Models at Sitex and BBT

EJW · 2nd December 2006

My first time to shoot the show models. Quite disappointed to find out that my f/2.8 is still not bright enough under the indoor lighting, and IS would be great when flash is used.

Post some relatively better shots here.

Pics are a bit noisy since I used ISO1600.

EJW · 2nd December 2006

EJW · 2nd December 2006

Can you refuse to buy the laptop?

metallilan · 2nd December 2006

Actually at f/2.8, with a little help with fill in flash, should be enough, even with low ISO. I didn't go for Sitex but i took some pics of the motorshow event with a 28-75 f/2.8 lens borrowed from a friend, fill in flash, mostly 1/40 sec at iso 200.. bright enough.. head over to my gallery to check em out.. http://metallilan.multiply.com/photos/album/56

EJW · 2nd December 2006

Yeah it works with some fill flash, but not without.

Anyway the effect from the flash still seems surprisingly natural to me.

But with the flash my shutter speed is limited to 1/200. So I couldn't fully use my zoom:P

Btw, sorry all the pics are of the same style.

But at least the gals gave different poses.

erictan8888 · 2nd December 2006

Originally Posted by metallilan

Actually at f/2.8, with a little help with fill in flash, should be enough, even with low ISO. I didn't go for Sitex but i took some pics of the motorshow event with a 28-75 f/2.8 lens borrowed from a friend, fill in flash, mostly 1/40 sec at iso 200.. bright enough.. head over to my gallery to check em out.. http://metallilan.multiply.com/photos/album/56

sorrie... hijack your thread for a while....
was the 28-75 f/2.8 a tamron lens?
if so, how's the lens? i am actually eyeing this lens....

erictan8888 · 2nd December 2006

hi EJW, btw, what f2.8 lens you using?

metallilan · 2nd December 2006

Originally Posted by erictan8888

sorrie... hijack your thread for a while....
was the 28-75 f/2.8 a tamron lens?
if so, how's the lens? i am actually eyeing this lens....

yes it is. it was loaned to me by a friend for the motorshow event i posted in my gallery. its a nice lens, sharp, fast and light on the hands...

EJW · 2nd December 2006

Originally Posted by erictan8888

hi EJW, btw, what f2.8 lens you using?

70-200mm f2.8. no IS, which would be really useful for this type of shooting.

And yes I should've dialed down the ISO a bit. Initially tried to shoot w/o flash. Didn't work.

Btw, I noticed the pics shown in this page are softer than my original copies. Is this normal? But I saw some very sharp images in other threads.

melvinmah · 3rd December 2006

Sorry but the photos look like they were taken from a camera phone. Colours look washed out, OOF and all. I won't believe they came from a F2.8 lens of any brand. Perhaps you should do a little post processing and try not to over compress your files.

Jaycelim · 3rd December 2006

Originally Posted by EJW

But with the flash my shutter speed is limited to 1/200. So I couldn't fully use my zoom:P

Don't understand your statement above. What cam are u using?
Sorry to say this but a PnS cam could do better than pic posted.

EJW · 3rd December 2006

Thanks for all the comments.

Originally Posted by melvinmah

Sorry but the photos look like they were taken from a camera phone. Colours look washed out, OOF and all. I won't believe they came from a F2.8 lens of any brand. Perhaps you should do a little post processing and try not to over compress your files.

I thought the colour looked OK. That is the real silky white skin they got there

The focus should be ok too, at least for those with only one model. I usually focused on the face / eye and recompose if necessary. If OOC we should see things like sharp hand blur eyes, right? Here the whole pic looks a bit soft. But I do realize f/2.8 is usually too shallow to include more than one model.

After I resize my files to around 70 Kb they still look sharp on my computer. But somehow they become softer on this page.

Originally Posted by Jaycelim

Don't understand your statement above. What cam are u using?
Sorry to say this but a PnS cam could do better than pic posted.

I meant that if I use 200mm at 1/200 shutter speed I might get hand shake.

melvinmah · 3rd December 2006

Originally Posted by EJW

But I do realize f/2.8 is usually too shallow to include more than one model.

I meant that if I use 200mm at 1/200 shutter speed I might get hand shake.

Your lens is not to be blamed. Okay here's how, keep your subjects on a horizontal plane. As long as any subject falls behind or infront of that point of focus, it will be off. Hope you understand what I'm trying to say.

200mm at 1/200 is already ideal. Why would you be afraid of handshake? You don't actually need IS or even a monopod.

ExplorerZ · 3rd December 2006

Originally Posted by EJW

Thanks for all the comments.

I thought the colour looked OK. That is the real silky white skin they got there

The focus should be ok too, at least for those with only one model. I usually focused on the face / eye and recompose if necessary. If OOC we should see things like sharp hand blur eyes, right? Here the whole pic looks a bit soft. But I do realize f/2.8 is usually too shallow to include more than one model.

After I resize my files to around 70 Kb they still look sharp on my computer. But somehow they become softer on this page.

I meant that if I use 200mm at 1/200 shutter speed I might get hand shake.

cmon la with fill flash you don have to do 1/focal length rule... me and my other 2 friend were using 80-200 with fill flash at average of 1/60s... no doubt some blur, but most came out sharp.

etegration · 3rd December 2006

they look underage....

EJW · 3rd December 2006

Originally Posted by melvinmah

Your lens is not to be blamed. Okay here's how, keep your subjects on a horizontal plane. As long as any subject falls behind or infront of that point of focus, it will be off. Hope you understand what I'm trying to say.

200mm at 1/200 is already ideal. Why would you be afraid of handshake? You don't actually need IS or even a monopod.

No no, never blamed my lens. I was just saying what you said there, and that I should use smaller aperture if I want to include objects that are not parallel to the focal plane. (I was actually surprised to see how shallow the DOF is, being used to a PnS).

As for this hand shake rule, the 400D manual says should use the 35mm equivalent of the focal length. But I'm not sure.

What is the base for this rule anyway?

metallilan · 3rd December 2006

Originally Posted by EJW

No no, never blamed my lens. I was just saying what you said there, and that I should use smaller aperture if I want to include objects that are not parallel to the focal plane. (I was actually surprised to see how shallow the DOF is, being used to a PnS).

As for this hand shake rule, the 400D manual says should use the 35mm equivalent of the focal length. But I'm not sure.

What is the base for this rule anyway?

I think the 'rule' is that the minimum shutter speed should be 1/focal length or something like that... iirc..

melvinmah · 3rd December 2006

Originally Posted by EJW

But I do realize f/2.8 is usually too shallow to include more than one model.

I was just trying to prove that your realization was untrue. F2.8 is not too shallow to include more than one model.

Originally Posted by EJW

I should use smaller aperture if I want to include objects that are not parallel to the focal plane.

As for this hand shake rule, the 400D manual says should use the 35mm equivalent of the focal length. But I'm not sure.

Yes that's true, you could use a smaller aperture or better still, re-position yourself. As for the rule, those are just guidelines for God's sake. Furthermore, you were using flash!

Try to experiment a little and also learn how to hold your camera properly to reduce handshake to the minimum.

versatile · 3rd December 2006

Your ISO 1600 failed you badly. F2.8 still dark? I'm using Tokina's F2.8 28-70mm with internal flash and ISO 200 i can get very good result.

EJW · 3rd December 2006

Oh yeah ISO1800 at f/2.8, without flash, is still very dark. I forgot to dial down the ISO after I turned on the flash.

As for the earlier comment on the washed out colour, I think I found out why. I set picture style to "neutral". Settings of "standard" or "portrait" seem to boost the contrast and also make the skin tone a bit warmer. Suppose it's all up to individual's taste.

Well thanks for all the comments. Hopefully next time I'll do better.

2nd December 2006	#1
EJW Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Tampines, Singapore Posts: 76	Models at Sitex and BBT My first time to shoot the show models. Quite disappointed to find out that my f/2.8 is still not bright enough under the indoor lighting, and IS would be great when flash is used. Post some relatively better shots here. Pics are a bit noisy since I used ISO1600. Last edited by EJW; 28th June 2007 at 10:22 AM.

2nd December 2006	#2
EJW Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Tampines, Singapore Posts: 76	Re: Models at Sitex and BBT Last edited by EJW; 28th June 2007 at 10:23 AM.

2nd December 2006	#3
EJW Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Tampines, Singapore Posts: 76	Re: Models at Sitex and BBT Can you refuse to buy the laptop? Last edited by EJW; 28th June 2007 at 10:23 AM.

2nd December 2006	#4
metallilan Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 2,843	Re: Models at Sitex and BBT Actually at f/2.8, with a little help with fill in flash, should be enough, even with low ISO. I didn't go for Sitex but i took some pics of the motorshow event with a 28-75 f/2.8 lens borrowed from a friend, fill in flash, mostly 1/40 sec at iso 200.. bright enough.. head over to my gallery to check em out.. http://metallilan.multiply.com/photos/album/56

2nd December 2006	#5
EJW Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Tampines, Singapore Posts: 76	Re: Models at Sitex and BBT Yeah it works with some fill flash, but not without. Anyway the effect from the flash still seems surprisingly natural to me. But with the flash my shutter speed is limited to 1/200. So I couldn't fully use my zoom:P Btw, sorry all the pics are of the same style. But at least the gals gave different poses. Last edited by EJW; 28th June 2007 at 10:24 AM.

2nd December 2006	#7
erictan8888 Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Singapore Posts: 2,220	Re: Models at Sitex and BBT hi EJW, btw, what f2.8 lens you using? __________________ Hope to learn from everyone here.... http://s28.photobucket.com/albums/c229/TanEric/

3rd December 2006	#10
melvinmah Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Yishun Posts: 506	Re: Models at Sitex and BBT Sorry but the photos look like they were taken from a camera phone. Colours look washed out, OOF and all. I won't believe they came from a F2.8 lens of any brand. Perhaps you should do a little post processing and try not to over compress your files. __________________ gallery: http://www.pbase.com/melvinmah blog: http://melvinmah.blogspot.com Last edited by melvinmah; 3rd December 2006 at 12:56 AM.

3rd December 2006	#15
etegration Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: http://360.itcow.com Posts: 1,697	Re: Models at Sitex and BBT they look underage.... __________________ http://360.itcow.com \| Map View \| How to make a pano? \| P&S

3rd December 2006	#19
versatile Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Sembawang Posts: 1,080	Re: Models at Sitex and BBT Your ISO 1600 failed you badly. F2.8 still dark? I'm using Tokina's F2.8 28-70mm with internal flash and ISO 200 i can get very good result.

3rd December 2006	#20
EJW Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Tampines, Singapore Posts: 76	Re: Models at Sitex and BBT Oh yeah ISO1800 at f/2.8, without flash, is still very dark. I forgot to dial down the ISO after I turned on the flash. As for the earlier comment on the washed out colour, I think I found out why. I set picture style to "neutral". Settings of "standard" or "portrait" seem to boost the contrast and also make the skin tone a bit warmer. Suppose it's all up to individual's taste. Well thanks for all the comments. Hopefully next time I'll do better.