All Forum Comments
Comment by RalphHardwick posted on The photography show at 01/03/2014 - 20:33
stephenparfitt wrote:
I'm just back as well. Loved the feel and balance of the gripped K3, just couldn't afford it right now even with the show discount!
I felt it was just a shame that, compared to Canon, Nikon and even Samsung, Panasonic and Fuji, Pentax's stall was so small - just an add-on to LCE I think.
Staff were v friendly and enthusiastic though and were quite happy to let us play with various lenses on the cameras.
Go on, ruin my evening;....how much was the show discount? I'm just back as well. Loved the feel and balance of the gripped K3, just couldn't afford it right now even with the show discount!
I felt it was just a shame that, compared to Canon, Nikon and even Samsung, Panasonic and Fuji, Pentax's stall was so small - just an add-on to LCE I think.
Staff were v friendly and enthusiastic though and were quite happy to let us play with various lenses on the cameras.
Comment by RalphHardwick posted on The photography show at 01/03/2014 - 19:14
Ricoh no longer have the Silver edition in their webstore
SRS are still offering them but I guess the writing is on the wall. Too many weeks before I can consider one means I'm just going to have to make do with the second rate, naff, common all garden black one
Still I shall just have to try and make do, although my pictures would have been much better with the silver one.......
SRS are still offering them but I guess the writing is on the wall. Too many weeks before I can consider one means I'm just going to have to make do with the second rate, naff, common all garden black one
Still I shall just have to try and make do, although my pictures would have been much better with the silver one.......
Comment by RalphHardwick posted on Silver K3 still available at 27/02/2014 - 22:55
RalphHardwick wrote:
Just had this message fro SLRHut:
Ralph,
Thank you for inquiring with us!
Your email was forwarded to the appropriate department, you will receive a reply shortly.
Best Regards,
SLRHut
Customer Support Team
02035 149 372
I shall keep you informed...........
4 days and nothing yet Just had this message fro SLRHut:
Ralph,
Thank you for inquiring with us!
Your email was forwarded to the appropriate department, you will receive a reply shortly.
Best Regards,
SLRHut
Customer Support Team
02035 149 372
I shall keep you informed...........
As the old saying goes; "if it looks too good to be true....etc etc.
Comment by RalphHardwick posted on k3 sub £1000 at 27/02/2014 - 08:42
DrOrloff wrote:
The poses and expressions are all good. The lighting looks good on the subjects. The backgrounds look too amateurish with the creases and greyish tones in parts.
Fair comment, hence the practice. The white 'train' background is taking some getting used to.The poses and expressions are all good. The lighting looks good on the subjects. The backgrounds look too amateurish with the creases and greyish tones in parts.
McGregNi wrote:
Yes, you've worked well with the kids there to get them engaged, thats a big plus. I find the very bright backgrounds too bright in relation to the subjects, very glaring. Also, I think you've blown out some of the skin tones too much in some - look at the difference in colour of the hands (& foot) in No6 (quite natural) & Nos 3 & 5 - some detail is lost on faces due to this also.
And finally, I'd give a little 'Pop' to the eyes - they are all a little dark and sunken looking. A bit of selective brightening, sharpening and saturation on the eyes should do the trick.
In terms of exposure for the subject I think No2 has it spot on - it also seems to have a softer and more even spread of lighting across the face.
Thanks Nigel. Yes I see your point about the hands and feet, I need to keep trying different setups to find the right 'formula'. WRT the backgrounds I aim for a 1/2 - 1 stop difference which seems to be standard for hi key portraits.Yes, you've worked well with the kids there to get them engaged, thats a big plus. I find the very bright backgrounds too bright in relation to the subjects, very glaring. Also, I think you've blown out some of the skin tones too much in some - look at the difference in colour of the hands (& foot) in No6 (quite natural) & Nos 3 & 5 - some detail is lost on faces due to this also.
And finally, I'd give a little 'Pop' to the eyes - they are all a little dark and sunken looking. A bit of selective brightening, sharpening and saturation on the eyes should do the trick.
In terms of exposure for the subject I think No2 has it spot on - it also seems to have a softer and more even spread of lighting across the face.
I'm trying to avoid too much PP but I take your point about the eyes.
gartmore wrote:
The key is too high in height IMO. You have to overflight that background by 1.5 to 2 stops but that means getting a lot more distance between the subject and the background. You could get rid of the shadows and wrinkles on it in levels. Don't you have reflectors for your flash heads? You would get much more power and control. With a black background you should use a backlight for separation, my choice would be a reflector with grid and barndoors
Ken the key light was a 60 x 120 softbox that sat about 18" off the floor which was about eye level for the littl'uns . 1.5 - 2 stops seems a lot and goes against the training I've had. However I'm willing to give it a try although I hate to think what Nigel will sayThe key is too high in height IMO. You have to overflight that background by 1.5 to 2 stops but that means getting a lot more distance between the subject and the background. You could get rid of the shadows and wrinkles on it in levels. Don't you have reflectors for your flash heads? You would get much more power and control. With a black background you should use a backlight for separation, my choice would be a reflector with grid and barndoors
The background lights were fitted with large softbox reflectors without the front diffuser. This gave a wide spread of light across the backdrop whilst preventing the light from bouncing forward.
I totally agree about the subject to background distance. Unfortunately my dining room only allows so much
cabstar wrote:
Number 2 is a great portrait.
I always try to get my clients to wear single coloured tops and with kids single coloured bright t shirts are always good. Stripy and patterned clothes can be distracting.
Thanks Gary. I'll bear that n mind for the future.Number 2 is a great portrait.
I always try to get my clients to wear single coloured tops and with kids single coloured bright t shirts are always good. Stripy and patterned clothes can be distracting.
davidstorm wrote:
I'm not qualified to comment or give you advice Ralph as I know nothing about taking professional quality portraits. What I will say is that I take my hat off to you and I give you my best wishes should you decide to pursue this as career. I think you are getting good advice from the people on here that know what they are talking about
Regards
David
David, thanks very much.I'm not qualified to comment or give you advice Ralph as I know nothing about taking professional quality portraits. What I will say is that I take my hat off to you and I give you my best wishes should you decide to pursue this as career. I think you are getting good advice from the people on here that know what they are talking about
Regards
David
and thanks to everyone else for the comments.
Comment by RalphHardwick posted on Still practicing my portraits at 26/02/2014 - 19:34
My next trip is into the hinterland of Iceland for 2 weeks including, dusty roads, waterfalls, geysers, volcanic ash and a whale watching trip on a boat. In 2015 I'm hoping to drive the Southern Algeria to the centre(ish) of the Sahara desert.
Although a cover would be beneficial at times I need an ongoing degree of dust resistance even when stored in the vehicle (Land Rovers aren't renowned for their dust resistance:blush.
Thanks for the info though
Although a cover would be beneficial at times I need an ongoing degree of dust resistance even when stored in the vehicle (Land Rovers aren't renowned for their dust resistance:blush.
Thanks for the info though
Smeggypants wrote:
A DA* 135-380 constant 2.8 would probably cost about £10,000
As I said............I can dream A DA* 135-380 constant 2.8 would probably cost about £10,000
Comment by RalphHardwick posted on Two more front ends at 25/02/2014 - 14:27
Smeggypants wrote:
Fair point but I have a bit of a fixation on dust and weather sealing which rules the Sigma out for meRalphHardwick wrote:
I have the DA* 50-135 and 60-250. Personally I would rather have a TC and retain the IQ. However if the 135-380 is DA* quality then I would be very interested.
I have a DA* 50-135 and a Sigma 135-400. While the IQ of the 50-135 is slightly classier I've never once felt the 135-400 was lacking becuase of it's IQ. It only cost around £300 as well. You can bet a DA* 135-380 would be well over a grandI have the DA* 50-135 and 60-250. Personally I would rather have a TC and retain the IQ. However if the 135-380 is DA* quality then I would be very interested.
If they did bring out a DA* 135-380 I would definitely consider swapping the 60-250 especially if it was constant f2.8. I can dream can't i
Comment by RalphHardwick posted on Two more front ends at 24/02/2014 - 22:16
I love this
Thanks for all the comments and various attempts at PP.
For me this image was taken to capture a scene and, although I applied some thought to it, the technical aspects of taking the shot took second place.
As a Land Rover 'fan' the tracks add to the image as a photographer they, probably, detract from it.
My original rendition is probably the closest to how I remember the scene but one of the great joys of digital is the fact that it doesn't have to stop there. That's why I shared the RAW file so that different ideas could be shared.
I am still happy with the original image, as posted, but I love the ongoing discussion.
Thanks for all the comments and various attempts at PP.
For me this image was taken to capture a scene and, although I applied some thought to it, the technical aspects of taking the shot took second place.
As a Land Rover 'fan' the tracks add to the image as a photographer they, probably, detract from it.
My original rendition is probably the closest to how I remember the scene but one of the great joys of digital is the fact that it doesn't have to stop there. That's why I shared the RAW file so that different ideas could be shared.
I am still happy with the original image, as posted, but I love the ongoing discussion.
Comment by RalphHardwick posted on A very British scene at 24/02/2014 - 22:02
Having used an eye-fi card on my K5iis, and been very underwhelmed, I'm looking forward to your thoughts on its perfrmance
Comment by RalphHardwick posted on Nice little review on the FLU Card at 24/02/2014 - 13:42
Smeggypants wrote:
The fact that there's so many versions speaks volumes.
Does it? Please enlighten usThe fact that there's so many versions speaks volumes.
Comment by RalphHardwick posted on A very British scene at 24/02/2014 - 09:40
So I hope no one paid parking and admission and expected a bargain