Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no softening this time.
William Robb wrote: I need a shorter URL Anyway, this is straight off the RAW converter, where I adjusted white balance and exposure, and nothing else. The files were resized for the web, no sharpening or softening. Lens used was the 77mm at around f/8. http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb//pictures/flannery/sharp/flanneryns_index.html Much,_much_ better. No softening needed on that skin. My wife hates her mike
Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no softening this time.
Wow fabulous complexion. No, she doesn't really need a gaussian blur. I might put it back with just 10% opacity or so just for a touch of romance. But she's excellent as is. On Apr 7, 2005, at 12:45 AM, William Robb wrote: I need a shorter URL Anyway, this is straight off the RAW converter, where I adjusted white balance and exposure, and nothing else. The files were resized for the web, no sharpening or softening. Lens used was the 77mm at around f/8. http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb//pictures/flannery/sharp/ flanneryns_index.html William Robb
Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no softening this time.
I agree. But there is a style of photography, called boudoir over here, which involves kitschy, romantic, backgrounds, and very soft focus. Some people love it. For them, Bill's soft-focus photos would look much nore professional than the un-retouched ones. Horses for courses. Bill was shooting for her, not for himself (at least, that's what he told her). The client is queen. John On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 06:37:52 -0400, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wow fabulous complexion. No, she doesn't really need a gaussian blur. I might put it back with just 10% opacity or so just for a touch of romance. But she's excellent as is. On Apr 7, 2005, at 12:45 AM, William Robb wrote: I need a shorter URL Anyway, this is straight off the RAW converter, where I adjusted white balance and exposure, and nothing else. The files were resized for the web, no sharpening or softening. Lens used was the 77mm at around f/8. http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb//pictures/flannery/sharp/ flanneryns_index.html William Robb -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.4 - Release Date: 06/04/2005
Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no softening this time.
Bill she's quite lovely. Seeing these she doesn't need anywhere near the amount of Gaussian blur you originally used. I had a bit of a play and at that image size I found 0.8 pixels of blur was enough, but still keeping the eye's, lips hair sharp. BTW after having another look, IMGP7183ns is now my favorite. Just my thoughts. Dave S On Apr 7, 2005 12:45 PM, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I need a shorter URL Anyway, this is straight off the RAW converter, where I adjusted white balance and exposure, and nothing else. The files were resized for the web, no sharpening or softening. Lens used was the 77mm at around f/8. http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb//pictures/flannery/sharp/flanneryns_index.html William Robb
Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no softening this time.
On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 22:45:52 -0600, William Robb wrote: The files were resized for the web, no sharpening or softening. http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb//pictures/flannery/sharp/flanneryns_index.html Those look better to me than the original (softened) ones. Personally, I don't think she needs the softening. 7188 and 7152 are my favorites. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no softening this time.
David Savage wrote: Bill she's quite lovely. Seeing these she doesn't need anywhere near the amount of Gaussian blur you originally used. I had a bit of a play and at that image size I found 0.8 pixels of blur was enough, but still keeping the eye's, lips hair sharp. BTW after having another look, IMGP7183ns is now my favorite. She's definintely got the look there. Show it to her, get her to do it again and step back a bit, Bill. 8-) Just my thoughts. Dave S On Apr 7, 2005 12:45 PM, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I need a shorter URL Anyway, this is straight off the RAW converter, where I adjusted white balance and exposure, and nothing else. The files were resized for the web, no sharpening or softening. Lens used was the 77mm at around f/8. http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb//pictures/flannery/sharp/flanneryns_index.html William Robb
Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no softening this time.
mike wilson wrote: http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb//pictures/flannery/sharp/flanneryns_index.html Much,_much_ better. No softening needed on that skin. I agree. My favourite is: http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb//pictures/flannery/sharp/IMGP7182ns.html perhaps little bit provocative, but definitely lovely. Bedo.
Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no softening this time.
- Original Message - From: mike wilson Subject: Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no softening this time. Lens used was the 77mm at around f/8. http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb//pictures/flannery/sharp/flanneryns_index.html Much,_much_ better. No softening needed on that skin. My wife hates her She is also quite smart, and has a lovely voice. Thanks for looking, and commenting. b..
Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no softening this time.
- Original Message - From: Doug Franklin Subject: Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no softening this time. http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb//pictures/flannery/sharp/flanneryns_index.html Those look better to me than the original (softened) ones. Personally, I don't think she needs the softening. 7188 and 7152 are my favorites. Thanks Doug, I appreciate the input. b..
Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no softening this time.
- Original Message - From: David Savage Subject: Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no softening this time. Bill she's quite lovely. Seeing these she doesn't need anywhere near the amount of Gaussian blur you originally used. I had a bit of a play and at that image size I found 0.8 pixels of blur was enough, but still keeping the eye's, lips hair sharp. BTW after having another look, IMGP7183ns is now my favorite. Just my thoughts. Thnaks Dave. b...
Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no softening this time.
- Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist Subject: Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no softening this time. Wow fabulous complexion. No, she doesn't really need a gaussian blur. I might put it back with just 10% opacity or so just for a touch of romance. But she's excellent as is. Thanks Paul. b...
Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no softening this time.
- Original Message - From: John Forbes Subject: Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no softening this time. Horses for courses. Bill was shooting for her, not for himself (at least, that's what he told her). The client is queen. Actually, I shoot for myself. If my agenda happens to match the clients agenda, everyone is happy. William Robb
Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no softening this time.
Hi Bill ... My favorite is: http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb//pictures/flannery/sharp/IMGP7182ns.html The degree of softness on these pics is, imo, just right. shel
Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no softening this time.
- Original Message - From: mike wilson Subject: Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no softening this time. She's definintely got the look there. Show it to her, get her to do it again and step back a bit, Bill. 8-) Try this one instead. http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb//pictures/flannery/sharp/IMGP7220.html William Robb
Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no softening this time.
- Original Message - From: mike wilson Subject: Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no softening this time. BTW after having another look, IMGP7183ns is now my favorite. She's definintely got the look there. Show it to her, get her to do it again and step back a bit, Bill. 8-) She wanted a tight head shot, so i spent most of my time within a few feet of her. I was actually just at the edge of minimum focus on the 77. I got an email from her this AM, she likes 7188 for her poster.. William Robb
Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no softening this time.
- Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff Subject: Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no softening this time. Hi Bill ... My favorite is: http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb//pictures/flannery/sharp/IMGP7182ns.html The degree of softness on these pics is, imo, just right. Thanks Shel. Thats the native softness of the 77 at f/8. William Robb
Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no softening this time.
Wait a minit. I thought the 77 was supposed to be extremely sharp - some saying even too sharp for portraits. Perhaps what you're getting is in part the effect of the softness digital brings to an image, not so much the quality of the lens by itself? Shel [Original Message] From: William Robb Hi Bill ... My favorite is: http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb//pictures/flannery/sharp/IMGP7182ns.html The degree of softness on these pics is, imo, just right. Thanks Shel. Thats the native softness of the 77 at f/8. William Robb
Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no softening this time.
William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: mike wilson Subject: Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no softening this time. BTW after having another look, IMGP7183ns is now my favorite. She's definintely got the look there. Show it to her, get her to do it again and step back a bit, Bill. 8-) She wanted a tight head shot, so i spent most of my time within a few feet of her. I was actually just at the edge of minimum focus on the 77. I got an email from her this AM, she likes 7188 for her poster.. I wonder what appeals to her about that one. If I _had_ to choose from the ones available, it would be a choice between 7182 and 7152. Apart from facial expression (which is why 7183 is the winner for me) the others have a crop that is neither one things or another. Not HS and not tight face. Not to put too fine a point on it, they irritate me. Must be becoming a grumpy old man. William Robb
Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no softening this time.
On 7/4/05, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed: Try this one instead. http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb//pictures/flannery/sharp/IMGP7220.html Jumping Jupiter Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no softening this time.
I think Bil was being facetious. I don't see anything soft about the unadulterated images. Although it's impossible to determine sharpness conclusively from a small web-based image, the look of her eyes suggest that these are quite sharp. Wait a minit. I thought the 77 was supposed to be extremely sharp - some saying even too sharp for portraits. Perhaps what you're getting is in part the effect of the softness digital brings to an image, not so much the quality of the lens by itself? Shel [Original Message] From: William Robb Hi Bill ... My favorite is: http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb//pictures/flannery/sharp/IMGP7182ns.html The degree of softness on these pics is, imo, just right. Thanks Shel. Thats the native softness of the 77 at f/8. William Robb
Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no softening this time.
I'd have thought the result would have appeared sharper. IAC, I like what I see Shel [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think Bil was being facetious. I don't see anything soft about the unadulterated images. Although it's impossible to determine sharpness conclusively from a small web-based image, the look of her eyes suggest that these are quite sharp. Wait a minit. I thought the 77 was supposed to be extremely sharp - some saying even too sharp for portraits. Perhaps what you're getting is in part the effect of the softness digital brings to an image, not so much the quality of the lens by itself?
Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no softening this time.
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 8:51 AM Subject: Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no softening this time. I think Bil was being facetious. I don't see anything soft about the unadulterated images. Although it's impossible to determine sharpness conclusively from a small web-based image, the look of her eyes suggest that these are quite sharp. I may have missed the focus slightly on a few of em. Sometimes I forget to breath. Here is a detail from one of the pictures. Again, this is a straight RAW conversion with no USM added, and is at 100% My default settings are on the low side as well, I had the sharpness setting in the converter at 25. http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/pictures/flannery/eye_detail..html I have no sharpness issues with the 77. I find I do like it more as a portrait lens on the digital than I ever did on film. I think film is more sensitive to some of the lens's abilities than the digital sensor. William Robb
Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no softening this time.
Yup, it doesn't get much sharper than that. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 8:51 AM Subject: Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no softening this time. I think Bil was being facetious. I don't see anything soft about the unadulterated images. Although it's impossible to determine sharpness conclusively from a small web-based image, the look of her eyes suggest that these are quite sharp. I may have missed the focus slightly on a few of em. Sometimes I forget to breath. Here is a detail from one of the pictures. Again, this is a straight RAW conversion with no USM added, and is at 100% My default settings are on the low side as well, I had the sharpness setting in the converter at 25. http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/pictures/flannery/eye_detail..html I have no sharpness issues with the 77. I find I do like it more as a portrait lens on the digital than I ever did on film. I think film is more sensitive to some of the lens's abilities than the digital sensor. William Robb
Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no softening this time.
I would agree that there appears to be no sharpness problems with the 77. Seems that at least it gives you working room to go softer if you want, but to keep it sharp when needed. Perhaps the focal length and size also contribute to you liking it as a portrait lens? -- Best regards, Bruce Thursday, April 7, 2005, 8:48:23 AM, you wrote: WR - Original Message - WR From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WR To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net WR Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 8:51 AM WR Subject: Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no softening this time. I think Bil was being facetious. I don't see anything soft about the unadulterated images. Although it's impossible to determine sharpness conclusively from a small web-based image, the look of her eyes suggest that these are quite sharp. WR I may have missed the focus slightly on a few of em. WR Sometimes I forget to breath. WR Here is a detail from one of the pictures. WR Again, this is a straight RAW conversion with no USM added, and is at 100% WR My default settings are on the low side as well, I had the sharpness setting WR in the converter at 25. WR http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/pictures/flannery/eye_detail..html WR I have no sharpness issues with the 77. WR I find I do like it more as a portrait lens on the digital than I ever did WR on film. I think film is more sensitive to some of the lens's abilities than WR the digital sensor. WR William Robb
Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no softening this time.
- Original Message - From: Bruce Dayton Subject: Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no softening this time. I would agree that there appears to be no sharpness problems with the 77. Seems that at least it gives you working room to go softer if you want, but to keep it sharp when needed. I actually prefer the M85/2 as a portriat lens. It's no slouch for sharpness, but it doesn't have the biting edge that the 77 seems to have. Perhaps the focal length and size also contribute to you liking it as a portrait lens? The FL is just about perfect on the istD, the field of view is quite close to the 105, which is also a very nice studio lens. It is a nice size as well. William Robb
Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no softening this time.
William Robb wrote: I need a shorter URL Anyway, this is straight off the RAW converter, where I adjusted white balance and exposure, and nothing else. The files were resized for the web, no sharpening or softening. Lens used was the 77mm at around f/8. http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb//pictures/flannery/sharp/flanneryns_index.html William Robb Yeah - much better I think I like this one best ... IMGP7188ns she is very pretty , but there is a kind of lifeless quality there - as you said, she was nervous - it shows, but it may not matter. ann
Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no softening this time.
- Original Message - From: Ann Sanfedele Subject: Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no softening this time. she is very pretty , but there is a kind of lifeless quality there - as you said, she was nervous - it shows, but it may not matter. For someone who plans on being on stage singing Verdi, she is a pretty shy girl. Or maybe it's just because I'm a middle aged fat/bald guy.. William Robb
Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no softening this time.
Or maybe it's just because I'm a middle aged fat/bald guy.. William Robb Thanks for that image. And here I just told my sister you were young, good looking, and a talented photographer. Derek
Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no softening this time.
William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: mike wilson Subject: Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no softening this time. She's definintely got the look there. Show it to her, get her to do it again and step back a bit, Bill. 8-) Try this one instead. http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb//pictures/flannery/sharp/IMGP7220.html William Robb Bingo! Here's looking right through you, kid.
Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no softening this time.
William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: mike wilson Subject: Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no softening this time. BTW after having another look, IMGP7183ns is now my favorite. She's definintely got the look there. Show it to her, get her to do it again and step back a bit, Bill. 8-) She wanted a tight head shot, so i spent most of my time within a few feet of her. I was actually just at the edge of minimum focus on the 77. I got an email from her this AM, she likes 7188 for her poster.. William Robb :) :) We girls know what other girls like :) I really did pick that one before I read your mail that she picked it. as usual, the mail comes in way out of order later, a
Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no softening this time.
I need a shorter URL Anyway, this is straight off the RAW converter, where I adjusted white balance and exposure, and nothing else. The files were resized for the web, no sharpening or softening. Lens used was the 77mm at around f/8. http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb//pictures/flannery/sharp/flanneryns_index.html William Robb
