[Kefln]

November 17, 2008 at 1:24 pm

Well I have a Fuji S5 pro, so I’m quite sure with the right lighting it could easily handle the noise. But unfortunately I don’t have the cash or space to shell out for a complete home studio!

The problem of course is the background. I found on experimenting with the chicks that printing out a pure white background is hard. Any noise just screams out.

As for the cat, trying to keep her attention is impossible. Trying to keep her anywhere near a background is impossible. She’s too fast and too uninterested with whats going on.

Course once I get the cat done I’m moving onto the dog…not making things easy on myself!

[Kefln]

November 17, 2008 at 12:16 pm

Thanks Martin.

I was aiming to get the shallowest DoF possible. I’m really looking for that head coming out of nothing look. Not easy with a cat that has better things to do! :D
The light wasn’t great either, not to mention the background and the white balance…its a work in progress…

As for the shots themselves, the second would be my favourite. I was looking for more eye contact though.
The last is great, but it isn’t sharp enough. She moved towards the camera at the last second, cutting off her ears and chin.

Part of the problem is my reluctance to push the ISO over 400.

My end goal is to do with the cat what I did with chicks, but a bigger animal brings bigger problems.

[Kefln]

July 27, 2008 at 10:42 pm

Very cute! Well done. Like the framing and the blue and white bird really stands out from the green background.

[Kefln]

July 17, 2008 at 10:38 am

Has to be a joke!
Although it would be going back to horse power :lol: Thank you very much, I’m here all week…don’t throw things at the face please!

[Kefln]

July 17, 2008 at 10:03 am

eas wrote:

thanks for the input Keflin.

I was intrigued by the “something a little different” and price factors of the s5, but decided to stay with what I know and got a d300.

thanks again, I wonder what the s6pro will bring with it.

Ah I was just throwing in my two cents!
Its not often that the question gets asked, so I may as well respond when it is. On the plus side I enjoy being the only person I know with the S5. :D

The D300 is a great choice, wouldn’t mind getting my hands on one for a test run too.

The S6 should be interesting, whenever it comes. I’m looking forward to seeing whether they’ve continued with the development of the two diodes, course I’ll be disappointed if its not the case.

Enjoy the new camera!

[Kefln]

July 16, 2008 at 7:19 pm

Congrats – glad all went well

[Kefln]

July 16, 2008 at 12:27 pm

I maybe a bit late in on this conversation but I love my S5 pro!
It’s a good solid camera, gives consistent results and is easy to use.

I’ve read all the reviews and understand that its not a fast as its Nikon counterpart, but that has never slowed me down. (Pun intended)

If you are in the market for something a little different, like I was, then it’s a good choice. Just like the Olympus with their Four Thirds system lenses, Fuji have gone a different way with their two photo diodes approach. And that is the crux of the matter, some have supported the change, others have criticised it. The “we fear change” school of thought.

But that’s all the technical background stuff. What really matters is that camera is a solid workhorse. It won’t let you down and no matter how awkward your shooting conditions.

Samples:

Taken at night with just a wall for support:

Taken in complete darkness, just a very small maglite for light:

And if you knew the number of shots I had to take to get these chick pic’s, not to mention the uncomfortable positions I had to sit in for hours, you’d be impressed by the cameras over all performance:

Now I’m not the most gifted individual in the world, the shots above are my experiments, but I’m sure a more “professional” photographer would give a better representation of what the camera is capable of.

[Kefln]

July 14, 2008 at 11:35 am

kenh wrote:

Folks, in addition to my views expressed early in this thread, I have one other point to make,

The subject picture shows a young girl in a pose that is very akin to the page 3 type (sexy) pose we see in the
media every day.

For an adult to pose like this is fine, as in it is an adult’s choice.

But in this case, the child has no choice, and in todays world, these types of shots CAN be used by the not so normal, for their own ends.

Naivety in what is publicly displayed is dangerous, and is just what the pervs trade on!

Lets picture the children posing as children and leave the adults poses to the adults – art or no art!

8)

That is exactly what I said in my post

kefln wrote:

As for Anne Geddes. Whether you agree with her artistic merit or her choice of subject, it doesn’t matter, her work is recognised internationally. Essentially she takes pictures of naked kids and sells them. Yet because of the “cuteness” factor it acceptable. But posing a child in a more “adult” pose isn’t. Had the girl in the OP been lying face down, chin cupped in her hands, B&W, some creative blurring, this wouldn’t be a conversation. It wouldn’t matter if she were naked because the focus would be on her face, her eyes, not her body. And that seems to be the line.

The OP has a child in a pose that is considered to be more “adult”, it is designed to draw attention to the form of the model.
If kids are to be used as art, especially when they are naked, consideration should be given to how the picture looks as a whole. By that I mean what the focus of the image is. A child’s eyes can be fantastic, innocent but playful. For example a picture I took of my son last year where he looks a little brazen:

[img]

But if the focus is on the child’s legs or torso, then a line has been crossed, least in my opinion.

Course that always brings me back to Geddes…

[Kefln]

July 13, 2008 at 10:45 pm

I read this earlier went to reply but stopped…

Maybe its jealously on my part too, but that sort of thing would really bug me. :evil:
Like it bugs me when I see some spoilt rich brat on TV carrying the latest camera, just using it as a P&S. Having it just because it costs more, not because they know what it can do.

But that’s the child in me so I’ll stop ranting now. :wink:

I guess that its great that your friend can afford all those things. I hope she enjoys them. And the bright side is that if she enjoys the hobby you’ll have someone to compare notes with!

[Kefln]

July 13, 2008 at 10:35 pm

Mick451 wrote:

I’m not sold on the whole societal fear thing either, the way the news media like nothing more than a good scare story to send us to bed each night.

I agree completely. The media make a habit of blowing things out of proportion.
Role playing games turn kids into Satanists, computer games lead to kids shooting kids, crime shows give criminals ideas, motor sports lead to joy riding.
There are important social problems being openly discussed, but pigeon holing them is just as bad as not talking about them.

Mick451 wrote:

From what I’ve read the paedopervs don’t necessarily get all their kicks from naked photos of kids.

Again I agree. Like any sort of porn, and I use that term lightly, people get their kicks out of different things. This is a family board so we can’t exactly go into details, but logically thinking, if men get their jollies looking at feet, you can assume that some get their jollies looking at children’s feet. Does that mean we should ban sandals? Or adds for shoes?

Mick451 wrote:

I just don’t understand why the laws we have already aren’t good enough.
Why a murderer can get out of prison in 7 years, why a rapist can serve only 18 months, why a paedoperv can get a suspended sentence.
It’s near enough to giving someone an incentive to murder/ra pe/pillage as makes no difference.
Long ‘must serve full time’ sentences with hard labour and no remission for violent crimes.
Sentences should punish, severely, not be a revolving door to a social network of like minded crims.

Exactly.

And now I feel like a bath…some subjects just give you the shivers…

[Kefln]

July 13, 2008 at 10:10 pm

summerdreamn wrote:

Kefln, i see the point you’re making there. but that might be another thread altogether as well. is it still art if it appeals to plebs? (i’m not calling anyone names either)

The point I’m making is that there is a huge paranoia on this subject at the moment. Some of it is justified some of it isn’t. The problem is that anyone brave enough to stand in the public eye and say that its “art” will be labelled a pervert before the words are fully out of their mouths.

I have a 7-year-old son, he swims every Friday and I can’t take photos of it just in case I include other kids in the shot. Yet if he were playing football no one would have an issue with it. The difference isn’t in my intentions but the very fact that the kids aren’t fully clothed in the pool. Now I’m happy with the no cameras at the pool rule, simply because I don’t know the intent of the other spectators. Hence the paranoia.

Lets face it we, more than most, know the power of the internet and the digital camera. You can take a shot, load it and that image is available world wide in seconds.

Its an imperative that we look after our children, but at what cost?

As for Anne Geddes. Whether you agree with her artistic merit or her choice of subject, it doesn’t matter, her work is recognised internationally. Essentially she takes pictures of naked kids and sells them. Yet because of the “cuteness” factor it acceptable. But posing a child in a more “adult” pose isn’t. Had the girl in the OP been lying face down, chin cupped in her hands, B&W, some creative blurring, this wouldn’t be a conversation. It wouldn’t matter if she were naked because the focus would be on her face, her eyes, not her body. And that seems to be the line.

IMHO if I hear someone ranting about children in photographs I always think about Geddes. If people want to ban one sort of child “art”, should there ban a total ban?

[Kefln]

July 13, 2008 at 7:00 pm

Jody wrote:

Well its the ugliest child I’ve ever seen for a start!

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Kefln]

July 13, 2008 at 3:45 pm

Just out of mild curiosity what do people think of this photo:

It is a child. It is naked. And was taken by one of the most successful commercial photography artists of all time.

Is it wrong? Will it end up on the back sites of the internet fuelling the disturbing thoughts of the few?

Should these be banned? Why aren’t there open calls for blood against those that sell these images day in and day out?

Just a thought…my two cents :wink:

[Kefln]

June 24, 2008 at 11:36 am

Thanks for the replies – they are fairly cute and now that “happy feet” has been mentioned its all that I can see! :D

Anyone have any criticisms at all? I’m looking to do another batch later this week so I’d like to get “it” better :!:

Another:

[Kefln]

June 23, 2008 at 5:02 pm

Nice shots, good to see you are putting the new lens to good use! :D
The first and the last would be my favourites.