tree in eye

[nrois02]

my girlfriend actually took this photograph and i just messed with the colors in light room. what do you all think? and which one do you like better?

this is one i took of her. not as well but still has some cool qualities.

 

[ocular]

Well you don't need to be shooting high iso's (iso 1600). 2 is ur better comp. It's cool how you got the lens of the camera over the pupil.

 

[nrois02]

i dont think i was shooting in a high iso i think it was 400. why do you think it was a high iso? was it because the skin tone is light? thanks for the comment!

 

[musicaleCA]

He thinks it's high ISOs because he looked at the EXIF. The first was shot at 1600, 1/250, f/5.0. I'd stop down a bit and get more DoF; that close it becomes razor thin. That, and it will sharpen up the image. Then you can use noise reduction to make it cleaner.

 

[nrois02]

EXIF? and thanks for the tips!

 

[MelissaMarieImagery]

^ I was going to ask the same -- how do you access the exif data?

 

[BoostedHoo]

i use this to view exif data
Jeffrey's Exif viewer

 

[Derrel]

I don't think there's any need to stop down for more depth of field. The eye is obvious enough the way it is rendered, and the effect is the reflected image as seen on the surface of the eyeball. The ISO 1600 image characteristics add a bit of a nice,tight noise pattern that looks a bit like film grain. The images as-shot look okay to me.

 

[ocular]

EXIF? and thanks for the tips!

^ I was going to ask the same -- how do you access the exif data?

Simple way if you have windows.
In windows go to jpeg and right click click on properties, then click on the details tab and scroll down if u need too.

For the mac there's a free tool called reveal .