C on the Rocks

[King Mango]

My number one model:

 

[tirediron]

Wow, VERY nice capture, the background seems a little over-processed to me, but it's a wonderful portrait!

 

[Lacey Anne]

I love the colors in this. Did you blur the background in photoshop or with a wide aperature?

 

[tedE]

i dig.

 

[King Mango]

Thank you everyone.
I used a layer mask to separate her from the background and put a lens blur and some levels on it.
ISO 80
f3.2
1/40
64mm equivalent
Here is the original which I expected to be more blurred with such a big aperature and the background so far away. Also the mist seemed to be too bright. Maybe I did get too carried away with leveling it?

 

[Lyncca]

I'm no pro, but I like the first better than the last. I'm not sure if it needed that much blur or not, but *I* like it!

Looking again, maybe the problem is that its all equally blurred from foreground to background? Wouldn't the water closer to her be a bit sharper?

 

[kellylindseyphotography]

WOAH thats a ton of PP.! How come you didn't just get some gorgeous bokah by lowering your aperature??

Its a lovely shot, what you've achieved after PP. She needs to be warmed up a bit, you can see the blue tones in her white pants. I'd move the yellow and red sliders up some on her. And maybe in master saturation, lighten and saturate her a bit.

 

[King Mango]

I used 3.2, and was slightly tele'd if I recall correctly.
I am under the impression that the smaller the number, the larger the aperature, the faster the shutter speed, the shallower the DOF?
meh. Goes to look it up.
I was on the fence about doing any PP with her and the rocks. So all they got was sharpening. No levels/curves/skin correction. Nothing other than sharpening.

I'm getting down to crunch time in the move so I may not be able to post any revisions for a couple of weeks.
The Salvation Army came and picked up today and it didn't quite leave me as empty as I would have liked. Lots of work today and tomorrow, not so much time to fuss with PS.

Thanks again to everyone for your help improving this pic.

[EDIT]Found this article on DOF. Helps a lot by discussing focal length.

 

[caspertodd]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what gives DOF is the focal length combined with the aperture. Large focal length and wide aperature = shallow DOF. Shutter speed has nothing to do with DOF. This is all from my understanding, so please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[caspertodd]

King Mango - just saw your edit. Thanks for posting the link on DOF. Always interested in articles/turorials such as this.

 

[King Mango]

I dont' think shutter speed really has to do with DOF. I was just listing the assocaitions I was aware of with aperature size.
Didn't mean to lump that all in as effective on DOF!

 

[Senor Hound]

If you're shooting with a non-DSLR point and shoot, even smaller apertures will give you this large depth of field. It has to do with ratios of sensor size and whatnot, the key is that if this was a point and shoot camera (like I have), that's about as good as you're gonna get.

Though I could be wrong. I don't know what sort of camera you have. I tried to look for it on your profile before writing this, but came up with nothing.

 

[Mike30D]

Pretty model!

I like it, the only things are that the background is a little distracting even though you blurred it out. I think it might be the bright colors. If you decide to keep the colors then I would like to see a bit of fill in her face just to make her stand out against the background.

 

[King Mango]

I'm of course not sure, but I think you're right Señor. This is also what causes the P&S to use a "35mm Equivalent" designation.

I have a DMC-FZ7 for at least a few more months...

Thanks Mike. She's a real beauty for sure. :thumbup:

Would you mind clarifying what you mean by fill?

 

[Mike30D]

I'm of course not sure, but I think you're right Señor. This is also what causes the P&S to use a "35mm Equivalent" designation.

I have a DMC-FZ7 for at least a few more months...

Thanks Mike. She's a real beauty for sure. :thumbup:

Would you mind clarifying what you mean by fill?

Sorry, should have been more clear. I meant fill flash.