Candy Blues

Candy Blues

Similar to the last post, but for some of the candy heart shots I used some coloured lighting. I think I put a red gell on a flashlight and, in addition, held my flash inside a large, cobalt blue, glass pitcher. I know, I'm all about high budget. The crappy part is that my camera didn't deal with the light very well and there's a lot of noise in this shot. I got rid of some but getting rid of it all was going to soften the image too much.

This photo is pretty much the opposite of what I said about the last one in regards to proper lighting. I hardly had to do anything to the last one (other than some sharpening which gets rid of the softness inherent in my camera and compensates for making a web-friendly jpg) but this one required some photoshop trickery to get around the noise and the result is that it's just not as good as a "natural" shot. Photoshop can do a lot but if you start out with crap, you're not going to end up with magic. It's much easier to get it right before you click the shutter than to clean it up after.

Of course, in this case I think it was the camera and its small gamut that was the weak link here and not the photographer. ;-)

Tags & Categories


no geodata found

EXIF

Camera: E990
Lens Type:
Focal Length: 11.6 mm
35mm Focal Length: ? mm
Exposure: 1/120 sec
Aperture: f 2.8
ISO: 100


Taken: 2002-02-12 02:34:08
Posted: 2006-01-06 | 23:28





Candy Blues

Candy Blues

Similar to the last post, but for some of the candy heart shots I used some coloured lighting. I think I put a red gell on a flashlight and, in addition, held my flash inside a large, cobalt blue, glass pitcher. I know, I'm all about high budget. The crappy part is that my camera didn't deal with the light very well and there's a lot of noise in this shot. I got rid of some but getting rid of it all was going to soften the image too much.

This photo is pretty much the opposite of what I said about the last one in regards to proper lighting. I hardly had to do anything to the last one (other than some sharpening which gets rid of the softness inherent in my camera and compensates for making a web-friendly jpg) but this one required some photoshop trickery to get around the noise and the result is that it's just not as good as a "natural" shot. Photoshop can do a lot but if you start out with crap, you're not going to end up with magic. It's much easier to get it right before you click the shutter than to clean it up after.

Of course, in this case I think it was the camera and its small gamut that was the weak link here and not the photographer. ;-)

no geodata found

EXIF

Camera: E990
Lens Type:
Focal Length: 11.6 mm
35mm Focal Length: ? mm
Exposure: 1/120 sec
Aperture: f 2.8
ISO: 100


Taken: 2002-02-12 02:34:08
Posted: 2006-01-06 | 23:28


Tags & Categories