I don't know what it is about Rhowan, but in many of her photographs she gives the distinct impression that she's considerably wiser than her years would suggest. This shot is no exception.
On a more technical note: I promised I'd keep you posted as to how I was getting on with my new lens, the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. Well, this was handheld at 1/50th, and I'm pretty sure it would have been almost impossible without the IS. I did take quite a few other shots at this shutter speed/focal length today and a good proportion were as sharp as this one. Some were softer, but in a number of those cases I think it was the kids jumping about rather than any deficit with the IS, so thusfar, I'm impressed and would hope that my hit rate with portraits of the kids improves a little.
Oh, and can someone explain to me why, when I said yesterday, that Libby and I had disagreed about the merit of yesterday's shot, that all of you assumed that I liked it and Libby didn't? On this occassion I wasn't happy with it (for many of the reasons you mentioned), but Libby quite liked it. Anyway, I'm normally wrong when Libby and I disagree, at least you normally think so, so it's nice to have been right for once ;-)
captured camera lens focal length aperture shutter speed shooting mode exposure bias metering mode ISO flash image quality RAW converter cropped?
2.26pm on 16/9/06
Canon 20D
EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM
200mm (320mm equiv.)
f/5.6
1/50
manual
n/a
evaluative
100
580EX (-1/3 FEC)
RAW
C1 Pro
minor
comment byBrett Admire at 09:29 PM (GMT) on 16 September, 2006
wow.. handheld...impressive
comment by Lurker at 09:36 PM (GMT) on 16 September, 2006
I have a theory, here on chromasia we always root with Libby, so you were right yesterday because we all thought it was Libby's opinion we were defending ... no ?
Just a theory
comment by Lurker at 09:39 PM (GMT) on 16 September, 2006
After re reading your comment, I see that's what you implied in the first place :-)
My bad.
comment byArthur at 09:59 PM (GMT) on 16 September, 2006
I’m going to be interested to see how you get on with the IS — I now mostly use my 85mm f1.8 for photographing my friends’ children as I found that even with IS, being able to use faster shutter speeds (even at the risk of extremely shallow DOF) was necessary to get really sharp shots of anything other than moments of concentration or reflection.
Following yesterday, what does the model herself think of this one?? :-)
comment byROB at 10:01 PM (GMT) on 16 September, 2006
This image is a selling point for that lens itself. When you said above it was handheld at 1/50 I never expected to see that it was also at 200mm.
And that is amazing framing given the note of crop = minor. Nice work!
comment by Jennifer at 11:14 PM (GMT) on 16 September, 2006
Do Canon sponsor you?!!! if not they should ;-)
comment byToxic Lens at 11:24 PM (GMT) on 16 September, 2006
That's quite an expression! She looks a little angry, yet on the verge of laughter at the same time. Great capture.
comment by Maxine at 11:30 PM (GMT) on 16 September, 2006
Absolutly wonderful! A fine new example on how father and daughter work so well together! Congratulations for both of you!
comment by doreen at 11:41 PM (GMT) on 16 September, 2006
wow! beautiful shot of a beautiful girl. i love the expression on her face. it's so hard to believe that 1) she's only five and 2) she's the same girl from this picture (http://www.chromasia.com/iblog/galleries/0604101914.php).
comment byRamsey at 12:13 AM (GMT) on 17 September, 2006
Very nice image she looks very mischievous, and quite sharp. I have a 24-105is and I am amazed how slow I can go.. and still get a sharp image.
comment byNeil at 12:25 AM (GMT) on 17 September, 2006
Wow, she seems to be growing up very quickly! Hmmm, wish I could afford the 70-200 IS, I bought the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 (no IS) and I love it (and it's price tag) but the IS is SUCH a boon in these situations.
comment byBen at 04:04 AM (GMT) on 17 September, 2006
Great shot. I've personally never had the change to shoot with a lens that has IS. It sounds great, but just adds a bit too much to the price tag!
comment byBen at 04:05 AM (GMT) on 17 September, 2006
I've personally never had the **chance** to shoot with IS
Sorry for the typo :)
comment byAli at 06:04 AM (GMT) on 17 September, 2006
is she trying not to laugh? good tones and contrast! it makes it look like a barcode ;-)
comment byJohn Zeweniuk at 06:33 AM (GMT) on 17 September, 2006
you have such an eye for portraits... you capture such depth and sensitivity... beautiful
comment bym i k e b at 06:39 AM (GMT) on 17 September, 2006
very impressive with the lens. the detail is quite nice.
comment byMark at 09:29 AM (GMT) on 17 September, 2006
Dave, what a great straight forward portrait of a wonderful expression. I'm amazed that at that focal length and at 1/50, it's so clear. Ok, you've sold me so I'll be searching for a new lens. Thanks for the update on the 70-200 IS.
comment bySamarth at 12:33 PM (GMT) on 17 September, 2006
Lovely expression...8.5/10
cr=6/10
comment byjelb at 02:56 PM (GMT) on 17 September, 2006
Simply, a very nice piture! as usual!
comment byCraig at 04:07 PM (GMT) on 17 September, 2006
Interesting portrait, lovely detail.
comment bySysagent at 04:47 PM (GMT) on 17 September, 2006
Dave great portrait and excellent focus on the eyes, looks quite special that lens...
Also like how the freckles of come up on this image :)
p.s. Whens this meet going to happen, the light is getting better everyday..
(email me please)
comment byRodion Kovenkin at 04:47 PM (GMT) on 17 September, 2006
Very interesting portrait! So lovely!
comment byJohn at 07:19 PM (GMT) on 17 September, 2006
An "intense" look. Nice. Excellent toning.
comment by Mary at 07:44 PM (GMT) on 17 September, 2006
Nice detail and very intense eyes.
comment bybart at 08:24 PM (GMT) on 17 September, 2006
So beautiful!!
comment bykurt at 08:57 PM (GMT) on 17 September, 2006
a beautiful, crisp portrait. very nice - and i like the subtle sepia tone.
comment bydjn1 at 08:59 PM (GMT) on 17 September, 2006
Thanks everyone.
Arthur: she liked it.
Jennifer: no, not yet ;-)
doreen: I can't keep up with how fast they're all growing. Time flies.
Sysagent: soon, hopefully.
comment by{-P-} at 09:56 AM (GMT) on 18 September, 2006
Very nice portrait ! Did you shot this one directly in b&W or is it a post treatment ?
comment by m at 08:07 PM (GMT) on 18 September, 2006
fab
comment byJeet at 04:20 AM (GMT) on 19 September, 2006
You are right.. She looks a different person altogether :) Nice portrait.
comment byAdriana at 06:22 PM (GMT) on 21 September, 2006
I had to read the name to be sure she was Rhowan. Looks so big and for some reason different than how she usually looks. :o
comment by joao cristovao at 01:30 PM (GMT) on 19 October, 2006
320mm is definitively too much for portraits (IMO makes faces too flat). I guess 150mm is the longest focal distance for full face portraits. Anyway, I like this photo a lot.
I don't know what it is about Rhowan, but in many of her photographs she gives the distinct impression that she's considerably wiser than her years would suggest. This shot is no exception.
On a more technical note: I promised I'd keep you posted as to how I was getting on with my new lens, the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. Well, this was handheld at 1/50th, and I'm pretty sure it would have been almost impossible without the IS. I did take quite a few other shots at this shutter speed/focal length today and a good proportion were as sharp as this one. Some were softer, but in a number of those cases I think it was the kids jumping about rather than any deficit with the IS, so thusfar, I'm impressed and would hope that my hit rate with portraits of the kids improves a little.
Oh, and can someone explain to me why, when I said yesterday, that Libby and I had disagreed about the merit of yesterday's shot, that all of you assumed that I liked it and Libby didn't? On this occassion I wasn't happy with it (for many of the reasons you mentioned), but Libby quite liked it. Anyway, I'm normally wrong when Libby and I disagree, at least you normally think so, so it's nice to have been right for once ;-)
camera
lens
focal length
aperture
shutter speed
shooting mode
exposure bias
metering mode
ISO
flash
image quality
RAW converter
cropped?
Canon 20D
EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM
200mm (320mm equiv.)
f/5.6
1/50
manual
n/a
evaluative
100
580EX (-1/3 FEC)
RAW
C1 Pro
minor
wow.. handheld...impressive
I have a theory, here on chromasia we always root with Libby, so you were right yesterday because we all thought it was Libby's opinion we were defending ... no ?
Just a theory
After re reading your comment, I see that's what you implied in the first place :-)
My bad.
I’m going to be interested to see how you get on with the IS — I now mostly use my 85mm f1.8 for photographing my friends’ children as I found that even with IS, being able to use faster shutter speeds (even at the risk of extremely shallow DOF) was necessary to get really sharp shots of anything other than moments of concentration or reflection.
Following yesterday, what does the model herself think of this one?? :-)
This image is a selling point for that lens itself. When you said above it was handheld at 1/50 I never expected to see that it was also at 200mm.
And that is amazing framing given the note of crop = minor. Nice work!
Do Canon sponsor you?!!! if not they should ;-)
That's quite an expression! She looks a little angry, yet on the verge of laughter at the same time. Great capture.
Absolutly wonderful! A fine new example on how father and daughter work so well together! Congratulations for both of you!
wow! beautiful shot of a beautiful girl. i love the expression on her face. it's so hard to believe that 1) she's only five and 2) she's the same girl from this picture (http://www.chromasia.com/iblog/galleries/0604101914.php).
Very nice image she looks very mischievous, and quite sharp. I have a 24-105is and I am amazed how slow I can go.. and still get a sharp image.
Wow, she seems to be growing up very quickly! Hmmm, wish I could afford the 70-200 IS, I bought the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 (no IS) and I love it (and it's price tag) but the IS is SUCH a boon in these situations.
Great shot. I've personally never had the change to shoot with a lens that has IS. It sounds great, but just adds a bit too much to the price tag!
I've personally never had the **chance** to shoot with IS
Sorry for the typo :)
is she trying not to laugh? good tones and contrast! it makes it look like a barcode ;-)
you have such an eye for portraits... you capture such depth and sensitivity... beautiful
very impressive with the lens. the detail is quite nice.
Dave, what a great straight forward portrait of a wonderful expression. I'm amazed that at that focal length and at 1/50, it's so clear. Ok, you've sold me so I'll be searching for a new lens. Thanks for the update on the 70-200 IS.
Lovely expression...8.5/10
cr=6/10
Simply, a very nice piture! as usual!
Interesting portrait, lovely detail.
Dave great portrait and excellent focus on the eyes, looks quite special that lens...
Also like how the freckles of come up on this image :)
p.s. Whens this meet going to happen, the light is getting better everyday..
(email me please)
Very interesting portrait! So lovely!
An "intense" look. Nice. Excellent toning.
Nice detail and very intense eyes.
So beautiful!!
a beautiful, crisp portrait. very nice - and i like the subtle sepia tone.
Thanks everyone.
Arthur: she liked it.
Jennifer: no, not yet ;-)
doreen: I can't keep up with how fast they're all growing. Time flies.
Sysagent: soon, hopefully.
Very nice portrait ! Did you shot this one directly in b&W or is it a post treatment ?
fab
You are right.. She looks a different person altogether :) Nice portrait.
I had to read the name to be sure she was Rhowan. Looks so big and for some reason different than how she usually looks. :o
320mm is definitively too much for portraits (IMO makes faces too flat). I guess 150mm is the longest focal distance for full face portraits. Anyway, I like this photo a lot.