[Wind Chaser]

[jmc207]

14,336?

[low.pfile]

51,200

[jmc207]

51,200

I think you may be correct.

[Jon L]

Don't know about what ISO, but do we want to see EVERYTHING just because we CAN ?

[Wind Chaser]

51,200

You cheated!   ISO51200, 1/40s, 85mm, ƒ/5.6

Post processed with a single pass of Adobe Camera RAW & Topaz Denoise.  No layering, no masking, or other form of processing.  This sure makes me wonder where technology will take us in the next 5 and 10 years. 

[JohnR]

Pretty impressive, must have been practically dark! Nice shot too although I'd be curious to see what happened if you moved the frame down a little. I'm inclined to agree with Jon L, this hyper-real detail that digital does for portraits is the reason I still shoot Tri-X when I get a chance.

[JohnR]

Oh - is this your image?

[Wind Chaser]

No, I don't own a K5 - but this has me thinking about getting one...  Maybe.

[SET Man]

Hey!

    If you are using/posting other's people photo(s) as a courtesy you should reveal your source and give the credit to the owner or the person who took the photo(s). It is the right thing to do

Take care,
Buddy

[nathanm]

In nearly 200 years of constant development, photographic technology has finally enabled humans to record the true grossness of human skin!  Now our future progeny shall truly know what grandmother's pores, moles and blemishes looked like in breathtaking detail!  Huzzah!

[Wind Chaser]

    If you are using/posting other's people photo(s) as a courtesy you should reveal your source and give the credit to the owner or the person who took the photo(s). It is the right thing to do

You're quite right, it's never my intent to take credit for sharing someone else’s work.

[Wind Chaser]

In nearly 200 years of constant development, photographic technology has finally enabled humans to record the true grossness of human skin!  Now our future progeny shall truly know what grandmother's pores, moles and blemishes looked like in breathtaking detail!  Huzzah!

Wait till you see full size images taken with the 645. It's scary what that level of detail can reveal. 

[JohnR]

Right, well, since it's not WCs image then... detail is for landscapes, not portraits. I see such disastrous "portraits" in pro studios and wonder who on earth is paying money for those. "A portrait is a painting, photograph, sculpture, or other artistic representation of a person..." (Wikipedia) If you want to be recorded for science, then just fill in the donor card on your driver's licence. Gah.

[Wind Chaser]

You would think professional models would have some say in what is allowed and not allowed to be seen by the public.  And when every facial hair on Ms Otherwise Beautiful stands out in all it's glory why would any serious photographer want his name associated with such an unflattering image?