# My girlfriend reading



## robertwsimpson (Oct 8, 2009)

these make me happy

plus I just got a new flash that I suck at using and I want to get better.

Click images for EXIF









Any suggestions on lighting are helpfull.  First is bounced off of wall from camera left... second is actually the pop up flash I think.


----------



## RMThompson (Oct 8, 2009)

Well it's just a picture of your girlfriend reading, and in that, you've achieved your goal.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Oct 8, 2009)

actually, it's what I assume to be a properly exposed shot of my girlfriend reading... I really just don't have a clue how to use this flash thing.  Should I focus the flash more on her and less on the background?  is it over/under exposed?  does it need more contrast? is it washed out?  All of these questions running through my head!


----------



## max3k (Oct 8, 2009)

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


----------



## iolair (Oct 8, 2009)

The first one's nice.  If you hadn't mentioned the flash, I would have assumed it was naturally lit from a window on the left - good, soft light.  To my eye, two obvious improvments would be
1) Remove whatever the brown object (the two lines) are in the background to the left of her head.
2) Add catchlights to the eyes.
(both of which you can do in postprocessing, though nicer to get an original image if you can)

If you take a new version of the first one, ask her not to cover part of the book title with her hand.

Interesting title and subtitle to the book - is it any good?


----------



## robertwsimpson (Oct 8, 2009)

max3k said:


> 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.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Oct 8, 2009)

iolair said:


> The first one's nice.  To my eye, two obvious improvments would be
> 1) Remove whatever the brown object (the two lines) are in the background to the left of her head.
> 2) Add catchlights to the eyes.
> (both of which you can do in postprocessing, though nicer to get an original image if you can)
> ...



the brown object is a chair... I didn't think it was that distracting, but thanks for the heads up
what are catchlights?  I mean I usually dodge eyes a bit to bring them out, but I neglected to do that in these, since I wanted full C&C on how to take a good picture with a flash.

the book is pretty good.  tonight we are going to get icecream and talk about how to resolve our differences... I think it's written for people who are young and thinking about getting married.  I'm 28 and she's 29, and at our age, it seems pretty basic.


----------



## JayClark79 (Oct 8, 2009)

I think catch lights are the white glare in peoples eyes from the flash??? I could be way off though.


----------



## NateWagner (Oct 8, 2009)

1. Yes, catchlights are the glare, or reflections from the light that are seen in the persons eyes.

2. If you're only asking about flash use, I personally think #1 is relatively well done. I'm not a huge fan of the composition, but it seems pretty natural. Outside of composition though, it is a little flat to my eye, and I think boosting the contrast a bit would help the photo.


----------



## Beverly Stayart (Oct 8, 2009)

I like the first photo the best.


----------



## Big Mike (Oct 8, 2009)

It looks like both shots are under exposed.  Looking at the histograms, says the same thing.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Oct 8, 2009)

interesting... ok I have some stuff to try for next time.  Thanks!


----------



## NateWagner (Oct 8, 2009)

here's a quick edit (I.E. not perfect)... if you want me to take it down I will, just let me know.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Oct 8, 2009)

hm, I don't like that at all.  Sorry.


----------



## NateWagner (Oct 8, 2009)

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


----------



## baturn (Oct 8, 2009)

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 (Oct 8, 2009)

NateWagner said:


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



skin too bright, eyes too dark.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Oct 8, 2009)

baturn said:


> 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 (Oct 8, 2009)

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 (Oct 8, 2009)

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


----------



## Renol (Oct 8, 2009)

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 (Oct 8, 2009)

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 (Oct 8, 2009)

Renol said:


> 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 (Oct 8, 2009)

lol we've had tons of great dates

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


----------



## Derrel (Oct 8, 2009)

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 (Oct 8, 2009)

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 (Oct 8, 2009)

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 (Oct 8, 2009)

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 (Oct 8, 2009)

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:

&#8226;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.  



robertwsimpson said:


> 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.  

&#8226;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 (Jul 2, 2010)

robertwsimpson said:


> max3k said:
> 
> 
> > I would focus on buying her another book. That book looks dangerous for you.
> ...



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


----------



## ghache (Jul 2, 2010)

NateWagner said:


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


 

lost all details in eyes, kinda went on the dark side. with dark vader.


----------



## katy625 (Jul 5, 2010)

So.....did u actually want c&c when u posted these? It doesn't sound like u did because u have shot down everyone's c&c's. They are nice pictures but I agree with everyone else in regards to the pics being underexposed and her eyes would certainly benefit from a catch light. I also believe that Nate did a great job on the edit. But It is your work and if u are satisfied with it and u just wanted to show everyone a photo that u were proud of then I would ask specifically for no c&c. I posted a pic if a flag that I pp heavily on purpose on memorial day just as an 'in honor of' kind if thing and I had some pretty icky feedback (many people here don't dig photo manipulation) but I didn't care what they thought because I did not want c&c on the image. I created it exactly how I wanted it. So I learned that I have to say no c&c on those types of postings.


----------



## Moe (Jul 5, 2010)

Wow. So many threads dug up from the past!


----------



## hanyakabel (Jul 5, 2010)

good shoot u make the background blur and focusing the model, good work


----------

