Golden Girl - NWS

[loftus 40]

FWIW, shot with the new Nikon 16-35.

 

Edited May 15, 2010 by loftus

[Steve Williams 0]

Exquisite Jeff, just stunning light.

 

Steve

[loftus 40]

Thanks Steve; here's one more, and again FWIW shot at the 35 end. I really like this lens seems to be sharp all the way through from 16-35 with no diopter. First image was at 24mm.

 

And then to be complete, here's one at 16mm, with minimal left and right crop.

 

Edited May 15, 2010 by loftus

[Alex_Tattersall 88]

Very nice!

[bcliffe 2]

Kudos ! Very well done in all aspects. Hat's off to both you and the model ... these shots are not easy to do.

 

Cheers

Ben

 

ps. Any lighting tips from the first image?

[Cal 5]

Lovely!!

 

lighting is spot on.

 

what setup did you use? did you use a gel ?

[loftus 40]

Thanks guys.

Lights are getting more complex; did add a small gelled Inon slave below and to the right.

Edited May 16, 2010 by loftus

[fdog 3]

Excellent as I would expect from you! Kudos.

 

...Just wondering what the model was hanging from for the 2nd photo. Feet out of the water, suspended from a diving board? Very nice effect.

 

 

All the best, James

[loftus 40]

Excellent as I would expect from you! Kudos.

 

...Just wondering what the model was hanging from for the 2nd photo. Feet out of the water, suspended from a diving board? Very nice effect.

 

 

All the best, James

Thanks James, this image is completely underwater right side up as you see it, I use an acrylic platform that I can raise and lower.

Gets me to wondering, does the mystery go out of the images if one explains how they are done?

Edited May 16, 2010 by loftus

[Don in Colorado 2]

Thanks James, this image is completely underwater right side up as you see it, I use an acrylic platform that I can raise and lower.

Gets me to wondering, does the mystery go out of the images if one explains how they are done?

 

Your images are incredible, and having you explain them does not detract from the awe.

[PRC 2]

Exceptional as always - thanks for continuing to post them.

 

Paul C

[loftus 40]

A friend pointed out that the version of the first image I posted was a little too cooked. I pulled the Recovery slider back and definitely got a technically better image, but lost the golden glow I liked.

I'd like to know which one folks prefer.

 

Edited May 17, 2010 by loftus

[bcliffe 2]

A friend pointed out that the version of the first image I posted was a little too cooked. I pulled the Recovery slider back and definitely got a technically better image, but lost the golden glow I liked.

I'd like to know which one folks prefer.

 

Personally I would vote for the cooked image. Your subject has more pop, the colours may be a little excessive but they match the name of the photo ... so in my mind it works.

Edited May 17, 2010 by bcliffe

[fdog 3]

Another vote for image #1.

 

"Technically better" isn't necessarily better art.

 

 

 

All the best, James

[Alex_Mustard 0]

Really nice images, Jeff!

[james 0]

Jeff - these are superb! I am of course very jealous that you're back in the water for the summer when it's still pretty chilly here. But our first baby-swimming lesson of the year is this weekend so we'll have to just suck it up :-)

 

I too like the first image more than the re-worked one. Just something about the glow - that I like - even if it's a bit processed.

 

Cheers

James

[divegypsy 20]

Hi Jeff,

 

Nice pictures. I actually prefer the second rendition of image #1. To me it isn't so contrasty. More finesse and subtle toning.

 

As a demonstration of the16-35mm lens quality, I'm not sure these pictures really do the job as the peripheral edges and corners of the pictures are black with no detail. So the viewer gets no information about the lens performance behind the dome in these parts of the picture.

 

And as an aesthetic comment, I would say, "Why were these shots taken underwater?" There is little to distinguish that fact. And little to distinguish them from shots any photographer might take in a topside studio with a seamless black backdrop. I would rather have seen something in the pictures that makes it clear that the shots are underwater. Maybe a trickle of bubbles somewhere.

 

But in any case, a very nice set of pictures. Thank you for sharing them with us.

 

Fred

[loftus 40]

Hi Jeff,

 

Nice pictures. I actually prefer the second rendition of image #1. To me it isn't so contrasty. More finesse and subtle toning.

 

As a demonstration of the16-35mm lens quality, I'm not sure these pictures really do the job as the peripheral edges and corners of the pictures are black with no detail. So the viewer gets no information about the lens performance behind the dome in these parts of the picture.

 

And as an aesthetic comment, I would say, "Why were these shots taken underwater?" There is little to distinguish that fact. And little to distinguish them from shots any photographer might take in a topside studio with a seamless black backdrop. I would rather have seen something in the pictures that makes it clear that the shots are underwater. Maybe a trickle of bubbles somewhere.

 

But in any case, a very nice set of pictures. Thank you for sharing them with us.

 

Fred

Hey Fred,

Thanks.

A couple of comments. I agree these are not comprehensive with regard to the peripheral quality of the 16-35, but from my perspective for pool use I am pleased with the performance. The last image of the reclining nude shows pretty good edge to edge sharpness of the model's feet and hands without any smearing(uncropped from left to right), and more importantly I was happy that there seems to be less peripheral distortion than I saw with my 17-35 setup.

As to the aesthetic issues, I don't think there's a right and wrong. Some images have bubbles or other clues that they are underwater, other's don't. I think it would actually be quite difficult to duplicate some of the poses where the model is so relaxed, without the effects of gravity etc in the studio, things like the floating hair etc. Anyway, all that really matters to me is that the images are interesting whether they are topside or in the pool.

Edited May 27, 2010 by loftus

[divegypsy 20]

HI again Jeff,

 

Please don't misunderstand what I was saying. I was not trying to infer any "right" or "wrong" at all. Simply saying that the underwater fashion shots that I have seen and like the best were very clearly taken in the underwater environment - usually a pool. And its something I would love to try, but just haven't made it happen. I'm still in the middle of that transition from film to digital. And having fun with that, but spending a lot of time trying to get my new D700 housings modified to the level of convenience of operation that I had with the F5 housings I used for the last ten years. I'm finally getting close. And since we live within reasonable distance of each other, I hope that we might get the chance to meet this winter when I'm back in Florida. Right now I'm in South Australia. I also really appreciate your comments on the lenses as I have just finished having gears made for the 16-35mm lens (now added to the 17-34 and 14-24). I used and liked the 17-35 almost from its introduction. The other two lenses I haven't really gotten to use yet as my last big dive trip was to Lembeh.

 

Again, my compliments on the pictures and my thanks on your analysis of the lenses.

 

Fred

[loftus 40]

HI again Jeff,

 

Please don't misunderstand what I was saying. I was not trying to infer any "right" or "wrong" at all. Simply saying that the underwater fashion shots that I have seen and like the best were very clearly taken in the underwater environment - usually a pool. And its something I would love to try, but just haven't made it happen. I'm still in the middle of that transition from film to digital. And having fun with that, but spending a lot of time trying to get my new D700 housings modified to the level of convenience of operation that I had with the F5 housings I used for the last ten years. I'm finally getting close. And since we live within reasonable distance of each other, I hope that we might get the chance to meet this winter when I'm back in Florida. Right now I'm in South Australia. I also really appreciate your comments on the lenses as I have just finished having gears made for the 16-35mm lens (now added to the 17-34 and 14-24). I used and liked the 17-35 almost from its introduction. The other two lenses I haven't really gotten to use yet as my last big dive trip was to Lembeh.

 

Again, my compliments on the pictures and my thanks on your analysis of the lenses.

 

Fred

No worries Fred; hope we can get together. I understand your preference. I simply try to approach the pool as if it were a studio, without preconceptions as to whether it should look like it's underwater or not. Often the ambiguities that are introduced are what makes the photograph interesting. In fact just in this thread, James (fdog) asked how the model was suspended in the second image, I think he thought she was hanging upside down in the water, whereas she was right side up in this case.

[TheRealDrew 0]

FWIW, shot with the new Nikon 16-35.

 

As always, stunning work.

[Ed_Dman 0]

Awesome shots... Me like!

 

Ed.

[wommby 0]

HI again Jeff,

 

Please don't misunderstand what I was saying. I was not trying to infer any "right" or "wrong" at all. Simply saying that the underwater fashion shots that I have seen and like the best were very clearly taken in the underwater environment - usually a pool. And its something I would love to try, but just haven't made it happen. I'm still in the middle of that transition from film to digital. And having fun with that, but spending a lot of time trying to get my new D700 housings modified to the level of convenience of operation that I had with the F5 housings I used for the last ten years. I'm finally getting close. And since we live within reasonable distance of each other, I hope that we might get the chance to meet this winter when I'm back in Florida. Right now I'm in South Australia. I also really appreciate your comments on the lenses as I have just finished having gears made for the 16-35mm lens (now added to the 17-34 and 14-24). I used and liked the 17-35 almost from its introduction. The other two lenses I haven't really gotten to use yet as my last big dive trip was to Lembeh.

 

Again, my compliments on the pictures and my thanks on your analysis of the lenses.

 

Fred

 

 

Hi Fred,

 

Am interested to know exactly what you have in you d700 set up. I am looking to get the d700 with a Nexus housing and was looking to use the 14-24mm lens but not sure if this is my best option. I noticed you stated the 16-35mm is now added to your 17034 and 14-24.

Can you give me some advice on what you like best and why? Also, are/were you in South Australia for the Cuttlefish breeding at Whyalla? My husband and I just returned from there a couple of weeks ago. Amazing stuff, we had a great time.

 

Deb

[stewsmith 14]

I must have been away when you posted these. Amazing images, and such a beautiful girl.

 

Stew