I took these a while back , I am still amazed at the beauty of the grain , can you guess what camera took these ? Do yourself a favor and Don't look at the EXIF
the little 50mm f1.4 is an amazing portrait lens for kids, I find it accentuates and flatters the roundness of their faces. I am not enamored with shallow DOF for portraiture , but every now and again for a change of pace I will do some. Sometimes I succeed at making a photo instead of just a out of focus mess , I leave it to you all to decide
ISO 640 f1.4 50mm
I could have shot Much lower ISO but I Like the grain
My guess would be the D2H, not that it really matters. These are good images, regardless.
And speaking of grain, this morning my secretary brought in the Dec. 19, '05 special issue of Time magazine with the feature titled, "The Best Photos of 2005". I love powerful photojournalistic images -- so I found this editorial particularly worthwhile to sift through.
The Time images are great because of their content. Many have high noise or grain and several are not that good technically for a variety of reasons. Content and composition trumps everything else, IMHO, but the high grain in some actually makes the images better -- more emotional and powerful.
oobie wrote:
Heh...I know that face! How in the world did you get him to hold still for those photos? That kid is just a blur.
Guessing D100 here.
How's the Texas winter treatin' ya?
Nice guess Josh , my lips are sealed for a while longer
Yeah , he is a neat little guy , I wish I had his energy tho
Texas is on the brink of being a major natural disaster, it is only the grace of God that the whole state isn't on fire. No rain since August, 20 to 30 degrees above normal, and humidity in the low 20's , everything is on red alert. Cross your fingers and pray for rain, a whole town was lost this week and several people lost as well .........
turnert wrote:
My guess would be the D2H, not that it really matters. These are good images, regardless.
And speaking of grain, this morning my secretary brought in the Dec. 19, '05 special issue of Time magazine with the feature titled, "The Best Photos of 2005". I love powerful photojournalistic images -- so I found this editorial particularly worthwhile to sift through.
The Time images are great because of their content. Many have high noise or grain and several are not that good technically for a variety of reasons. Content and composition trumps everything else, IMHO, but the high grain in some actually makes the images better -- more emotional and powerful. ...Show more →
Ted
I couldn't agree more, this year's main goal is emotional impactand communication without need for ancillary text. I am bored with all the technicals now, too many guys with too many tripods set up taking pictures of test charts
It's why I started taking photos at ISO 200 instead of 100 even when I have the light for it. There is just a little extra 'tooth' to the image. A hard thing to quantify.
Texas is on the brink of being a major natural disaster, it is only the grace of God that the whole state isn't on fire. No rain since August, 20 to 30 degrees above normal, and humidity in the low 20's , everything is on red alert. Cross your fingers and pray for rain, a whole town was lost this week and several people lost as well .........
J
We Oregonians must be getting all of your rain. As a timber industry geologist with over 1 million acres of territory just in Oregon, I'm getting several reports today of landslides; some are blocking roads and highways. However, flooding over the last several days hasn't been too bad. Even with all the rain we've had this past week, we're still behind for the year. I'll keep my fingers crossed for both states.
I recognize that face. He can be found on any number of paintings from the the Italian renaissance. He's just missing his wings and fellow cherubim.
In the midst of all the natural disaster confronting our country of late, you are generous indeed to share the optimism found only in the face of a child.
jmcfadden wrote:
I took these a while back , I am still amazed at the beauty of the grain , can you guess what camera took these ? Do yourself a favor and Don't look at the EXIF
I like the grain/noise when I turn them into black and whites too....sometimes. It works great with wedding pictures. Brides like some pictures with "that old photo look".
You know I don't care what camera took your photos dude, 'cause it was you done took the photos anyway . I am starting to build Noah's Arc here in Indy. We haven't seen the sun in weeks. I wish I could send some rain your way Johnny Mac.
F3 or maybe even an F5. Next guess would be something along the lines of an FM whatever or FE whatever. Hard to tell when you are using film as then it was the film that mattered.
Soenda wrote:
I recognize that face. He can be found on any number of paintings from the the Italian renaissance. He's just missing his wings and fellow cherubim.
In the midst of all the natural disaster confronting our country of late, you are generous indeed to share the optimism found only in the face of a child.
Suzanne
I wish there were More women here at FM Suzanne, I feel all those sentiments deeply, but do not communicate them verbally with your ease Gabe is truly a wonder and I am glad to have captured a bit of him in these candid grabs
Stripper wrote:
I like the grain/noise when I turn them into black and whites too....sometimes. It works great with wedding pictures. Brides like some pictures with "that old photo look".
You know I don't care what camera took your photos dude, 'cause it was you done took the photos anyway . I am starting to build Noah's Arc here in Indy. We haven't seen the sun in weeks. I wish I could send some rain your way Johnny Mac.
Thanks Johnny , perhaps it will get it out of its system Before Indy this year .
Glenn01 wrote:
F3 or maybe even an F5. Next guess would be something along the lines of an FM whatever or FE whatever. Hard to tell when you are using film as then it was the film that mattered.
Nice shots John, et al
Glenn
hehe , Well Glenn I end the mystery now
D2h ! But man it sure looks like ISO800 or faster film to me , or film that was pushed by the lab
TJ Asher wrote:
It's why I started taking photos at ISO 200 instead of 100 even when I have the light for it. There is just a little extra 'tooth' to the image. A hard thing to quantify.
Spoken like a Nikon shooter Todd, duck and cover if the guys over in the other forum hear of it
