* Just Too Hot photo - Canon DSLR Challenge photos at pbase.com

photo sharing and upload

picture albums

photo forums

search pictures

popular photos

photography help

login

Canon DSLR Challenge | all galleries >> Challenge 54 - Weather (hosted by Jim Harrison) >> Eligible > * Just Too Hot

previous | next


04-NOV-2005	Lonnit Rysher

* Just Too Hot

Canon EOS 10D ,Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
1/90s f/4.5 at 24.0mm iso400 hide exif

Full EXIF Info
Date/Time	04-Nov-2005 09:56:06
Make	Canon
Model	EOS 10D
Flash Used	No
Focal Length	24 mm
Exposure Time	1/90 sec
Aperture	f/4.5
ISO Equivalent	400
Exposure Bias	-0.50
White Balance	(-1)
Metering Mode	partial (6)
JPEG Quality	(6)
Exposure Program	aperture priority (3)
Focus Distance

other sizes: small medium original auto

previous | next

Please do not delete, update, or otherwise edit others' entries
* Submitter retains all copyrights *

Canon DSLR Challenge		16-Nov-2005 03:55
Nope, not freckles, but you can pretend. :) Oh, I see the optical illusion of the imaginary third leg. Ok, I'll confess - I'm actually a tripod! LOL! Yes, that is posterization and NOT a c-section scar. :) I haven't a clue where that little teal artifact came from on the left edge. I didn't spot it until you pointed it out. Thanks for the in-depth comments - always appreciated. :) ~ Lonnit

Canon DSLR Challenge		15-Nov-2005 23:36
When I look at this picture, I see fine grain. I also see freckles, and I see texture from the floor. Not all of what might be seen as grain is actually grain, at least that's how I see it. My first reaction when I saw this picture was that I couldn't immediately discern what was what. Part of this comes from the pose of the legs. More importantly, though, part of it comes from the halo just below the dark hand. That halo at first glance looked like the top of a leg held horizontally. Was I looking at someone sitting? But that didn't make sense. So that would be my main criticism of this picture. Other nitpicks: there seems to be some posterization along the vertical terminator of the shadow (about 1/3 from the right of the picture). And what is that cyan at the very left of the picture at the bustline? -- Victor

Guest		09-Nov-2005 20:47
No, the darkest shadows look black to me. I have to go out and compare my 10D with my 20D, shooting the same exact shot at different iso-settings. As I remember it, the 10D has LESS noise at iso100 than the 20D - plus at least the noise is random looking, whereas the noise in the 20D often seems to have a linear pattern to it, which is not very nice!!! Looking at the bright side, at least I kept my 10D... If you really didn't add any noise to this in post, maybe the 'grain' got that 'hard' look from sharpening? I think that perhaps if the grain were slightly softer looking, I would like it more.

Guest		09-Nov-2005 19:47
Thanks Shu. I think we're seeing eye to eye on this one. At least one person likes it! LOL! ;) olafdk 09-Nov-2005 05:54 Hmmm... I'm seeing very large grain in the darkest shadows. Are you seeing that on your monitor? Ut-oh.... grey??? This image isn't BW. If you're seeing grey that might account for all the other things we don't seem to be viewing the same way. As for the sandpaper... yes, I was iffy at first about that but I tried processing this image many different ways, including really soft glows, but no matter what else I tried, I kept getting drawn back to this. It just felt right to me. My problem with shooting high ISO is that on my 10d I get huge amts of grain very quickly. I mean look at this image - it's got a ton of grain and it's only 400ISO. I don't think I added much grain, if any! Looking at some of my skies, I'm finding grain there at 100 and 200! Thanks Michael. Grain comments apply as above. :) Lonnit

Shu		09-Nov-2005 14:31
Lonnit--To me, the grain is very attractive in this image. It gives it an earthy look which, IMO, heightens the sensuality of the shot. I also like the color of the tone, which is much better than plain 'ol B&W. shu

Guest		09-Nov-2005 05:54
Lonnit, on a second look I can see that the brightest highlights do have less grain than the midtones, but so do the darkest shadows. I guess I am reacting to the grain in the light grey areas - sort of makes your skin look like sandpaper... I am starting to think that the best way to achieve a natural grainy effect is to shoot at the highest iso possible - a technique mastered by Angela.

Guest		09-Nov-2005 05:43
Lonnit, I shared Cindy's confusion about the lower right corner of the image...my eye just didn't put things in order right away (thumbnail or full size). However, I did get the connection to the theme right away and I think it's a marvelous concept. I like the perspective you've chosen and this is really a delightful and fun image. Monochrome is a perfect choice, IMHO. I will say that I'm not the least bit enamored with grain, never was with film either. I do understand (and agree with) your artistic choice to introduce grain, I just wish there was something other than grain which had the same artistic voice. -Michael

ctfchallenge		08-Nov-2005 05:00
Shu, well for starters, if you're going to ask the salesgirl for 'drawers', you ain't never gonna find 'em! LOL! Try, instead, looking in the panties section! ;) Hi Ed! :) So, Shu, are you saying I used the grain right, or are you somehow seeing what Olaf is seeing? Cindy, The concept was that it was too hot to even dress. But if you insist, I won't argue with you - when do we leave for Hawaii? LOL! Thumbnails can be very deceiving. Sometimes I love a thumb and am disappointed upon opening the image, other times I don't like the thumb but open the image out of fairness to the artist to view their challenge entry full size before I make the judgement call. I learned that after skipping over an image that ended up winning. I didn't know what all the fuss was about. I then opened the full sized image only to learn I certainly would have cast my vote for it, had I seen it. As for burning the panties... no, I won't do that.... it might upset Ed! LOL! ;) Am I missing something Olaf? I see much less grain in the highlights here and much more in the shadows. Actually, here the grain in the shadows is not just denser, it's larger as well. I don't think it looks at all like the grain in Andy's image. Look at the panties on the lower left and compare it to the ribs on the upper right. Are you on your regular computer viewing this? ~ Lonnit

Canon DSLR Challenge		08-Nov-2005 02:57
Guess I don't really see the connection to the theme lonnit . . .sorry. If you were laying out in the sun with tanning oil and all sweaty that would make it work. Maybe you should go to Hawaii for a reshoot? ;) lol. Anyway, when I saw the thumbnail the right leg [to the viewer's right] looked the same tone as the panties - so my eye was all confused thinking they were part of the panties and I couldn't figure out how you got the front all twisted off center of your belly button! lol. It took me quite a while to re-adjust my eye to see what I was looking at was a leg. I know that sounds crazy - but maybe burn the panties slightly or something. lol. :) Cindy

Canon DSLR Challenge		08-Nov-2005 00:58
Where'd you get those drawers..??.....(I have to push Ed away from the monitor). I like the shot. I find grain, used appropriately, very appealing. It often takes the image to another level. shu

Guest		07-Nov-2005 21:29
Lonnit, I like the creative take on the theme, but am surprised to see grain in the highlights and not in the shadows. Why am I surprised? Lonnit quote: "Now, I love the shot, but I really (did I say really?) do NOT like the post-shot grain. It's a personal pet peeve of mine. I'm having a hard time figuring out a way to do grain that is natural looking - more grain in the darks, less in the lights. This overall willy-nilly-random stuff doesn't cut it for me. Hits me like a plastic wig! LOL!" I found a solution, remember?:http://www.pbase.com/cslr_challenge/image/38864471 (see comments).