NixTigris In reply to ChristianTode [2021-08-10 12:57:20 +0000 UTC]

Seems dead.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

NixTigris In reply to rasmus-art [2021-08-10 12:57:26 +0000 UTC]

Seems dead.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

rasmus-art In reply to NixTigris [2021-08-10 20:06:46 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

NixTigris In reply to rasmus-art [2021-08-10 20:07:50 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

wynnesome In reply to Eric-S-Huffman [2015-07-27 03:16:56 +0000 UTC]

That is correct.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Eric-S-Huffman In reply to wynnesome [2015-07-27 14:39:37 +0000 UTC]

not a problem.
Goodbye

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

wynnesome In reply to maggot216 [2014-11-01 21:09:15 +0000 UTC]

I have no idea.  He chose to become almost completely inactive on dA, and handed the group over to me when he made that decision. If any of his activity has resulted in a suspension, I'm not aware of it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

maggot216 In reply to wynnesome [2014-11-06 06:40:41 +0000 UTC]

Well His whole gallery is still up, if he /was/ deactivated, all of those would have been purged from the system by now.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

maggot216 In reply to wynnesome [2014-11-02 02:37:28 +0000 UTC]

Wasn't quite sure if it was suspension or deactivation. When I was floating through my devinbox I noticed his name struck through but deviations intact. This is common for newly deleted accounts so I promptly did my thing. But I checked back about a week later and his name and devs were still up but unlinkable.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

wynnesome In reply to scribblingnooly [2014-07-13 19:24:23 +0000 UTC]

Sorry, no, we're not a model referral service.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

scribblingnooly In reply to wynnesome [2014-07-14 12:52:09 +0000 UTC]

Many thanks for your reply and apologies for any inconvenience. All the best.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

PolarExtremesStudio In reply to Project-Emu [2013-08-05 14:48:02 +0000 UTC]

if you mean the last two they are very blurry, camera shake and shutter speeds that are way too slow are generally declined 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Project-Emu In reply to PolarExtremesStudio [2013-08-05 20:00:00 +0000 UTC]

No problem just wanted some feed back and now I know that the shutter speed was to slow I can correct it next time thanks! prob did not help having an ND4 filter on either!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

johntisbury In reply to Project-Emu [2013-08-05 20:28:56 +0000 UTC]

What were you trying to achieve by having that ND4 filter on with the images that you submitted to this group? I'm interested to learn why you wanted to use this filter shooting in the conditions that were present on the two images we declined. 

 I've looked at the two images that we declined, the first one 'Well hung' was because the point of focus was on the wall behind the model and the blue pipes going into the wall, the model in the foreground was out of focus. The second was as per Polarimpress states 1/15 sec is very hit and miss to get a sharp image especially at F3.5 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Project-Emu In reply to johntisbury [2013-08-06 08:56:26 +0000 UTC]

I find that when using a flash gun even indirectly that I tend to over expose the images so with the ND4 on it tends to underexpose and i can correct in photoshop later
don't have the luxury of studio flash lights and was just using old fashioned 500watt flood bulb as my only source of light down in a dark basement, as for missing the focal point no excuse for that I spot focused on her head and then recomposed the shot so must have missed or moved!!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

johntisbury In reply to Project-Emu [2013-08-08 09:13:20 +0000 UTC]

Is the flash gun TTL metering? If yes then you should be able to control the exposure. If not, then put you camera into manual mode and control the flash that way. The use of a HD filter in my opinion is not the way to go.  A ND4 is a 4 stop filter which is way too much to use and retain good definition in the shadow areas even with a top end DSLR. 

Finally, I'd also suggest controlling your flash sensitivity via your camera's ISO if you cannot control the flash output itself.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Project-Emu In reply to johntisbury [2013-08-08 09:32:57 +0000 UTC]

Cheers for your reply & Advice John Much appreciated

Yes the Flashgun (Bounce flash) has got TTL metering and was the top of the range Pentax model when I bought a few years back now. I tried a shoot earlier this week again in a difficult light situation and ditched the ND4 and must admit I got better results, think my problem is I expect the camera to do to much in low light and then tend to over compensate post shoot with photoshop working on the raw image.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

johntisbury In reply to Project-Emu [2013-08-08 17:28:40 +0000 UTC]

Try increasing the camera's ISO as I suggested in situations like you described. Moving from 200 to 400 will double the sensitivity of the chip and you will be surprised how further the flash will penetrate to lighten up the shadows - without affecting image quality. If you ramp up to 800 and 1600 then you will start to see image denigration, but I doubt it will be as bad as trying to pull pack in photoshop like you have been doing with the underexposed images you have been getting. 

Just a point on upping the ISO, if it's a massive space you are shooting in then you won't see much difference in the far background only the foreground and middle distance. If it's a normal size room then it will have a better result. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Project-Emu In reply to johntisbury [2013-08-21 08:16:02 +0000 UTC]

Tried another shoot in the same basement with same lighting and increased the iso manually to 200 and yes must agree i got better results and the fact that one of my latest photos has been accepted into two of the groups that you vote on it must also be an improvement many thanks for the advice always nice to get tips from the master!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

johntisbury In reply to Project-Emu [2013-08-21 17:42:13 +0000 UTC]

My pleasure glad to help.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

testshoot In reply to testshoot [2013-06-25 16:29:42 +0000 UTC]

Rasmus Morgensen from Vellum Magazine: [link]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0