Am I correct? The 'Polaroid'Moderators: Greg B, Nnnnsic, Geoff, Glen, gstark, Moderators
Forum rules
Please note that image critiquing is a matter of give and take: if you post images for critique, and you then expect to receive criticism, then it is also reasonable, fair and appropriate that, in return, you post your critique of the images of other members here as a matter of courtesy. So please do offer your critique of the images of others; your opinion is important, and will help everyone here enjoy their visit to far greater extent. Also please note that, unless you state something to the contrary, other members might attempt to repost your image with their own post processing applied. We see this as an acceptable form of critique, but should you prefer that others not modify your work, this is perfectly ok, and you should state this, either within your post, or within your signature. Images posted here should conform with the general forum guidelines. Image sizes should not exceed 950 pixels along the largest side (height or width) and typically no more than four images per post or thread. Please also ensure that you have a meaningful location included in your profile. Please refer to the FAQ for details of what "meaningful" is.
Previous topic • Next topic
11 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Am I correct? The 'Polaroid'Thanks to those who helped with my calculations the other day.
I have bought some Tri-X (320) but couldn't buy any instant film to go in the 4x5 back. I therefore used the D200 as a 'Polaroid'. I was going to shoot the F at an effective ISO of 16 at f/5.6 at 1/60th (with yellow filter). I set the D200 at ISO 250 (4 stops) at f/22 (4 stops), converted the image to B&W with a Tri-X filter using a yellow filter. This is the result. My first attempts resulted in a background that matched the tones of the bud too much. So I killed ambient light and let the strobes do the work. C&C appreciated, primarily on exposure and light positioning. Note, the film image will have much less DOF as it will be at 5.6. As far as repositioning the lights, I don't have a lot of room to play with. This is an image of my set up and I am seriously cramped. The ceiling is not much higher than top of frame. There is crap everywhere. Don't be put off by the tilt in the camera - it comes out straight (at least in the viewfinder). Regards, Patrick
Two or three lights, any lens on a light-tight box are sufficient for the realisation of the most convincing image. Man Ray 1935. Our mug is smug
Re: Am I correct? The 'Polaroid'I will be interested to see the film version, lighting POV, its nice and seems accentuated nicely for a lowish key image.
gerry's photography journey
No amount of processing will fix bad composition - trust me i have tried.
Re: Am I correct? The 'Polaroid'oh, and i would like to say no probs with helping out, but, really i was useless, nonetheless, thank you for the insights you have given me into film.
gerry's photography journey
No amount of processing will fix bad composition - trust me i have tried.
Re: Am I correct? The 'Polaroid'Patrick - my concern would be if the DoF will be as shallow as you anticipate you might not get much of the flower in focus - even here at f/22 it looks like it drops off.
D600, D7000, Nikon/Sigma/Tamron Lenses, Nikon Flashes, Sirui/Manfrotto/Benro Sticks
Rodney - My Photo Blog Want: Fast Wide (14|20|24)
Re: Am I correct? The 'Polaroid'Thanks guys.
I will look at reducing aperture by a stop or two, where I can, and increasing light correspondingly. Regards, Patrick
Two or three lights, any lens on a light-tight box are sufficient for the realisation of the most convincing image. Man Ray 1935. Our mug is smug
Re: Am I correct? The 'Polaroid'Wow that camera does look very precariously perched on top of that 222RC.
I am eagarly awaiting more images from this camera...this is a very nice start Cameron
Nikon F/Nikon 1 | Hasselblad V/XPAN| Leica M/LTM |Sony α/FE/E/Maxxum/M42 Wishlist Nikkor 24/85 f/1.4| Fuji Natura Black Scout-Images | Flickr | 365Project
Re: Am I correct? The 'Polaroid'
Cameron, that image is from the D200 to illustrate what I expected the image from the neg would look like. However, having developed the meg last nit, I think I need to add at least 1 stop of light. Regards, Patrick
Two or three lights, any lens on a light-tight box are sufficient for the realisation of the most convincing image. Man Ray 1935. Our mug is smug
Re: Am I correct? The 'Polaroid'
Whoops, I misread that Cameron
Nikon F/Nikon 1 | Hasselblad V/XPAN| Leica M/LTM |Sony α/FE/E/Maxxum/M42 Wishlist Nikkor 24/85 f/1.4| Fuji Natura Black Scout-Images | Flickr | 365Project
Re: Am I correct? The 'Polaroid'Patrick,
I reckon this cross light is not that awe inspiring and slightly un-natural. How about having a go with a hollywood style light for this flower? Or perhaps a three point portrait type of setup to give it more edge. Since there is one thing in the frame, I feel that it needs to be epic. Could you explain to us n00bs why you chose the hard and soft combo for this still life? Just a few thoughts as you can polaroid all you want.
Re: Am I correct? The 'Polaroid'
Good points, Suren Firstly, what do you mean by hollywood style light? A poor tradesman blames his tools, blah blah blah, but I am seriously constrained by lack of height, lack of space, and generally lack of light modifiers (limited to brollies, soft boxes and the home made strip light for the SB800. What I can do is swap the large softbox for a much smaller one. I am aiming for a low key look, almost film noir. I may actually see if I can make a home made snoot for one of the strobes to change the shape of the light, rather than soft/hard lighting as per the current set up. Thanks for the thoughts and I am going to shoot more tonight (and will develop straight away). I will then take D200-scans tomorrow night for show-n-tell. Regards, Patrick
Two or three lights, any lens on a light-tight box are sufficient for the realisation of the most convincing image. Man Ray 1935. Our mug is smug
Re: Am I correct? The 'Polaroid'Rigthteo, the 4x5s have been shot, developed and crudely scanned.
Here are two results (all I have done is a crop and making the edge black with a bit of contrast increase). C&C appreciated. The apparent specks to the left on the first are water drops. The second image doesn't have this. This image is the correct orientation. There is the strip light to camera left and the snoot on strobe at camera right, aimed at the top of the bud. Regards, Patrick
Two or three lights, any lens on a light-tight box are sufficient for the realisation of the most convincing image. Man Ray 1935. Our mug is smug
Previous topic • Next topic
11 posts
• Page 1 of 1
|