Evening out

[dan marchant]

We were meeting friends for a night out and I asked my other half to sit by the window as the last of the light was coming through. Luckily my friends are used to me stopping proceedings and asking someone to "sit there, look that way, hold your fork like this" etc.

[kdoc856]

Dan,

I think this is great. I love the facial lighting in particular, and the bokeh of individual lights to the right tell the story and place the context very effectively. My only suggestion might be to tone down the group of reflected glass immediately to the left of her head, and the one just below that as well. You have a very lovely model who probably never takes a bad picture (not to diminish your excellent contribution).

Kevin

[djg05478]

Thats really nice. Very simple (in an elegant way) and natural.

Debbie

[Dave Humphries]

Very nice (photo and model) Dan,

I do agree with Kevin's suggestion regarding the lights to the left side of shot.

Cheers,

[oleleclos]

A lot of sophistication here; in the lighting, the setting, the background, not to mention the model. Well done catching all that

Only slight criticism is that I would have liked just a little bit of detail in the hair throughout. The black blob on the right is a little too solid.

[dan marchant]

Thanks Ole. Yep I agree with you re the hair. Sadly I didn't have my flash with me which could have been used OC to provide a hair light, so the detail was lost. The high iso didn't help either. I only had my f4 kit lens so even down at 1/30th the iso was up at 8000. Trying to bring up the dark side of the hair just results in noise unfortunately.

[William W]

. . . yes I was viewing the EXIF before I read your last post - very impressive with the 24 to 105/4 and MkIII.

Regarding the other comments – the lights at the left of frame don't bother me - they are as ‘lighting that side of her face’.

The ‘Black Blob of hair’ - I concur: but hey I understand that you were at 8000 . . . and pushing . . . up hill – (that’s one reason why I was looking at the EXIF).

My comment is that I love the Available Light – and I am glad you didn’t have your Flash with you – just take a Fast Prime, instead of that zoom, next time – the 85/1.8 (or the 50/1.4) would have been handy.

- Good shot – Bravo.

WW

[Mark von Kanel]

nice shot under difficult circumstances, well done Dan.

[oleleclos]

I hadn't looked at the EXIF; in fact I didn't know how toon this site, so Bill's post made me explore (thanks Bill). I found that I can download the file, EXIF and all, by right clicking on the image, but maybe there's a smarter way?

Given the circumstances, I withdraw my (slight) criticism I'm glad you didn't use flash - it would have killed this picture. On-camera flash always does IMHO.

[William W]

I found that I can download the file, EXIF and all, by right clicking on the image, but maybe there's a smarter way?

That's what I did.
The in line image as posted, does not support EXIF interrogation.
I do not know of another method.

I'm glad you didn't use flash - it would have killed this picture. On-camera flash always does IMHO.

That's an interesting comment.
I understood the acronym Dan used - "OC" - to mean "Off Camera"

WW

[Mark von Kanel]

It depends on your browser, with firefox you can download a plug in and right click on the image as posted and look at the exif here, no need to download the image, not sure how other browsers do this. i though OC ment off cam as well!

[oleleclos]

Sorry, I sometimes get my acronyms in a twist

One interesting thing emerges from this: This file is 210K, and I thought there was a 160K limit on files here. I have been struggling with getting down to that size and have had to give up on about half the pictures I have wanted to post. They simply won't compress that much. I'll try with a file this size and see what happens.

[Donald]

This file is 210K, and I thought there was a 160K limit on files here.

Don't think so, Ole

Any file size limitations that might exist must be set by the hosting site that you use. I, for example, who uses Flickr as the vehcile to ghet images onto here, regularly posts files of 1024 px that are anything from 500 - 900 in terms of file size. Where did you see the reference to 160?

[dan marchant]

My comment is that I love the Available Light – and I am glad you didn’t have your Flash with you – just take a Fast Prime, instead of that zoom, next time – the 85/1.8 (or the 50/1.4) would have been handy.

Since taking this I bought the Canon 40mm pancake. It is only 2.8 but i love it.

Given the circumstances, I withdraw my (slight) criticism I'm glad you didn't use flash - it would have killed this picture. On-camera flash always does IMHO.

Completely agree. Would only have used it as a hair light (off camera/behind/to the side) as the available light was what I wanted.