Using daylight from glass door

[Thayli]

Hi all.

Haven't taken anything for ages as we've been busy, so figured I'd post a little something I did unexpectedly yesterday at breakfast. My wife got asked if she'd pose for a local girl who is/wants to be/i dunno a photog, but they only use natural light outdoors, (as opposed to me who only uses flashes, even outside), and long story short, she insulted my manliness and inferred I had no idea how to take photographs just, for example, using the sunlight coming in the window. (Which considering Ive never really done, is kinda true). After I had slapped her across the face with my gauntlet, we put down our breakfasts , I cranked my poor 400d up to ISO800(lol) 50mm at 2.8 and 1/60, and we had an impromtu photo session by our deck door. (And to punish her insolence I made her put her hood up, which made her skin crawl, oh sweet revenge). Took about 140 shots in 30mins, batch edit, threw 20 away and the rest are like this.

Noise reduction is awful and they're muddier than a pond bottom, but it was enough to regain my honour in my wifes eyes lol.

Hood Up


Hood Down

 

[Designer]

Using light from one "source" doesn't mean that you also couldn't place a reflector as well.

She now owes me a batch of cookies.

 

[Thayli]

lol true, but i wasn't allowed to use "extras" as she put it. This is basically everything other than a camera. Also, we were still eating breakfast while we took these lol, getting out reflectors would have killed the fun.

 

[The_Traveler]

Is Photoshop an extra?

 

[Thayli]

Is Photoshop an extra?

Photoshop shouldn't have VAT in my opinion.


On a slightly different note:


First one is taken from original RAW.



Noiseware done and some touchup to the face.



And portraiture.


You got to love the kids toy sitting on the coffee table behind her. High class I tell you.

 

[Derrel]

I am wondering why these images are so pixellated when viewed at 100 percent. The file sizes on these are exceedingly tiny...328 KB, 288 KB, and 336 KB, on fairly tall, 3,888- x 2,592-pixel sized images. Where is this massive image compression being introduced? At what stage are these being utterly crushed down to such extraordinary compression? I looked at these...240 ppi at approximately 10x16 inches, but MASSIVE JPEG compression which is just killing the quality of the shots. it seems to me that, somewhere along the line, you've got some very weird software preferences set. Your original JPEG, from the RAW capture, is 328 KB in size...that is way too small. A huge percentage of the original data has been tossed out.

 

[Thayli]

Hmm, I just looked at them and theyre much worse than they should be. I didnt even realise they were so big (resoloution wise). I saved each step as PS's lowest quality jpeg for speed, where I usually save as best quality and then resize in paint.

Sorry about that, this is what it should have been: