<<< o >>>snuggled 22 comments + add yours
chromasia.com

I do have another picture of the father and son I put up yesterday, but thought I'd put this one up first, as a) it's been a while since I posted a shot of Rhowan, and b) I thought I'd invite you to tell me how it was done. What I will tell you is that it was shot at f/2.8, with flash, and converted to black and white with the channel mixer. But what else did I do (and the answer, not surprisingly, isn't obvious)?

Oh, and Jennifer, who already knows the answer, isn't allowed to say ;-)

On another matter: I'd like to apologise for the bigoted comment that appeared on yesterday's entry; which I've now deleted. I was out at work all day today so didn't see it until early evening. Had I spotted it sooner, I would have deleted it immediately.

 
1x1 + children [portraits]
comment by Jennifer at 11:03 PM (GMT) on 8 February, 2007

Oh damn - spoil sport! Was worth the wait - lovely shot .... could say more but I'd give the game away ;-)

comment by nferreira at 11:08 PM (GMT) on 8 February, 2007

Hummm... You've added blur and cropped it squared?

Jennifer, please tell us what David did. ;-)

comment by djn1 at 11:13 PM (GMT) on 8 February, 2007

Jennifer: ;-)

nferreira: yes, I cropped it square ;-)

comment by thukai at 11:31 PM (GMT) on 8 February, 2007

If you didn't add a blur, my guess is that you didn't do much else than the b&w conversion and the crop.
Very nice portrait btw..

comment by Dean at 11:39 PM (GMT) on 8 February, 2007

It almost looks like a tiny hint of diffused glow with a smidge of grain...

But then i'm probably completely wrong!

don't comment often, but as a fellow photog, you're always an inspiration sir.

comment by Arthur at 12:02 AM (GMT) on 9 February, 2007

Hmm... my first thought would be a duplicated layer, gaussian blurred, with blend mode and opacity adjusted...

...but if it’s not obvious... SF lens??

...nothing??

Anyway, how’s the 5D? Is it much quicker than the 20D?

comment by djn1 at 12:14 AM (GMT) on 9 February, 2007

Arthur: it was taken with the 135mm f/2.8 soft focus, so well spotted. As for the 5D: I'm not sure it's any quicker, but it's a joy to use :-)

comment by Arthur at 12:31 AM (GMT) on 9 February, 2007

The soft focus is so creamily smooth, I wondered if it was that :)

Beautiful picture by the way: forgot to mention it!

I bet you’re enjoying the big viewfinder on the 5D...

Cheers.

comment by Kennedy at 04:02 AM (GMT) on 9 February, 2007

I think this is awesome. Well done with the photo. =). Sorry, but who is Rhowan?

comment by P.J. at 07:35 AM (GMT) on 9 February, 2007

As someone who isn't a master os photoshop, I'm just going to say this is an adorable shot. The black and white conversion is priceless -- especially if she's really sleeping. Kind of gives a "night" feel to it. And if she is sleeping, must be having a good dream -- candyland maybe??

Nice work!

comment by stefan at 08:00 AM (GMT) on 9 February, 2007

I like this picture, she has such a happy expression (I hope this is the right term in english), and I like the way the picture smoothes to the corners. I'd be happy to be able to make pictures like this :)

comment by michele u. at 10:05 AM (GMT) on 9 February, 2007

Lighting effect of this photo is exstraordinary! candour, tenderness and joy..bravo!

comment by Richard Trim at 10:39 AM (GMT) on 9 February, 2007

No PJ she isn't sleeping ... She's just enjoying all the attention!!!
Dave ...It's great shot .. the softness is a delight.

comment by Libby at 11:23 AM (GMT) on 9 February, 2007

Kennedy : Rhowan is our 5 year old daughter.

And Richard is right - she wasn't asleep, just snuggled up with a blanket on the sofa after dinner , while dad played around with his new lens :-)

comment by Richard Trim at 12:40 PM (GMT) on 9 February, 2007

Hello Libby, Good to hear from you .... I imagine you are in the peak of health. Is it about 2 months to go now?

comment by Simon Goodchild at 01:19 PM (GMT) on 9 February, 2007

I don't wish to put the boot in but does an SF lens really do anything in hardware that can't be achieved (probably with more control) in software?

comment by m at 01:40 PM (GMT) on 9 February, 2007

I don't care how it was done another fab portrait. Hoooray. :-)

comment by Richard at 02:07 PM (GMT) on 9 February, 2007

A fine portrait. Now as for how its done. Gaussian blur would be to easy to guess. I suspect a blend style here of some sort and a little noise added?

PS I think my picture has arrived David. However, off to Philly to look at houses so cant get it from the post office.

comment by Phil.B at 09:00 PM (GMT) on 9 February, 2007

Delightful!

comment by djn1 at 10:32 PM (GMT) on 9 February, 2007

Thanks everyone, and I guess I should have updated my description rather than just posting a comment about the new lens.

As for whether Photoshop can achieve the same effect, but with more control: I'm not sure yet, but will keep you posted. I suspect that the effect is more subtle with the lens, but time will tell.

comment by Photo Buffet at 04:49 AM (GMT) on 10 February, 2007

Lovely shot! Soft and sweet.

comment by m at 10:44 PM (GMT) on 20 February, 2007

:-)