My girlfriend reading

[baturn]

I'm pretty new at flash photography too, so I probably can't help much. I did notice,tho that the exif on the first photo says the flash did not fire and your shutter speed is 1/320. I don't think your camera syncs at that SS. What flash are you using?

 

[robertwsimpson]

hmm, ok. anything in particular you dislike about it?

skin too bright, eyes too dark.

 

[robertwsimpson]

I'm pretty new at flash photography too, so I probably can't help much. I did notice,tho that the exif on the first photo says the flash did not fire and your shutter speed is 1/320. I don't think your camera syncs at that SS. What flash are you using?

A flash I found in my dad's closet when I was house sitting for them. it's about 30 years old, but it is super bright. The camera doesn't really know it's there, so it doesn't say anything about it in the EXIF, and I can set the shutter to whatever I want. 1/320 is the fastest I can go and get a full frame exposure though. The flash actually flashes before (or after maybe, but I'm thinking before) the shutter is all the way open if I go faster than that, and I get half a good picture and half black.

 

[JayClark79]

Id becareful using that flash..... dont older flashes not made for digital run a chance of damaging your camera... by shortening it out or something?? Id definently check up on it.... iv definently read something like this about older Vivitar Flashes.

 

[robertwsimpson]

Hm, interesting. Well, I've had it on there for probably 50+ pictures, and so far so good.

 

[Renol]

I'm still a noob so take my opinions with a grain of salt.

The in camera flash is only good to 1/250 as I recall and you said the external didn't seem synced right so I wonder if the flash would've worked better with a slower shutter speed.

 

[Derrel]

The first shot has what we used to call "dead eyes", meaning her eyes have no sparkle, no catchlights. A suggestion would be to look into a flash that has two flash tubes: one that swivels and bounces, the other, a much smaller flashtube that points straight ahead, and provides a catchlight. Nikon used to make a flash called the SB-16 that was designed that way. Currently, Metz is the only manufacturer making a twin-tube flash unit. An alternative, if it works on your camera, is to use the shoe-mounted flash and the pop-up flash at the same time, with the pop-up flash dialed way down to like 1/16 power. A third alternative is to use a white, plastic spoon rubber banded or taped to the flash, so that a small amount of the bounced flash is diverted toward the subject. The fourth alternative is to use the small, built-in bounce card that many better speedlights have--you know, that little slide-in,slide-out piece of paper thingie...

Both frames were underexposed,according to the histograms, the second more so than the first. The first shot looks the most like natural window light, but her eyes lack sparkle...maybe you could have cheated a little and put a piece of *aluminum foil* inside the book,and gotten a bit of eye catchlight that way.

Just wondering if you've been able to deliver on those 10 Great Dates yet.

 

[robertwsimpson]

I'm still a noob so take my opinions with a grain of salt.

The in camera flash is only good to 1/250 as I recall and you said the external didn't seem synced right so I wonder if the flash would've worked better with a slower shutter speed.

pop up goes 1/200 or slower. And what do you mean worked better? I could fix anything that's wrong lighting-wise in PP... unless something was aimed wrong.

 

[robertwsimpson]

lol we've had tons of great dates

I didn't know that little white eye dots were so important!

 

[Derrel]

little white dots are important...who knew that a tiny little white rock that comes out of the ground in South Africa was so importanat...I mean, sheesh, it looks like a fragment of a broken windshield, but set on a gold band and it's a life-changer.

After my first post above, I looked at your EXIF information--first shot says the flash did not fire, so was the flash hooked up with a PC cord or something on the first shot? To improve the first shot in Photoshop, I created a new layer, and then went to "Apply Image", selected the Screen option, and set the opacity to 85%....Boom! It instantly lightened the shot almost perfectly, and showed that she has pretty brown eyes...

 

[robertwsimpson]

Yep she sure does. I think the reason I didn't go any lighter in teh raw conversion was because I had already lightened it a ton... The histogram was entirely within the left 50% of the graph, and spreading it back out = lots of noise... I hate noise. my fault for not inspecting the histogram on the camera.

Also, as mentioned, it's a really old flash, and I don't think the camera actually knows it's even there. It was on the shoe though.

 

[robertwsimpson]

meh, I made a lighter one where the histogram looked correct, and I hate it. I like the darker one better. Sorry to disappoint.

 

[gopal]

the first picture is very nice...she engrossed and bounced flash...again very good.....her eyelids are down, and there is no reflecting surface from below, i wun not insist for catch lights here...

second a cute picture.

 

[kkamin]

I know you like your pictures as they are, in some respects, but I do think they can be improved to convey your intent better.

These are just my opinion and I share them with some of the previous posters:

•The picture is on the dark side and a little muddy (tones are too close). Take your photo and compare it to virtually any treated photograph in a magazine, and I think you will see a big difference in comparative contrast (even in low-key images and high key images, they still have nice contrast). The lack of constrast isn't distracting, but it doesn't look like a professionally resolved image.

meh, I made a lighter one where the histogram looked correct, and I hate it. I like the darker one better. Sorry to disappoint.

don't give up. If you shot it in RAW you have a lot of flexibility. It goes beyond moving the sliders in the "Levels" adjustment layer: there are exposure settings, brightness, contrast, curves, dodging and burning, etc.

•Catch lights in the eyes are crucial. I have problems with this too sometimes when my subjects heads are tipped down. The other poster made some good recommendations.

I like the first photograph for what I assume your attention is; a nice quiet picture of your girlfriend. But I think it could benefit from having every element in the image support that to its fullest. Thanks for sharing. (I've been out of art school for a few years and miss crits)

 

[supraman215]

I would focus on buying her another book. That book looks dangerous for you.

lol no ring on her finger yet... it's a good probability there will be one soon though.

Boy she's pretty subtle with the hints.:lmao: