[How does your avatar look today ?]

5 hours ago, Coby Foden said:

(In real life those two affect the DOF too. f-number is obvious naturally, but longer lens length means that the DOF is narrower than in shorter length lens with the same f-number setting.)

This makes a lot of sense: in RL, then, you can set the f-number and then further adjust the DOF without changing it.

I'll have to experiment more with the photo tools, I think, to get a clearer sense of how these two might be adjusted independently to produce different kinds of effects and exposure.

But tomorrow. Right now my head is definitely hurting a little . . .

[How does your avatar look today ?]

8 hours ago, Alyona Su said:

Yes, yes! The wonderful thing about Second Life viewer (all of them) is that the Lindens created it to literally mimic true camera and lens physical properties.

There are virtually no photo tools in the SL viewer, are there? If there are, I wasn't able to find them!

[How does your avatar look today ?]

9 hours ago, Orwar said:

   So this... Started with Cat suggesting I do a Christmas shot. And uh... Well, things happened. My creative process is occasionally a bit awkward and quite thoroughly twisted.

Ho ho ho????

This is terrifyingly beautiful. Or beautifully terrifying! Either way, I really enjoy the characteristic aesthetic you use in these shots.

(I need to reread the The Picture of Dorian Gray again soon. Can't imagine why I thought of that . . .)

[How does your avatar look today ?]

10 hours ago, Sagadin said:

Pure Windlight and Firestorm lighting,  otherwise cropped only! It's nice when it all comes together inworld... 

Great pic, and I especially love the warm sunlight and shadow on the wall and bookshelf!

I need to play with Windlight a lot more. When I shoot in the morning or evening, I find that the entire scene tends to get saturated in yellows and oranges. This is much more selective, and really lovely!

[How does your avatar look today ?]

3 hours ago, Coby Foden said:

Mouse wheel scrolling changes the camera distance from the subject (works exactly the same way as the Alt+cam feature)
- - it does not change any of the DoF settings (view angle, FOV, f-number, Foc Length)

OMG. Of course. WHY DID THIS NOT OCCUR TO ME BEFORE????? That totally makes sense!!! THANK YOU.

 

3 hours ago, Coby Foden said:

Foc Length tells what lens length to simulate for the depth of field (DoF) effect
- - bigger numbers produce narrower depth of field (NOTE: this is not the same as real camera lens length it's just a simulation for the DoF effect)

Yes, but here's what is confusing me. This is what Wildmist says about focal length:

Quote

The Firestorm Phototools tooltip says this about the focal length: “This tells the viewer what Focal Length/Lens Length to simulate for the DOF effect. Higher numbers produce a narrower depth of field.”

That’s not what focal length does (I think whoever wrote that tip got it confused with f-number.). In real life photography, a higher focal length produces a narrower angle of view (View angle in Phototools.). And a smaller focal length produces a wider angle of view.

https://kultivatemagazine.com/2016/06/27/sl-photography-focal-length/

In practice, I'm still confused about the actual difference between the effects produced by field of view and focal length in FS.

[How does your avatar look today ?]

3 hours ago, AnyaJurelle said:

Then I crank graphics up to ultra and go into phototools > DoF/Glow tab, tick 'Enable Depth of Field (DoF), then tick 'Show the Current FOV of Viewer Screen' (then look down to the very bottom right of your screen to note the number it's showing you - make sure to untick the 'Show current FOV' box up top again so you don't go to all the hard work of setting up a shot only to have the FOV number displaying in the snapshot, ruining your pic).

Type that number in the FOV box below, then simply click your cursor inside the number field of the 'f-number' box for it to take effect.

Thanks Anya, lots of useful stuff here!

This tip about adding the FOV info is a really good one! I'm definitely going to try this!

3 hours ago, AnyaJurelle said:

it helps to exaggerate what you see through the camera because then it usually comes out just right in the final photo, even though it will look horribly overdone through the lens

Yes! I've got adept at doing this, actually, because I found that shadow blur that was showing on my screen and in preview wasn't appearing the same way in the actual pic. I generally crank the blur up to 12 now (which means manually entering the number: the arrow buttons won't go beyond 4). I need to start doing this with the depth of field settings too.

3 hours ago, AnyaJurelle said:

As mentioned, just have a play with the controls. It's the best way to learn what things do and the effects they create.

I've been mostly setting the view angle and other stuff, as per Wildmist's suggestions, and then eyeballing adjustments. And playing with the controls to see what they do. And mostly, I think, I'm starting to get a feel for it.

3 hours ago, AnyaJurelle said:

I've shared what I do - it's pretty simple and basic - and please believe me when I tell you I'm no distant relative of Einstein's.

You're sure? Second cousin once removed to Richard Feynman, perhaps?

Thanks!!!

[How does your avatar look today ?]

6 hours ago, AnyaJurelle said:

Whoops - forgot to put the info in the other thread

Hair: TRUTH ~ Aislin

Jacket: Blueberry ~ Kimi

Skin: Colivati Beauty ~ Tanya (LeLutka)

Body: Maitreya Lara

Wow.

[How does your avatar look today ?]

Ok, so I've been using Myra Wildmist's suggested settings for DoF for a while now. (In fact, I have them saved on a notecard along with other steps to setting up a shot). I have two related questions I'll throw out there to anyone working with the FS Phototools settings.

1) Suppose you want to simulate using an 85mm lens for a "close-up." So, you set View Angle to 0.497, FoV to 28.5, Foc Length to 85, and f-number to a value between 1.4 and 16 (I usually use 9). BUT you want to get in closer with the shot.

Ignoring for a moment any other factors, is it a more accurate simulation of the lens to use the mouse wheel / camera tools slider to move in closer, and NOT change the View Angle? Or should I Ctrl + 0 to get in tighter to produce a more realistic simulation of the lens? AND IF I DO THE LATTER, do I also reset FoV, Foc Length, and f-number?

2) I understand the theoretical difference between FoV, Foc Length, and f-number, as well as the function of the Circle of Confusion setting. In practice, however, playing with all of these seems to produce exactly the same effect: increasing or reducing the amount of blur in the out-of-focus areas.

Is there an actual, real, discernible difference between these when it comes to fiddling with the DoF for the pic????? Cuz I'm darned if I can see any.

Thanks, O Photo Gurus!

[How does your avatar look today ?]

5 hours ago, Talligurl said:

With all of  this talk about poseballs and moving and all that great stuff that i do use a lot, Sometimes I just find the scene set the windlight,  and let my ao run till I see something I like.

Really, really lovely composition! The sort of "dustiness" in the distance is Windlight mist/fog?

[How does your avatar look today ?]

2 hours ago, Amanda Dallin said:

I kinda got put off of SL weddings when nearly 2/3 of the grooms made a pass at me in IMs while we were there with his bride discussing arrangements although remembering the 3 way lesbian vampire wedding still makes me smile.

Oh dear. And ick.

I was never in it "professionally." I think I jokingly officiated at a mock wedding once, and then word got around that I was "good" at it. Of the 4 or 5 times I did it, I already knew the groom at least, or the couple, as a couple, so that wasn't an issue.

I DID once preside over a vampire wedding . . . but it was a fairly standard thing. I'm feeling regrets now that it was!

[How does your avatar look today ?]

5 hours ago, Alyona Su said:

The funny thing is that because it is an original digital image we "over-process" it, but in over-processing, you made it look a lot more like a natural, camera-captured *photo*graph (Photo being as defined to be "from light"). By over-doing it, you've actually "pulled it back"!

Thanks Alyona!

Part of what I was trying to do here (other than playing a bit with over-exposure and glow) is to reproduce a feeling of motion or movement -- something you can do by playing with shutter speed in RL, but that's obviously not really possible in SL (as things stand). Photoshop has a few tools to simulate that . . . more experimentation required!

[How does your avatar look today ?]

16 hours ago, Talligurl said:

Oh but SL weddings are so much fun, and all the forum angels want to be bridesmaids.

I used to do a sideline in presiding over SL weddings.

Just sayin' . . .

(Although, as a result, I never got to be a bridesmaid. That would be nice too.)

[How does your avatar look today ?]

17 hours ago, TatianaNikolay said:

Adding the final touches to the mantle...

Tatiana, there's often a sort of "70s photograph" feel to your pics that is really distinctive and interesting! Are you using a filter?

[How does your avatar look today ?]

6 minutes ago, CurseSmile said:

You can practice w/ me to lol

it looks carefree, I like it

A very sweet offer. And thank you!

I'm sort of trying for "free form," but carefree works too!

[How does your avatar look today ?]

Well, speaking of over-processed . . . an experiment in Photoshop.

I may not be a very good dancer, but I'm an exuberant one!

[What's a Good, Functional Height for a Female Avatar?]

1 minute ago, Blush Bravin said:

It is possible, but my experience in helping dozens of people to correct their proportions, tells me that it's not intentional. The most common response I get after helping a person with the avatar is, "I knew something was wrong but I didn't know how to fix it."

I'm sure that's often the case.

But take for instance the popularity of the "hourglass" shape for women. It's probably not as prevalent as the more conventional shape, but it's popular enough that, for instance, there is more clothing made for Slink's Hourglass mesh body than there is for its more "realistic" Physique. The hourglass shape is, of course, a reflection to some degree of very contemporary tastes in feminine form, but it's also pretty clearly an exaggeration of these. And, surely, a deliberate one.

[What's a Good, Functional Height for a Female Avatar?]

So much of the argument about height and proportion -- "realistic" vs. "exaggerated" -- still seems to me to be premised on the idea that "realism" is some sort of Gold Standard against which we are to measure the validity of an avatar's shape. And the underlying assumption of that argument is either that 1) SL should look as much like RL as possible, or 2) that "realistic" proportion is more aesthetically pleasing precisely because it is "realistic". It's a kind of visual analogue of the old and tired augmentationist vs. immersionist argument, is it not?

I think I still want to argue that many people choose to "violate" a realistic proportion because, aesthetically, they like the look. If Bratz or Barbies have odd proportions, it's not because the toy makers "got it wrong"; it's because they liked a particular look. Similarly, the Mannerists in the 16th century deliberately violated realistic proportion not because they were incompetent, but because they were making a point (probably about the relationship between art and nature). So, this famous Mannerist painting by Parmigianino:

 

Parmigianino wasn't a poor painter. He was rejecting nature, which is to say "realism," as an infallible guide. Is it not possible that people who consciously choose to create avatars with very long legs, tiny heads, etc., are doing so because, at some level at least, they are rejecting the idea that SL must be a slavish imitation of RL?

[What's a Good, Functional Height for a Female Avatar?]

37 minutes ago, Skell Dagger said:

I know enough of you from your posting history over the years to understand that you're sensitive to the more subtle nuances and meanings of words that others may use without thought or consideration.

Not always. Not sufficiently, in any case.

I was very genuine in conceding that I might have expressed myself better in my post. In particular, there is a really unnecessary expression of personal opinions there regarding a whole lot of not-very-relevant stylistic choices. If I thought it was constructive or contributed anything meaningful to the post, I'd keep it. As it is, it doesn't: the world really doesn't need or probably want to hear what I think about these things, so I'm removing it.

i admire how you generous and considerate you are in the opinions you express here and elsewhere. I am really very happy that we seem to be on the same page about this issue.

[What's a Good, Functional Height for a Female Avatar?]

17 minutes ago, Skell Dagger said:

Posting in a thread is articulating one's thoughts aloud.

This is a fair point, and I'll concede that I have not, in the post you've cited, been careful enough about how I have couched my words.

That said, I think you are eliding some pretty important and significant distinctions here. There IS a difference between stating personal preferences (clearly and carefully characterized as such) in one's own post, without attaching judgements to particular names, and responding negatively to someone's particular look. And there IS a difference between stating personal preferences, and "advocating" for a particular style or look in others, even generally.

You are always pretty careful to be non-judgmental in your own comments here: I respect that in you. But there is some danger here, maybe, of crossing a line whereby any statement of personal preferences, likes or dislikes, can be interpreted as hurtful.

I actually value the personal opinions of others: I learn from them. I am, within reason, happy to hear reasoned criticisms of my look, my photography, etc. I don't post here, and I don't think others do either, merely to collect "likes," or to gaze at myself adoringly onscreen. I don't want to live in a bubble where my tastes and opinions are unchallenged because no one ever articulates any others.

There is, surely, a balance that can be struck here?

[The VaNiTy ThReAd]

2 minutes ago, AnyaJurelle said:

Good heavens no! You can get a demo pair on the MP. Just look up Evani - Anita jeans, try a pair on and see for yourself. The fatpack is fantastic, too.

Ah. Sadly, only for Maitreya. 😞

[The VaNiTy ThReAd]

1 hour ago, AnyaJurelle said:

Told ya...the only pair of pants you'll ever need is those.

But(t) . . . but(t) . . . but(t) . . .

Don't they have a big hole in the ass?????

[How does your avatar look today ?]

1 hour ago, AnyaJurelle said:

Then checked it for complexity (as I do) once I had it on. What a shock. It was - wait for it - 59k - wearing exactly the same clothes, hair and boots I was wearing with my LeLutka head, which was just 29k in total by comparison.

Wow. I didn't know that.

I got the Genus beta because, frankly, it was cheaper, and it was being much praised. Overall, I am pretty happy with it, although there are things about it I don't like.

At this point, however, the very idea of dropping probably another L$7000, and expending hours and hours and hours getting it to where I want it, just makes me want to weep.

Maybe in the future I'll be stronger, but for now anyway the Genus works for me.

[How does your avatar look today ?]

6 hours ago, Talligurl said:

In the morning, I have  to check the forums before i decide what to wear

You mean, which bottle to wear?

("I think today is a Veuve Clicquot kind-of-day . . .")

[What's a Good, Functional Height for a Female Avatar?]

36 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

only because I suddenly feel like a child standing next to them

This.

But that's their choice, and mine, as I'm sure Lil would agree.

[What's a Good, Functional Height for a Female Avatar?]

4 hours ago, Skell Dagger said:

But it's right for them.

Judge as you will and if you like. But 'too tall people' is something that has been banged on about incessantly in SL for years. Those of us who happen to like our avatars being tall - not because we're contrary or are thumbing our noses at "how real people actually look", but because we like the way that it looks on us - are quite used by now to being told that there's something wrong with us.

Leave it to me to stumble blindly into another contentious subject. Before I started this thread, the only person I'd run across who was really vociferous about avatar height was Jo Yardley, in connection with her Berlin sim.

The first time I gave avatar height any serious thought was in 2013, when I was shaping my alt. My assumption up to that point had always been that, if everyone was taller, then we were all to scale, more or less, with each other, and our heights in cm were really just so many arbitrary numbers.

But, for reasons that I don't fully recall -- probably because I was thinking and writing about virtual body image -- I decided to resize my alt to realistic height and proportion. I discovered two things: first, that it was pretty much impossible to have a realistically proportional body unless you scaled down, and second, that I was actually pretty uncomfortable (I'm not sure I can even tell you why) going to social venues, like clubs, and being anywhere from one to two heads shorter than the vast majority of other people there. So I ended up compromising, and being a somewhat shorter "giantess" among other "giantesses."

To be entirely candid, how my body looks beside others matters to me. Probably it shouldn't, but if I am being honest with myself, it does. It was the initial (although not the final) reason why I decided to go mesh when I came back a few months ago. And my sense of how comfortable I am going to feel with a smaller body is, to a great degree, going to depend upon my perception of myself in the context of the bodies of those I associate with.

BUT . . . in final analysis, I like the look of my avatar better when it's realistically proportioned, and I can't do that properly at a height over about 180-190 cms. Ultimately, the proportion rather than the height is what matters to me. So I'll probably live with the discomfort of feeling really "short," if that is the requisite price to be paid for the look that I prefer.

It is, I think, important to recognize that the choices we make about our body shapes are personal aesthetic choices -- like preferring a particular hairstyle, or dress colour, or type of footwear. And those are individual choices that are, appropriately, made by each of us as individuals. I will "judge" them, in the same way that each and every one of us judges what we see others wearing in both RL and SL, but I don't feel the need to articulate that aloud to them, nor is it the same as wanting them to conform to my sense of style, anymore than I'd be happy with them wanting me to conform to their preferred paradigms for avatar height.

I guess we'll all just have to learn to get along, each in our very different way.