Just for Fun No C&C will be given: New Model....

Kaye is a new model i will be managing and shooting with. Shes 16 and 5-8 tall almost 5-9...We shot all day last sunday to give her her first bit of shooting...Twice random people told her she was pretty, once a security gaurd at a industrial setting we were shooting at and second a random girl on the street. She told me that never before had anyone told her she was pretty....I think she gave the camera a pretty good look for her first shoot ever.....




Kaye is a Tom boy, has her own dirt bike and she hunts with her dad and can shoot and clean her own deer or bear...

Oh yes,she is pretty!!! Thanks for posting but what lens did you use?PP?

Hi Larry...I have been meaning to answer this...Whats PP mean?

The lens i used is the SMC Pentax DA 16 to 50 2.8 lens...Pretty much my work horse.But now am having this focusing problem that no one has any knowledge about...

Thanks for the image comment....

Hi Erik,The letters "PP" is short for Post Processing as in Photoshop(PS) or Lightrooom(LR)just something I and others have used to abbreviate,but never thought of it here as some may not do that or may lead to confusion,sorry...
..as for your lens problem have you tried and testing it to determine the problem?I have seen excellent results from that lens.....

Larry

Hey Larry.....

Ooohhhhhhh lol i thought it ment something like "personal preferance" or something...I'm such a dork.

I use PS Elements version 4....Now very outdated but i am comfortable with it and not wanting to update and as well dont know if the newer versions have anything that would effect my editing as i do so little to my images as it is....I just wish some times i could make the clone tool shapes other then a circle ya know....But yeah Elements 4....Thats the old kick start version...Runs cold at first but eventually warms up lol.....

The lens....It seems to be rather noisy...Before you'd barely hear it but it seems to be noisy...I got some great images with the cheap 18-55 lens....I almost never shoot at 2.8...Usually F/11 and i had read thats the sharpest...Someone confirmed that telling me they had asked a Canon rep and the rep said F/11 is the sharpest....But anyway...Its better glass better quality. Handles light a lot better being so much bigger 77mm....

Hey Larry do you know of a setting on the K20D that you can turn on or off that attaches the file data....My files only shows the date and time once down loaded....All that information shoot be there so there must be a place where you can on or off it....I cant find my manual...I dont like PDF files thus i dont referance the Pentax site....


This is the newest image of Kaye...Her 6th shoot now....The dress was one we got at a thrift store...Her mom met up with me at one and spent $200.00 on dresses and heels for her shoots...I love the heels in this shot,i picked them out,Italian made,like new and cost $7.99 at the thrift store...I tried a number of exsposures with this shot as well as bouncing the speed light off what was a low ceiling....

Erik,

You have done a very commendable job on essentially zero budget! commendable. However, allow me to chastise you on two things.

At f 11 the small cells in the sensor can recognize the interference to light caused by the tiny f11 opening The lens is actually sharper wider open anyway but depth of field increases as you get a smaller aperture. So a pinhole has an almost infinite DOF. At a rough guess, you should be shooting between f2.8 and f 5.6 for such shots.

Next you give up most of your quality and the future of your work by throwing away 90% of the data that the sensor collected by working in 8 BIT sRGB instead of having the data saved in Adobe RGB and RAW. So it's hardly worth taking your work seriously if you cannot make the change. Simply save less files and shoot carefully but what you save should be worth saving and then it should be save properly.

It's so sample. Shoot objects for a catalog, you can shoot jpg. For art, it's RAW or else use a point and shoot camera. I like how you plan your work. I don't like how you waste you effort by not storing your images as they deserve! Get to discard more of your images and save the best and you can afford to work in RAW.

Asher

Thanks Asher but again...You'd NEVER know if you had'nt of asked THAT is why people ask if one is shooting in RAW..Because YOU CANT TELL LOOKING AT THE IMAGE.....

As for the F/11....This was something i read in a photography magazine...I am not trying to argue as i would'nt accurately know one way or another but why would they print this if it was not true and why would a Canon rep say this?....I think it was Doug that wrote that book would'nt he be the best person to know on this?

This image was low light i think i shot it at F/8 now given more thought but i'm not sure....When you shoot at 2.8 this is what i was told like say for a head shot...I was told at 2.8 the eyes will be focused but the nose will not be,that it falls off that fast...I like sharpness through out and you wont get that at 2.8.....When it comes to these things i have a lot to learn, 2.8 vs 11....So i appritiate you breaking it down for me...Is'nt some of it personal preferance though? (Larry the other PP lol )

And feel free to jump in here any time Larry or just yell FOOD FIGHT....That works too lol =P

ErikJonas said:

Thanks Asher but again...You'd NEVER know if you had'nt of asked THAT is why people ask if one is shooting in RAW..Because YOU CANT TELL LOOKING AT THE IMAGE.....

Click to expand...

Well, you can get the same result then with a G10 or other digicam. Essentially, when you use a Pentax the way you are doing, you may as well have a digicam since you have thrown away most of the information. It wont show up to 8x10 in many cases. However, try to take a high dynamic range shot with a girl with blond hair in the sunshine and a dark person in the shade in the same picture and you'll see that if you need to make adjustments, the RAW file will be more robust. The characteristic of a lot of your picture is that there is very little data there, or as I call it, "thin" Of course you might get perfectly nice looking shots with a digicam or using jpg ffiles, but there is no leeway and no reserves. If you are snapping pictures and do no alterations, it might pass, but you have no ability to work with your file, just as a painter works with oils or a artist with clay or a skilled photographer in the darkroom.

If you can't get past this point, then cannot work with your full potential.

ErikJonas said:

As for the F/11....

Click to expand...

Why don't you read this for DOF insight. Just put in the figures from your camera and lens combo. Then read up Bart's posts on diffraction at small apertures for small sensors and you'll understand why, using modern sensors with tiny pixels one degrades the image by going smaller then f 5.6 to f 8 aprox. Use f11 only if you need to cut down the light or get something into focus that's a problem. Otherwise, for maximum sharpness look at the MTF curves or else simply use f 1.8 to f 4.0 for portraits and f2.8 to f8 for everything else.

Asher

Hi, Erik,

ErikJonas said:

This is the newest image of Kaye

Click to expand...

Kaye is a striking model. She has a cool but not at all chilly sensuality that I find very attractive. I'm glad you are able to continue to work with her.

In this image, as represented in the forum, there is the impression of a lack of resolution - not exactly misfocus, but perhaps more like the result of diffraction. It spoils the "professionalism" of the result.

Incidentally, many workers find that, when reducing the resolution (pixel dimensions) of an image for presentation on the forum, it can be beneficial (after the reduction is done) to apply some (further) sharpening to the image to overcome the compromises of the reduction.

Erik, I think I sense in your interaction with other members of the forum here a resistance to pay attention to the "technical" suggestions (and I don't mean necessarily to apply them - just "pay attention"). It reminds me of a young self-taught guitar player whose work is intriguing but not yet really excellent, who tells a colleague "I don't need to study no stinkin' chord theory".

I don't always agree with the advice of, for example, our colleague Asher, but it's clear that he is going "above and beyond the call" to try and help you refine what he obviously sees as your potential. Don't squander that through impatience.

This advice comes from an avid photographic engineer but a mediocre photographer!

Hey Erik,I want to say you are getting good advice from Asher,Doug and others but I would like to add some if I could as it maybe helpful for you to understand your lenses.The DA 16-50 2.8 is a good lens and for these shots and at the distances you are using them for this type of portraits they should have been taken 2.8- 5.6 as others have mentioned.F11 I would use for landscape shots and for these maybe you should also become familiar with hyperfocal distances as it helps with DOF as well.

Please note not ALL lenses respond the same to aperture settings as there are too much variation to lens formulas from brand to brand to make a claim that f11 is the best from one lens to another.Also focal length and subject distance becomes a factor as well as does refraction when you stop down to f11.Maybe read up on these terms,Depth of field,hyperfocal distance,refraction.From my experience and from what I have read on most modern lenses that the sharpest from wide open(2.8 for this lens) to a couple of stops smaller(about 5.6) but don't take my word,test your lens yourself so you can see the difference for yourself.And if you like taking these type of shots I would maybe recommend maybe a fast prime lens like the FA 50mm 1.4,DA 35mm 2.8 Limited Macro or the DA 40mm 2.8 Limited(all sharp as a tack) as I have these and found them to be great for this purpose but your lens should do fine once you search and find the sweet spot for this type of shooting so don't give up!

You also mentioned your 16-50 is noisy,hmmm,much louder than your kit lens may mean it could have a problem,not trying to alarm but stay aware of it getting worse.Maybe search the Pentax forums for any similar problems others may have had there.Your kit lens is a good lens also(I have version ll)I like it but seldom use it now since I spend most of my time with the primes.....

Larry

Erik I also want to comment on shooting Raw and your image data.I can not really comment on the software you are using as I have never used Elements but if it's dated you may want to step up to some newer PP software as it may handle your Raw data and images better.If you are not shooting Raw you should and I will explain why.
Shooting Raw is the digital equivalent of a film negative.Shooting Jpeg's severely limits you from adjusting the final image,like adjusting from a print(not much room to work as compared to a negative) and adjusting Jpeg's too much and you can introduce artifacts that will lessen the quality.Your K20D can shoot Raw in PEF(Pentax Raw) or DNG(Digital Negative,Adobe) format and can be converted by most PP software and allow you much more latitude in your adjustments and once done can be converted to Jpegs easily and resized for the web and such later.I use sRGB colorspace but when shooting Raw even that can be converted to the Adobe RGB colorspace at any time if needed with out loss(I think I am correct here) or even tiff's if you want to move to Photoshop later,but tiff's are larger file sizes,bigger than Raw file sizes.Shooting Raw just makes sense.I was a hardcore Jpeg shooter but once I started shooting Raw,my images improved and well I have not looked back and I encourage you to try it.At first it was a little intimidating and not worth the effort but believe me it is.This is your future and You can thank us later!
I might embarrass myself as I suspect some here may think my work flow is a little weird but I am always looking to improve(one reason why I am here,LOL).At present(I use Win 7,quad core PC) and I move my images to a folder in My Pictures.I use Picasa(free PP software)as a general viewer/organizer and can read my Raw files so I can do a quick review and cull the bad shots.I have also found Picasa easy for my wife to deal with her images and reviewing mine as it is so simple,it is free and you may want to take a look being it may help you convert to Raw shooting.For my real work I use Lightroom 2(now 2.6) and I got this cheap from Craigslist for 40 bucks(lucky me) from a student who had lost intrest with photography.I like LR as it has much more adjustments and uses Adobe Camera Raw(ACR)converter which is common to Photoshop CS3 as well but I hardly ever use PS as I become frustrated there and do like to keep it simple as possible,maybe one day I will get the hang of it.There is also another free PP software that gets good reviews you may want to look at and that is raw therapee,here is a link...

http://www.rawtherapee.com/

either way Raw is the way to better images as you have total control over adjustments made and much better than trying to adjust an already "cooked" Jpeg,the extra percieved hassle is worth the time and once you do you won't look back!Also note all these PP softwares will read your embedded metadata,also known as EXIF.There are a few free EXIF readers and I use Photome,heres a link...

http://www.photome.de/

I hope I have helped and not confused you much,If you have any questions just ask and I hope others here correct me if I have advised or given bad or incorrect info to you here.....

Larry