just not a good investment. Especially when you consider you can get a Bronica ETR* or Pentax 645 used for not much more than a new Kiev kit.

Message edited on: 07/01/2005 13:16

Remember ... there are no real rules in photography, just guidelines. Cutting off the head like this is very acceptable in a portrait like this. It's in close and personal ... don't sweat that.

I think the problem with the sepia and b&w one is you're coming from a fairly low contrast image to begin with (was it overcast that day?). Monochrome does not suffer flatness gladly.

Get our contrast up a bit on the original (without clipping the highlights) and it should work better for you. Message edited on: 07/01/2005 13:08

dB - Don't know the maximum, but I know that my ETRS (which is a 645 camera) can easily do ~24" x 30" print without loss of quality. Don't know the max. If I do a 4000dpi scan and print at 300dpi, get around a 22"x30" print. 67 cameras are big and bulky, but have incredible resolution and image quality. You'll definitely be using a tripod though. I haven't met anyone yet who could handhold a 67. And whatever you photograph better not be too camera shy ... they're definitely not made to be quite with that big ol' mirror flipping up. -=>Donald

"Seems to me a filter is nothing more than a flat slab of glass ..."

Or possibly not so flat. Or possibly the glass used is not quite as pure as it can be. Or possibly the build quality is not as good as others. Or possibly its coating, if it has one, is not as even as it could be. If filters were just flat slabs of glass, you wouldn't have 3-4 companies standing out amongst the crowd.

Quantaray is the name used by Ritz(I think) to sell a re-branded budget line of lenses, filters and other accessories. When I first bought my Sigma lens for my film camera body about 4 years ago I also went ahead and got a Quantaray UV filter to save a few bucks (up until then, everything I had was Canon). The thing wasn't coated correctly, had too much of a red hue and flared at the first hint of cross light. Final straw for me was when the glue failed and the filter jiggled and rotated in the ring. That was just my experience. Not saying it's indicative of anything. Just that like with most things in life, you get what you pay for.

That said, do what you feel comfortable doing. It's your gear. I don't think anyone here really cares what you put on the lens (I have yet to have someone run up and look at the brand of filter on my lens). As long as you're happy, what else matters?

-=>Donald

Helicon Filter is an excellent program. One of the best noise removal algorithms around too. Also check out Kodak's Digital Gem and Digital Gem Professional (use to be ASF's program). Info is HERE. -=>Donald

this is the kind of stuff that makes me pick up a bat and start looking for people. eBots drop me an e-mail if a cricket sneezes in Guam, but I don't hear squat until your 5th of this series. :/ That said, I love the series so far, oh raven haired one. You sure know how to push my buttons. Dance, motion, emotion, light and shadow. Wonderful stuff. Add to it the fact that they are self-portraits and you really don't know how impressed I am. And you need to understand, with your previous series, you've set the bar pretty high on impressing me. Well done. big hugz -=>Donald

Coolj - UV filters remove a percentage of the UV component from light. It does not effect the visibile light. So, it won't change the saturation/color of your images. It will, in certain circumstances, change the way the sky looks - but that's kind of why you want them. It cuts down on the UV haze you see when taking landscapes. If all you want is protection and don't care about cutting down on UV, you can also buy a good quality clear optical filter. Does nothing but protect the lens. I won't get into the UV or not UV thing again and if they cause problems. :) Suffice it to say that everything you've ever seen from me (with the exception of 1 event) has been done through either a UV, Skylight 1A or Circular Polarizer. And most people know my anal nature when it comes to image quality.

Here's the thing, it really does matter the quality of your filter. The greatest lens in the world can become average or even downright unusable with a crappy filter stuck on it. Poor quality filters can cause loss of sharpness, hazing, artificting, fringing, flaring or a combination of those.

If light goes through it to reach your sensor or film, then it matters. You spend all that money on bodies and lenses, why go cheap on the most inexpensive part, the filters? Especially when you're talking about UV filters, which are the cheapest type of lens filter there is. You can get a Hoya or B+W or other excellent quality UV filter for $15-30. Why even consider going budget there?

-=>Donald

Message edited on: 06/24/2005 08:06

Nilla - Depends on what type of photos you would be taking. Can you give me an idea of the setups you want to shoot (single person, couples, group shots, etc.). And your budget for lighting?

Ideally, for a starter kit, I'd be thinking a minimum ~400w/s (320w/s B800 Alien Bee heads would probably work). They have a beginner's kit (Beginner Bee Kit) which would go for $359/light with strobe, stand, umbrella & bag. 2-3 of those would cover it. But that may be out of your budget for now.

Whatever the setup, stay away from those two lighting kits. Those are pathetically inadequate for almost anything you'd want to do aside from close in face portraits.

If anyone has these, don't want to rag on your lights or anything, but that's sad. Those strobes "for taking photos like a pro" have less light output than your average external, hotshoe flash you'd buy for your camera. These things have a guide number of about 105ft (@ ISO 100). The external hotshoe flash I use on my camera has a guide # of 165ft (@ISO 100) and it even recycles faster than these things. Blah.

You'd be better off getting an older external hot-shoe flash, a light-duty lightstand, a smaller black-backed white or silver umbrella (32"-38"), a cold-shoe umbrella bracket and a sync-plug slave shoe (sync plug and not optical so other guests firing off a flash won't set your lights off). You could get 2-4 of those at a cost of $75-100 each and they'd be more portable, durable, powerful and controllable than those Britek or JTL "pro" kits.

It would look like this: Ebay Auction. That auction doesn't include the flash. What they are using there looks like the Vivitar 283 thyristor flash. Excellent, old flash that has a guide number of 120 and can be had on eBay for $10-25 each.

-=>Donald

Thanks guys. Really did feel good to shoot film again. Missed it. Doug - It's a small scan (200dpi) from film. Good medium format scanners are so expensive right now, I'm not even considering getting my own ... so, for that format I either have my lab scan them or I'll rent a MF scanner. Brian - Where did I get what? I was probably 5-7 feet away from them. Opened up to f/3.5 to get the nice, shallow DOF. 'chelle - Nope, Ilford Delta 3200 B&W film shot at 3200. As your format size increases, the perceived grain size in scans and prints decreases. For instance, same shot, same film and same web image size but in 35mm format would have a more pronounced grain. Add to that the fact that ID 3200 has a fine grain for such a high speed film. -=>Donald

Speeeeeeeed! Speeeeeed! hahaha ... at 4, I thought Speed Racer was the coolest guy who ever lived. At 5, I realized since Racer X was always bashing him over the skull with a wrench, he must have been the coolest guy who ever lived. At 6, I realized they all wore little scarves around their necks and no man who wore a scarf around his neck could be the coolest (see Scooby Doo; sub-heading Freddy). I love the fact he gave you "the pose". Bahaha ... now that theme song is stuck in my head. But anyway, enough rambling. This is one reason I love costume events. Almost everyone in costume would love to have their photo taken. Takes a lot of pressure off of asking strangers can you photograph them. -=>Donald