Christmas 2013

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Sandman, Jan 22, 2014.

  1. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    Blog:
    <http://jonaseklundh.se/pages/Christmas_2013?lang=en>


    Some pictures from last christmas with the family

    <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg205607.jpg>
    DSC-RX1R, 35.0 mm, f/2.0, 1/60 sec., ISO 6400


    <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg205608.jpg>
    DSC-RX1R, 35.0 mm, f/2.0, 1/30 sec., ISO 6400


    <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg205609.jpg>
    DSC-RX1R, 35.0 mm, f/2.0, 1/60 sec., ISO 6400


    <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg205610.jpg>
    DSC-RX1R, 35.0 mm, f/2.0, 1/60 sec., ISO 6400


    <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg205611.jpg>
    DSC-RX1R, 35.0 mm, f/2.5, 1/80 sec., ISO 6400


    <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg205612.jpg>
    DSC-RX1R, 35.0 mm, f/2.0, 1/60 sec., ISO 6400


    <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg205613.jpg>
    DSC-RX1R, 35.0 mm, f/2.0, 1/60 sec., ISO 6400




    --
    Sandman[.net]
    Sandman, Jan 22, 2014
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Sandman

    Robert Coe Guest

    On 22 Jan 2014 15:42:32 GMT, Sandman <> wrote:
    : Blog:
    : <http://jonaseklundh.se/pages/Christmas_2013?lang=en>
    :
    :
    : Some pictures from last christmas with the family
    :
    : <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg205607.jpg>
    : DSC-RX1R, 35.0 mm, f/2.0, 1/60 sec., ISO 6400
    :
    :
    : <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg205608.jpg>
    : DSC-RX1R, 35.0 mm, f/2.0, 1/30 sec., ISO 6400
    :
    :
    : <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg205609.jpg>
    : DSC-RX1R, 35.0 mm, f/2.0, 1/60 sec., ISO 6400
    :
    :
    : <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg205610.jpg>
    : DSC-RX1R, 35.0 mm, f/2.0, 1/60 sec., ISO 6400
    :
    :
    : <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg205611.jpg>
    : DSC-RX1R, 35.0 mm, f/2.5, 1/80 sec., ISO 6400
    :
    :
    : <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg205612.jpg>
    : DSC-RX1R, 35.0 mm, f/2.0, 1/60 sec., ISO 6400
    :
    :
    : <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg205613.jpg>
    : DSC-RX1R, 35.0 mm, f/2.0, 1/60 sec., ISO 6400

    Some nice composition there, but that lens isn't sharp enough wide open.

    --
    Bob
    Robert Coe, Jan 23, 2014
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    In article <>, Robert Coe wrote:

    > : Blog: : <http://jonaseklundh.se/pages/Christmas_2013?lang=en> : :
    > : Some pictures from last christmas with the family : :
    > <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg205607.jpg> : DSC-RX1R, 35.0 mm,
    > f/2.0, 1/60 sec., ISO 6400 : : :
    > <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg205608.jpg> : DSC-RX1R, 35.0 mm,
    > f/2.0, 1/30 sec., ISO 6400 : : :
    > <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg205609.jpg> : DSC-RX1R, 35.0 mm,
    > f/2.0, 1/60 sec., ISO 6400 : : :
    > <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg205610.jpg> : DSC-RX1R, 35.0 mm,
    > f/2.0, 1/60 sec., ISO 6400 : : :
    > <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg205611.jpg> : DSC-RX1R, 35.0 mm,
    > f/2.5, 1/80 sec., ISO 6400 : : :
    > <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg205612.jpg> : DSC-RX1R, 35.0 mm,
    > f/2.0, 1/60 sec., ISO 6400 : : :
    > <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg205613.jpg> : DSC-RX1R, 35.0 mm,
    > f/2.0, 1/60 sec., ISO 6400


    > Some nice composition there, but that lens isn't sharp enough wide
    > open.


    The lens is sharp enough, it's just that the shutter is way too slow in
    some photos, and I've yet to come to terms in the right balance of
    ISO/Shutter.

    Plus, as for the first image, it was the best I could capture of the little
    guy, and I really wanted him in the set for the benefit of his mother :)


    --
    Sandman[.net]
    Sandman, Jan 23, 2014
    #3
  4. Sandman

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On 23 Jan 2014 09:52:07 GMT, Sandman <> wrote:

    >In article <>, Robert Coe wrote:
    >
    >> : Blog: : <http://jonaseklundh.se/pages/Christmas_2013?lang=en> : :
    >> : Some pictures from last christmas with the family : :


    >> Some nice composition there, but that lens isn't sharp enough wide
    >> open.

    >
    >The lens is sharp enough, it's just that the shutter is way too slow in
    >some photos, and I've yet to come to terms in the right balance of
    >ISO/Shutter.
    >
    >Plus, as for the first image, it was the best I could capture of the little
    >guy, and I really wanted him in the set for the benefit of his mother :)


    These are family shots, and - presumably - shots of family members who
    have been photographed many times. The intent doesn't seem to be to
    capture what (name) looked like on December x, 2013. They present a
    different view than what is normally captured in family photos, and
    the result is quite acceptable in my view. The subjects probably
    liked the shots very much because they're a bit different from the
    normal family snapshot.

    #1 is a bit soft, but has appeal for being that way. #2, #3, and #5
    have some distracting white areas that I might have applied the Burn
    tool to, but they still work.

    The only one in the set where I feel Jonas erred is #3 where the lower
    face is very soft and the forehead is too sharp. The subject of that
    one will be thinking of getting Botox shots after seeing that.

    All-in-all, a good set of photos that look completely unposed and
    natural.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
    Tony Cooper, Jan 23, 2014
    #4
  5. Sandman

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <>, tonycooper214
    @gmail.com says...
    >
    > On 23 Jan 2014 09:52:07 GMT, Sandman <> wrote:
    >
    > >In article <>, Robert Coe wrote:
    > >
    > >> : Blog: : <http://jonaseklundh.se/pages/Christmas_2013?lang=en> : :
    > >> : Some pictures from last christmas with the family : :

    >
    > >> Some nice composition there, but that lens isn't sharp enough wide
    > >> open.

    > >
    > >The lens is sharp enough, it's just that the shutter is way too slow in
    > >some photos, and I've yet to come to terms in the right balance of
    > >ISO/Shutter.
    > >
    > >Plus, as for the first image, it was the best I could capture of the little
    > >guy, and I really wanted him in the set for the benefit of his mother :)

    >
    > These are family shots, and - presumably - shots of family members who
    > have been photographed many times. The intent doesn't seem to be to
    > capture what (name) looked like on December x, 2013. They present a
    > different view than what is normally captured in family photos, and
    > the result is quite acceptable in my view. The subjects probably
    > liked the shots very much because they're a bit different from the
    > normal family snapshot.
    >
    > #1 is a bit soft, but has appeal for being that way.


    It's not so much that it's soft as that the point of focus is a bit far
    back. The eyes are soft but the outline of the face and ear and the
    fabric on the shoulder are sharp.

    > depth of field #2, #3, and #5
    > have some distracting white areas that I might have applied the Burn
    > tool to, but they still work.
    >
    > The only one in the set where I feel Jonas erred is #3 where the lower
    > face is very soft and the forehead is too sharp. The subject of that
    > one will be thinking of getting Botox shots after seeing that.


    Also one eye is sharper than the other--focus just a little deeper would
    have balanced the eye sharpness and might have softened the forehead a
    little.

    > All-in-all, a good set of photos that look completely unposed and
    > natural.


    Yep.
    J. Clarke, Jan 23, 2014
    #5
  6. On 1/23/14 PDT, 3:59 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
    >> All-in-all, a good set of photos that look completely unposed and
    >> natural.

    >
    > Yep.
    >

    Agree.

    However, the highlights on the first three photos draw to much
    attention—at least, they were distracting to me.
    John McWilliams, Jan 24, 2014
    #6
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. JD

    Uniblue SpeedUpMyPc 2013

    JD, Dec 18, 2012, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    1,055
  2. Peter
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    177
    Peter
    Dec 28, 2012
  3. Rob
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    375
    PeterN
    Feb 14, 2013
  4. me
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    130
  5. me
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    164
    RichA
    Oct 6, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page