Daughter's high school graduation

[rutt]

http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/25327713-L.jpg

Yes, it's a classic snapshot. But it's also a case of a "must get" shot. No reshoot here. It shares this with photojournalism. In fact it is a sort of personal photojounalism.

Anyway, it was twilight after the endless ceremony. ISO 1250 on 1D Mark II might be pretty great compared to older digigal cameras, but still not perfect for portraits. I faught with ACR, NeatImage, and my own sharpening technique
until I got the above. For comparison here is the image after just ACR (white balance "auto" instead of "as shot") and NeatImage (reduce noise and sharpen.)

http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/25327820-L.jpg

So, how did I do? Could I have done better under the circumstances. Does it have a life outside the family scrapbook?

[ginger_55]

Rutt, if I am going to respond to anyone like this, I would rather it not be you.

Maybe it is because I feel like I know you and your daughter, together, by now.

Do you have any other shots? Where she is looking at you?

Not that this is bad, or anything, just wondered if she would "play" with the camera at all, and if so, if we could see them.

ginger

[rutt]

Thank you, Ginger. That's exactly the problem with this subject. She won't pose. You'd think the camera was a gun!

I did dig through my shots and found this one. Without your input, I wouldn't have done that. Better?
http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/25329655-L.jpg

[ginger_55]

I am not sure, she does have a problem with looking at you, doesn't she. If she doesn't look, she is invisible.???

Like the darn birds.

This is my layer blending playing for just now.

http://gingerSnap.smugmug.com/photos/25330301-L.jpg
I am sure it is not as crisp, etc.
I just wanted to somehow separate her from the background.

g

I like the reflection in her glasses. smile.

[rutt]

Lynnma sent me a gentle reminder that only one shot per week is allowed here. I suppose I have now added a second shot within a few hours. I did knew I was doing this, but the point of Ginger's insightful critique was to go back and look though the shots. I think this was a great critique and it did yield a good result, I think. So I'm a happy customer of this forum.

I don't want to bend either the letter or spirit of the rules of this forum, though. So for now, let's forget the second shot and just concentrate of the faults of the first. But also, let's not forget the moral: Don't be too sure of your first pick from a shoot! (Good one, Ginger!)

[pathfinder]

http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/25327713-S.jpg

Yes, it's a classic snapshot. But it's also a case of a "must get" shot. No reshoot here. It shares this with photojournalism. In fact it is a sort of personal photojounalism.

Anyway, it was twilight after the endless ceremony. ISO 1250 on 1D Mark II might be pretty great compared to older digigal cameras, but still not perfect for portraits. I faught with ACR, NeatImage, and my own sharpening technique
until I got the above. For comparison here is the image after just ACR (white balance "auto" instead of "as shot") and NeatImage (reduce noise and sharpen.)

http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/25327820-S.jpg

So, how did I do? Could I have done better under the circumstances. Does it have a life outside the family scrapbook?


She is a lovely flower John. But apparently not cooperating with her dad for protrait shooting.

If I understand correctly, your questions are in regard to post processing rather than exposure and composition here? Is this a full frame image or a highly cropped image perhaps. The grain seems higher to my eye than I would expect from a full frame shot out of a 1DMkll at ISO 1250 - particularly after scrubbing in NeatImage.

No flash was avaliable at the time for a little fill? Fill flash can really help save family candids like this for me at times. And I prefer the 580Ex over the in camera flash of the 20D for this purpose as well.
What was the EXIF data and the lens used please.

[mereimage]

Sometimes we have to be grateful for the 'quick captures' we get of our camera shy daughters---I played with the bottom image and feel its a keeper...I would like to see what can be done with the full file...I was getting lots of gaps in the histogram on this small file...I like the result as long as the size is limited to about 5x7... at full size there are lots of sharpening artifacts......the exif data is irrelevant at this for this shot, tho Path's comment re: fill flash is right on, I could have saved lots of shots if I'd use it more often

http://mereimage.smugmug.com/photos/25367660-M.jpg

pretty simple process 1 quick and gentle lab steepening 2 return to rgb for shadow/highlight adj.-again gentle here just enough to add some detail to hair 3 slight S-curve to open mid-tones (darker tones locked) 4 boost color sat 5 control noise and sharpen with NN which I like very much and am using as much as a sharpening tool as well as to reduce noise. I also burned the edges to emphasize her face and cloned out the left inf corner.

I look forward to your and Paths comments-since he's taught me most of what I know about photograpy and bought me my first Digital camera///Mereimage

[mereimage]

...........................Mereimage

http://mereimage.smugmug.com/photos/25374002-L.jpg

[pathfinder]

...........................Mereimage

http://mereimage.smugmug.com/photos/25374002-S.jpg

I like the increased saturation of the color in her face, but her hair has gone funky grey. Can we see the original file perhaps, rutt, please?

[mereimage]

redo without shad/hilts
http://mereimage.smugmug.com/photos/25397832-L.jpg
http://mereimage.smugmug.com/photos/25397330-M.jpg


..................................Mereimage

[rutt]

Thanks, guys. Let's see.

I welcome all criticism, both of stuff I can still do with this image and stuff I can only try the next time. That is the point of this forum, no?

I guess I could have brought my flash. I was shy about it, but in fact I there were a lot of people with flashes. I'm not sure about using an on camera flash in this particular image. But if I'd had it, I could have tried both ways. This is my oldest and I wasn't sure what to expect. When her brother graduates next year, I'll have a better idea. But I had a deeper problem and might not have needed the flash if I'd been on my toes (see below.)

The lens was 24-70mm f2.8l.

Here is the exif data:
File name : hr4h0375_rt.jpg
File size : 4408809 bytes
File date : 2005:06:18 10:54:52
Camera make : Canon
Camera model : Canon EOS-1D Mark II
Date/Time : 2005:06:09 20:19:11
Resolution : 2336 x 3504
Flash used : No
Focal length : 59.0mm
Exposure time: 0.0016 s (1/640)
Aperture : f/2.8
ISO equiv. : 1250
Exposure bias:-1.33
Metering Mode: matrix
Exposure : aperture priority (semi-auto)
Jpeg process : Baseline

No cropping.

Yes, it seems too noisy for the camera and post I've done with it. The truth is it was badly under exposed and I (actually ACR in ps/cs2) corrected during raw conversion. The combination of exposure push and high ISO seems to have made a lot of noise.

At first I though it was UE because the sky was still pretty light but the light on the ground was failing fast. But I just noticed the exposure bias in the exif data. I think I got sloppy. During the actualy ceremony, I was using a long lens and spot metering and was playing with exposure composition. After the ceremony things happened pretty fast, and I guess I wasn't deliberate enough in resetting the camera.

Moral: be deliberate. Things aren't happening quite as fast as they seem to be. Have some routines that work and stick to them, like a pilot getting ready to fly.

Moral: look at the exif data when you are trying to figure out what went wrong.

I like the post attempts by memeimage. I'll have to try NN. But you've really just run it through a second round of noise reduction, as I alrady used NeatImage. Maybe I should try that. I did try the dust&scratch filter. Since you've done such good work with it, I'll PM you a URL for the raw version and you can see if you can come up with something even better.

[Tim Kirkwood]

Lynnma sent me a gentle reminder that only one shot per week is allowed here.
I never knew that:dunno



Tim

*edit* I now see that its only for this particular forum and not all of Dgrin. I was confused:D sorry.

[pathfinder]

I guess I could have brought my flash. I was shy about it, but in fact I there were a lot of people with flashes. I'm not sure about using an on camera flash in this particular image. But if I'd had it, I could have tried both ways. This is my oldest and I wasn't sure what to expect. When her brother graduates next year, I'll have a better idea. But I had a deeper problem and might not have needed the flash if I'd been on my toes (see below.)

The lens was 24-70mm f2.8l.

Here is the exif data:
EXIF
File name : hr4h0375_rt.jpg
File size : 4408809 bytes
File date : 2005:06:18 10:54:52
Camera make : Canon
Camera model : Canon EOS-1D Mark II
Date/Time : 2005:06:09 20:19:11
Resolution : 2336 x 3504
Flash used : No
Focal length : 59.0mm
Exposure time: 0.0016 s (1/640)
Aperture : f/2.8
ISO equiv. : 1250
Exposure bias:-1.33
Metering Mode: matrix
Exposure : aperture priority (semi-auto)
Jpeg process : Baseline



No cropping.

Yes, it seems too noisy for the camera and post I've done with it. The truth is it was badly under exposed and I (actually ACR in ps/cs2) corrected during raw conversion. The combination of exposure push and high ISO seems to have made a lot of noise.

At first I though it was UE because the sky was still pretty light but the light on the ground was failing fast. But I just noticed the exposure bias in the exif data. I think I got sloppy. During the actualy ceremony, I was using a long lens and spot metering and was playing with exposure composition. After the ceremony things happened pretty fast, and I guess I wasn't deliberate enough in resetting the camera.

Moral: be deliberate. Things aren't happening quite as fast as they seem to be. Have some routines that work and stick to them, like a pilot getting ready to fly.

Moral: look at the exif data when you are trying to figure out what went wrong.

I like the post attempts by memeimage. I'll have to try NN. But you've really just run it through a second round of noise reduction, as I alrady used NeatImage. Maybe I should try that. I did try the dust&scratch filter. Since you've done such good work with it, I'll PM you a URL for the raw version and you can see if you can come up with something even better.

I was trying to figure out why you chose a shutter speed of 1/640 when you were shooting at ISO 1250 with a 60mm focal length at f2.8. Apparently the -EC underexposed -1.33 stops and that was why the shutter speed was so brief. You had almost 3 stops more of exposure available - 1/320, 1/125, 1/60th so fill flash might have improved the image but was not really necessary for exposure. An 85mm f1.8 lens might also have been a good choice for that venue, since you were changing lenses it sounds like.

Let us see the original and see what can be done with it - but underexposure is probably the explanation for the higher than expected grain at ISO 1250 for a full frame image. Make use of the grain and move to B&W perhaps?

[rutt]

Let us see the original and see what can be done with it - but underexposure is probably the explanation for the higher than expected grain at ISO 1250 for a full frame image. Make use of the grain and move to B&W perhaps?

The original jpeg is pretty useless. What you really want is the raw version. Unfortunately, smugmug isn't good for sharing these. You can try to pick up from my server (but mereimage had trouble with this.)

http://gate.chezrutt.com:8030/rutt/photos/digital/09Jun05/hr4h0375.cr2

Let me know about success or problems wiith picking this up.

[Shay Stephens]

It's good from a documentary perspective, but :wink , there is no moment captured here. It doesn't look like she is reacting to or interacting with anything.

That is from an outsiders perspective. Her expression may mean something to those who know her. I think with more contrast and a bit of cropping and this can be as good as it can get.

[rutt]

It's good from a documentary perspective, but :wink , there is no moment captured here. It doesn't look like she is reacting to or interacting with anything.

That is from an outsiders perspective. Her expression may mean something to those who know her. I think with more contrast and a bit of cropping and this can be as good as it can get.

Thanks, Shay. I'm still working on that "clutch hitting" thing. Getting THE shot when it matters is a real problem for me. It's worst with pictures of my children at big rites of passage like this.