?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

nightlife

Vanity

  • 9th Mar, 2005 at 12:05 AM


Originally uploaded by sfllaw.

I indulged in some narcissism.

I sat down in the master bedroom during one of my enforced typing breaks. Sunlight was filtering through the window, so I stood up a tripod, set down a camera and tried to look photogenic.

From my photographs, I can certainly say that I look less dorky than I used to. This new hairstyle is not too shabby. And I look really different when I'm not wearing glasses. I can barely recognise myself without them. The new clothes seem to be working well for me as well. Which reminds me that I really do have to do some ironing this weekend.

As a special bonus offer, I got a new LiveJournal icon. This one doesn't have my head all tilted sideways.


Comments

( 13 comments — Leave a comment )
ex_halfwitte432
9th Mar, 2005 06:44 (UTC)
vogue...
pphaneuf
9th Mar, 2005 07:07 (UTC)
I'd like to compliment you on your window-light self-portrait, they're pretty well done!

I'd recommend only one thing, which is getting to be on the fancy side a bit: use something as a reflector to balance out the light. Some of the pictures (like the one you're using as an LJ icon) have the side of your face that is toward the window rather burnt-in. If your camera supports setting FEC (Flash Exposure Compensation), you could use the flash instead of a reflector, setting it to something like -1, -1.5 or maybe even -2 (experiment a bit, it's fun!). You'll notice that overcast day are best for this.

Some did not have this problem though, and look totally awesome!
sfllaw
9th Mar, 2005 12:23 (UTC)
I was going for the bright summer look, with dark shadows and everything, because I am sick of winter.

I think my camera can do some form of fill-flash, but not very well. I will have to try it next time when I want actual pictures that look decent.
pphaneuf
9th Mar, 2005 19:33 (UTC)
Heh, I went to dpreview.com's review of your camera to see if it had FEC, and it mentions "Inability to deal with wide dynamic range on very bright days".

And FEC is not available. Many Canon cameras have an automatic fill-flash mode, but I don't thrust this thing farther than I can throw it, and it's quite fragile, so I don't throw it.

Here comes the $1 white foamcore reflector. :-)
sfllaw
9th Mar, 2005 20:20 (UTC)
White foamcore reflectors are pretty miserable to carry around. They just take up so much space. I think that maybe having a collapsable white polyester hoop might be a good plan for future use.

My camera has a rather poor CCD and its lens is nothing to boast about. But it didn't cost me an arm and a leg, and it is very portable.

Plus, I like to use the manual mode on my camera a lot, so controlling the fill-flash is possible. I try not to use the automatics on it too much.
pphaneuf
9th Mar, 2005 21:14 (UTC)
But foamcore is dirt cheap. The collapsible hoop reflectors are awesome, but have a correspondingly awesome price.

It's a pretty decent camera for the price, yes! Dpreview.com is usually fair relative to the camera's category, so if they say it has a poor dynamic range, it's usually compared to the appropriate cameras (yes, my 20D beats the pants off your A95, that's obviously beside the point).

But according to the Canon website, even in manual mode, you cannot control the flash exposure compensation, so no fill-flash control for you. Or is the flash manual too in manual mode, like my S45? Always found that rather silly, even an EOS-1D doesn't give you manual control of the flash! Oh well, silly marketing is probably to blame here, as usual...
sfllaw
9th Mar, 2005 21:21 (UTC)
Now that I know it has poor dynamic range, I'll just stop down the lens and Gimp up the gain once I get back home.

In manual mode, I get to control flash power as well as aperture and shutter. So really, I have to do the compensation, not the electronics. But that's good enough for me. I'm still a hobby photographer, not a prosumer like you.
pphaneuf
10th Mar, 2005 19:02 (UTC)
Stop down the lens and up the gain in Gimp? You mean, underexposing on purpose, then trying to fix it up in Gimp? That's not strictly gaining back the dynamic range, but hey, whatever works, if you don't need the shadow details much, expose for the highlights!

I have to show you exactly one photo I'm extremely proud of, I'll bring it to work today. The subject is nothing interesting, I was just practicing to finish off a roll, but I really managed to milk out every last bit of dynamic range the film had to offer, it's amazing.

With the flash, you have this weird bar graph where you can set the power of the flash? Heh, it's the same on my S45, I find this being really a weird way of tweaking the flash, feels like an old manual flash from the seventies (which I could never use correctly without 10 minutes to get ready).
icedrake
9th Mar, 2005 07:15 (UTC)
Wow.
Impressions at 2:30 in the morning:

1. You look WAY more Chinese than I've ever perceived you as being before.
2. You look way *younger* than I'm used to, as well.
3. Nice pic! :)
marcydoll
9th Mar, 2005 12:22 (UTC)
You don't look dorky! You're totally stylin'!
andukar
9th Mar, 2005 18:36 (UTC)
You look almost unrecognizable without glasses. Wow.
spider88
9th Mar, 2005 18:40 (UTC)
Beautiful photos! I wish I could figure out how to be a better photographer other than, "wow my lighting sucks."

Timin's eyes are amazing!
sfllaw
9th Mar, 2005 20:15 (UTC)
Timin is really unique that way. Everyone comments on them whenever they first see them.

If only he understood, I'm sure he'd be flattered.
( 13 comments — Leave a comment )