Sup /p/Is this picture fucked-up? I mean noisy or with some real BAD pp mistake or something?Cause in my monitor it looks ok. But in my laptop (which is brighter) it looks noisy as hell. Exif will tell you that it was taken on a XTi and ISO 800.I tried to calibrate my monitor but it doesn't seem quite right yet... Any thoughts?EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsPhotographerunknownImage-Specific Properties:Image Width3888Image Height2592Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Compression SchemeUncompressedPixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution180 dpiVertical Resolution180 dpiImage Data ArrangementChunky FormatImage Created2008:03:30 03:32:02Exposure Time1/125 secF-Numberf/1.8ISO Speed Rating800Lens Aperturef/1.8Exposure Bias0 EVFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width533Image Height800RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandard
looks fine
Besides that nasty thing in the picture, it looks ok to me.
to me its the bad lighting on her face, its overexposed/clipped and its brought out the defects of her face.i think shes pretty good lookin though, almost kirsen dunst esque?
HE'S NOT ASKING FOR CRITIQUELooks clean too me. My monitor is calibrated enough.
i see some noise in the shadows of her neck and her arms
>>150703Next time, shoot RAW. Then you could easily use ISO1600 without fear of noise. You could also get the photo a bit sharper by using slower aperture. Oh, and processing RAW is just so much easier (with the right tools...).
dark tones are noisy, face is overexposed and washed outsolution: if u got problems with noise use the Noise Ninja. Its an amazing tool that doesnt fuck the resolution too bad, i recommend it to everyone
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHH!MY EYES!
Looks fine to me.Also: Girl's really hot.
???Shoot film some day :-)
>>150720How so?
>>150720Filter to reduce noise in PS CS2/3 works fine too though.
The (miniscule) amount of nose is fine, and I don't see anything clipped.
I see a small amount of noise in all the shadows, esp her neck and arms.That's ISO 800?
OP hereLighting was natural from 5pm. you can't expect great results from that.I leveled the background to be brighter and burned the edges of the picture. And this was shot in RAW btw. I used raw processing from canon... I tried the camera raw in photoshop and the one from canon cd is a lot better imho. What do you use for raw processing eku? I had to stick with ISO 800 and 1.8 cause I was using a polarizer and it was 5pm.Thanks for all the input. And I finally could understand that monitors are really different and what is "ARGH OMFG" to some people looks fine to others. I wouldn't ask for critique in a 50mm portrait where the girl is sitting right the middle of the frame. I'm not that retarded, but some bashing is always welcome.
>>150835>Lighting was natural from 5pm. you can't expect great results from that.Er. That's pretty much the time when you can expect the best possible results.
>>150835Photoshop or Lightroom. Depens on what I want to do.
Softer lights from diffused source? Photo seems too direct.
>>150847I always thought it was around 3:30pm to 4pm...But the picture speaks for itself I guess
>>150944Depends on the time of year.
>>150967and latitude.
>>150975And planet.