Human eye

That_Rich wrote:

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 05:06:31 GMT, Paul Furman
wrote:


Mark² wrote:

That_Rich wrote:


On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 16:29:17 -0800, "Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even
number wrote:



That_Rich wrote:


On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 12:42:23 -0800, "Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even
number wrote:



PentaxSLR wrote:


hi all,
I have recently been trying to photograph human eyes to try and
see the patterns in the iris. i would just like to know if anyone
has and tips it would be greatly appreciated.


thanks michal Philips

Macro lens, person lies on floor beneath down-pointed tripod.
Small aperture, fast shutter, off-camera flash for minimized
highlight.

Here are a couple I took of my niece and nephew...
These are rough, but give you the idea. Irises are fascinating:
http://upload.pbase.com/image/74788427/original
http://upload.pbase.com/markuson/ima...88428/original

It's tough with kids, because they get twitchy with a lens a few
inches from their face (note the redness in the "Nephew" pic...
His eyes started to water because the proximity of the lens bugged
him a bit).

Also, they aren't as good at holding still.
These aren't great, and were just quickies, but with care and time,
it's not dificult to get some pretty nice detail.



I concur with Mark.
Macro lens and flash. In this one I used flash on camera at 45
degrees with a sto-fen diffuser and a large *indirectly* sunny
window 90 degrees to her left.....

http://www.pbase.com/that_rich/image/42510643

Cheers,

RP©

Is that your daughter's eye? Now shoot one without all that gloppy
make-up, and without so much contrast/saturation. From what I've
seen of their eyes, they don't need much in the way of manupulation
or make-up. Wow! are their eyes ever incredible...-Like in this one:
http://www.pbase.com/that_rich/image/47895463

In hind sight I remember having the flash off camera about 2 feet
left. Not that it's important but it should be mentioned.

I asked Jill to "glop" on the makeup and boosted saturation


Booooooo!



I concur. Let's see a natural eye!


It is a natural eye.
Eye for an Eye.

Aye Aye,

Natural eyelids then...

:-)

That_Rich wrote:
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 16:29:17 -0800, "Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even
number wrote:

That_Rich wrote:
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 12:42:23 -0800, "Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even
number wrote:

PentaxSLR wrote:
hi all,
I have recently been trying to photograph human eyes to try and
see the patterns in the iris. i would just like to know if anyone
has and tips it would be greatly appreciated.


thanks michal Philips

Macro lens, person lies on floor beneath down-pointed tripod.
Small aperture, fast shutter, off-camera flash for minimized
highlight.

Here are a couple I took of my niece and nephew...
These are rough, but give you the idea. Irises are fascinating:
http://upload.pbase.com/image/74788427/original
http://upload.pbase.com/markuson/ima...88428/original

It's tough with kids, because they get twitchy with a lens a few
inches from their face (note the redness in the "Nephew" pic...
His eyes started to water because the proximity of the lens bugged
him a bit).

Also, they aren't as good at holding still.
These aren't great, and were just quickies, but with care and time,
it's not dificult to get some pretty nice detail.



I concur with Mark.
Macro lens and flash. In this one I used flash on camera at 45
degrees with a sto-fen diffuser and a large *indirectly* sunny
window 90 degrees to her left.....

http://www.pbase.com/that_rich/image/42510643

Cheers,

RP©

Is that your daughter's eye? Now shoot one without all that gloppy
make-up, and without so much contrast/saturation. From what I've
seen of their eyes, they don't need much in the way of manupulation
or make-up. Wow! are their eyes ever incredible...-Like in this one:
http://www.pbase.com/that_rich/image/47895463

In hind sight I remember having the flash off camera about 2 feet
left. Not that it's important but it should be mentioned.

I asked Jill to "glop" on the makeup and boosted saturation because
this is pretty much what I was looking for. The print looks pretty
cool and often gets a reaction from people.

The reaction I'd have would be disappointment.
Reality is better, in this case.

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

Paul Furman wrote:

That is very difficult! I tried it on my own eye by machine-gunning to
nail the focus with ISO cranked up (no off camera flash)...
...not very good at all but:
http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/misc-photos/2007-02-24-eye
I had to face away from a bright window & still got a bunch of the
window reflected. You must have done that in a dark rook with flash to
the side, I kept getting the camera in the reflection till I faced away
from the window & angled the camera away from straight on.

OK that one was really bad, I tried some more with autofocus & not as
close and got it better though not great... still extremely difficult
though! It probably took me 50 shots to get any improvement.
http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/misc-photos/2007-02-25-eye
1/5 second ISO 800 at 105mm, jeeze that's tough.

On 25 Feb, 07:33, That_Rich wrote:
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 21:44:37 -0800, "Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even





number wrote:
That_Rich wrote:
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 16:29:17 -0800, "Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even
number wrote:

That_Rich wrote:
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 12:42:23 -0800, "Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even
number wrote:

PentaxSLR wrote:
hi all,
I have recently been trying to photograph human eyes to try and
see the patterns in the iris. i would just like to know if anyone
has and tips it would be greatly appreciated.

thanks michal Philips

Macro lens, person lies on floor beneath down-pointed tripod.
Small aperture, fast shutter, off-camera flash for minimized
highlight.

Here are a couple I took of my niece and nephew...
These are rough, but give you the idea. Irises are fascinating:
http://upload.pbase.com/image/74788427/original
http://upload.pbase.com/markuson/ima...88428/original

It's tough with kids, because they get twitchy with a lens a few
inches from their face (note the redness in the "Nephew" pic...
His eyes started to water because the proximity of the lens bugged
him a bit).

Also, they aren't as good at holding still.
These aren't great, and were just quickies, but with care and time,
it's not dificult to get some pretty nice detail.

I concur with Mark.
Macro lens and flash. In this one I used flash on camera at 45
degrees with a sto-fen diffuser and a large *indirectly* sunny
window 90 degrees to her left.....

http://www.pbase.com/that_rich/image/42510643

Cheers,

RP©

Is that your daughter's eye? Now shoot one without all that gloppy
make-up, and without so much contrast/saturation. From what I've
seen of their eyes, they don't need much in the way of manupulation
or make-up. Wow! are their eyes ever incredible...-Like in this one:
http://www.pbase.com/that_rich/image/47895463

In hind sight I remember having the flash off camera about 2 feet
left. Not that it's important but it should be mentioned.

I asked Jill to "glop" on the makeup and boosted saturation because
this is pretty much what I was looking for. The print looks pretty
cool and often gets a reaction from people.

The reaction I'd have would be disappointment.
Reality is better, in this case.

OK, I'll consider that.

RP©- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hi all,
I have spent all day photographing peoples eyes i have links to
the best few here
http://www.flickr.com/photo_exif.gne?id=402481317
http://www.flickr.com/photo_exif.gne?id=402481316

thanks for all your tips

Michael Phillips

Paul Furman wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:

That is very difficult! I tried it on my own eye by machine-gunning
to nail the focus with ISO cranked up (no off camera flash)...
...not very good at all but:
http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/misc-photos/2007-02-24-eye
I had to face away from a bright window & still got a bunch of the
window reflected. You must have done that in a dark rook with flash
to the side, I kept getting the camera in the reflection till I
faced away from the window & angled the camera away from straight on.

OK that one was really bad, I tried some more with autofocus & not as
close and got it better though not great... still extremely difficult
though! It probably took me 50 shots to get any improvement.
http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/misc-photos/2007-02-25-eye
1/5 second ISO 800 at 105mm, jeeze that's tough.

I haven't even tried to do my own eye... I think that would drive me
crazy...
--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

Mark² wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:

That is very difficult! I tried it on my own eye by machine-gunning
to nail the focus with ISO cranked up (no off camera flash)...
...not very good at all but:
http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/misc-photos/2007-02-24-eye
I had to face away from a bright window & still got a bunch of the
window reflected. You must have done that in a dark rook with flash
to the side, I kept getting the camera in the reflection till I
faced away from the window & angled the camera away from straight on.

OK that one was really bad, I tried some more with autofocus & not as
close and got it better though not great... still extremely difficult
though! It probably took me 50 shots to get any improvement.
http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/misc-photos/2007-02-25-eye
1/5 second ISO 800 at 105mm, jeeze that's tough.

I haven't even tried to do my own eye... I think that would drive me
crazy...

It was hard. I'm humbled.

I think I have freak eyes: mine look like ragged muscle tissue & all the
others look like interwoven threads.
http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/misc-photos/2007-02-24-eye
http://upload.pbase.com/markuson/ima...88428/original
http://upload.pbase.com/image/74788427/original
http://www.pbase.com/that_rich/image/42510643

Paul Furman wrote:
Mark² wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:

That is very difficult! I tried it on my own eye by machine-gunning
to nail the focus with ISO cranked up (no off camera flash)...
...not very good at all but:
http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/misc-photos/2007-02-24-eye
I had to face away from a bright window & still got a bunch of the
window reflected. You must have done that in a dark rook with flash
to the side, I kept getting the camera in the reflection till I
faced away from the window & angled the camera away from straight
on.

OK that one was really bad, I tried some more with autofocus & not
as close and got it better though not great... still extremely
difficult though! It probably took me 50 shots to get any
improvement.
http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/misc-photos/2007-02-25-eye
1/5 second ISO 800 at 105mm, jeeze that's tough.

I haven't even tried to do my own eye... I think that would drive me
crazy...

It was hard. I'm humbled.

I think I have freak eyes: mine look like ragged muscle tissue & all
the others look like interwoven threads.
http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/misc-photos/2007-02-24-eye
http://upload.pbase.com/markuson/ima...88428/original
http://upload.pbase.com/image/74788427/original
http://www.pbase.com/that_rich/image/42510643

It isn't easy, is it. I think flash is really the way to go for
these...unless you've got a subject who can literally lock their eyeballs,
or tolerate extremely bright lighting.

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

(Mark²) wrote:
Macro lens, person lies on floor beneath
down-pointed tripod. Small aperture,
fast shutter, off-camera flash for
minimized highlight.

Here are a couple I took of my niece and
nephew... These are rough, but give you
the idea. Irises are fascinating:
http://upload.pbase.com/image/74788427/original
http://upload.pbase.com/markuson/ima...88428/original

Nice shots. The eye is a fascinating creation. Even Darwin said:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for
adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different
amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic
aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely
confess, absurd in the highest degree."

http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/monkeybusiness.htm

To think the eye, which is more complex than todays lenses, was not
created, but evolved is quite foolish.


Cody,

http://community-2.webtv.net/AnOverc...otographyLinks

"AnOvercomer 02" wrote in message
...

Nice shots. The eye is a fascinating creation. Even Darwin said:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for
adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different
amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic
aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely
confess, absurd in the highest degree."

http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/monkeybusiness.htm

To think the eye, which is more complex than todays lenses, was not
created, but evolved is quite foolish.

Cody,
http://community-2.webtv.net/AnOverc...otographyLinks

I've been wondering how long it would take before this group was invaded by
creationist wackos. It's bad enough that those dopes peddle their absurd
fairy tale any place they can contrive an opening but now there's going to
be a long and irrelevant [to this group] thread about evolution vs. magical
thinking.

I'm glad I'm dead.

Lloyd

(Lloyd*Wells) wrote:
I'm glad I'm dead.

You won't be later.