Close-up of a cutie

Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
1,089
Location
Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
My 22 month old niece and God-daughter...


Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)



D70; 80-200 AFS; SB800 and LumiQuest Softbox.

Manual; 1/250; f/5.0; ISO 200; flash set to TTL.

All comments and critiques welcomed.
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
1,011
Location
San Jose, CA
She's perfect, Clive. I doubt you could take a bad picture of such a comely lass :wink: .

I see you've added the Lumiquest softbox to your arsenal. How do you like it???
 
Joined
Jan 25, 2005
Messages
12,409
Location
East Norriton, PA
Clivegriff said:
My 22 month old niece and God-daughter...



D70; 80-200 AFS; SB800 and LumiQuest Softbox.

Manual; 1/250; f/5.0; ISO 200; flash set to TTL.

All comments and critiques welcomed.
Great looking girl nice shot as Frank I would be interesed in hearing about the LumiQuest Softbox, how many stops do you loose when using it
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
1,089
Location
Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
Uncle Frank said:
I see you've added the Lumiquest softbox to your arsenal. How do you like it???
I like it lots, Frank.

It's easy to add / remove and does the job it claims to do.

I think it's over-priced but it's obviously set at "what the market can bear" as opposed to "cost plus".
 
S

saturnine

Guest
I think the image is a bit out of focus...definitely not as sharp as the 80-200mm could be, even wide open...

Otherwise, I love the expression on her face! So precious :)
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
1,089
Location
Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
saturnine said:
I think the image is a bit out of focus...definitely not as sharp as the 80-200mm could be, even wide open...

Otherwise, I love the expression on her face! So precious :)

Thanks for your comments, Grace.

I focussed on the little girl's eyes, got the "in-focus" indicator, locked focus, recomposed and shot.

Here's my list of excuses ... er... er... reasons why the pic was less than the sharpest possible with that lens...

1) the shot was hand held and D70 + 80-200 + SB800 is heavy and I'm a wimp

2) she moved twixt cup and lip

3) I was very, very close to the minimum focus distance and might well have strayed too close

4) the pic as shown here is completely unsharpened. I've since sharpened it using the parameters suggested by Iliah (above)

5) those are all the excu reasons I can think of.

:wink:
 
Joined
Jan 29, 2005
Messages
2,761
Location
nowhere
Dear Cleve,

The settings I suggested were more for local contrast then for sharpening. But low contrast photos often look unsharp.
 
Joined
Jan 29, 2005
Messages
2,761
Location
nowhere
Clivegriff said:
1) the shot was hand held and D70 + 80-200 + SB800 is heavy and I'm a wimp

2) she moved twixt cup and lip

3) I was very, very close to the minimum focus distance and might well have strayed too close
for 1) and 2) - the shutter speed was 1/250, should be enough for 80mm zoom setting even without the flash. But what flash mode was used? How much ambient light was there?

for 3) - with this lens at 80 mm f/5 and closest focus you should have about 70mm depth of field.
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
1,089
Location
Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
Iliah said:
for 1) and 2) - the shutter speed was 1/250, should be enough for 80mm zoom setting even without the flash. But what flash mode was used? How much ambient light was there?

for 3) - with this lens at 80 mm f/5 and closest focus you should have about 70mm depth of field.
Hi Iliah

1) and 2) The flash mode was TTL with the flash on the camera, not bounced but diffused with a (flash mounted) Lumapix softbox. The pic was taken indoors, about 5' away and at right angle to a 8' x 6' window in the late afternoon. The light outside was grey and poor, no other interenal light source was utilised.

3) I understand your calculation but my point was I might have strayed inside the closest focus distance.

Thanks for your continued input.
 
Joined
Jan 29, 2005
Messages
2,761
Location
nowhere
Dear Clive,
Clivegriff said:
3) I understand your calculation but my point was I might have strayed inside the closest focus distance.
That is what the calculation seems to prove. AF-s version focuses to about 4.5', while the previous one - to 5.5'.

Whas it "true" TTL, or "Balanced" TTL flash mode?
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
1,089
Location
Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
Iliah said:
Dear Clive,


That is what the calculation seems to prove. AF-s version focuses to about 4.5', while the previous one - to 5.5'.

Whas it "true" TTL, or "Balanced" TTL flash mode?
It was "true" TTL because I remember a post on (whisper it) DPReview which suggested that was the best option for the kind of shot I was attempting.
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom