|
 TeMpLaR posted:Can I have some critique on these two pictures? They are for the hoodies you get if you donate enough money for a charity event on Saturday. I was going for an 'American Apparel' feel. Have you ever seen an American Apparel ad? Because these are to them as Old navy is to AA.
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2009 04:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 14:46 |
|
|
Interrupting Moss posted:This is from a sports shoot, but this one with no basketball I like quite a bit. Nice. I like the contrast, the black and white treatment, the pose and it's just overall pleasing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2009 12:20
|
|
|
Interrupting Moss posted:This is from a sports shoot, but this one with no basketball I like quite a bit. That is loving fierce right there. The combination of simple lighting and a strong aggressive pose softened by that blank sort of bored look says confidence. Plus, blah blah blah on her draw band.. yeah.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2009 17:41
|
|
|
It's a textbook example of how much shadow you can use before it becomes too much. The shadow is there for effect, but you can still see plenty of detail in it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2009 18:09
|
|
|
I'd like to say I chose the wardrobe and everything but frankly, the only thing I knew going into the shoot was that it was a female and I hopefully would have a light-toned wall. She was just a powerful person. Seriously, 6'2", can dunk the ball (for real, not just a slightly higher layup), holds state record in high jump, and just gets by on raw athleticism. Before her first collegiate practice she didn't even know to shoot free throws with her fingertips. And she helped her HS win the state basketball tournament. Thanks fellas
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2009 18:38
|
|
|
So uh... does this.. work somehow? I was messing around with my newfangled lightning gear and ended up with this overblown monstrosity that somehow speaks to me on some level.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2009 22:19
|
|
|
If it's you why not reshoot with the light dialed a wee bit down?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2009 09:57
|
|
|
Yeah, the detail you lose on the white parts really kills it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2009 10:04
|
|
|
Thanks for the feedback, yeah it's a shame I didn't dial it down some stops, the other ones I got doesn't have anything near the same feel to it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2009 10:27
|
|
|
Dial it down in production and dial it up in post and see how it looks. If you mess with curves: bump up highlights without clipping, you might get the same effect without losing all that detail
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2009 19:16
|
|
|
I'm in the middle of post for this shot I took of a charming Englishman who had some tales to tell as he poured coffee crystals into his plastic bottle of milk. So far i've done a fair bit of experimenting with this photo, and I quite like the look so far. Any thoughts around the PP?  Orig picture here if anyone cares.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2009 02:28
|
|
|
Cyberbob posted:I'm in the middle of post for this shot I took of a charming Englishman who had some tales to tell as he poured coffee crystals into his plastic bottle of milk. I can't tell because of the size, but it seems like the focus is on his beard and not his eyes as well, so that could be tough to overcome. Could just be an effect of the above mentioned tonal quality, though. I like the photo, so if you can get his eyes to pop more, I think you'd have a keeper. e: I tried to pm this to you, but alas I did a B&W conversion on this. I use Silver Efex pro with six control points: one over each eye, two on his beard, one on his forehead, and another on his jacket in lower left. I increased contrast overall, pulled brightness a bit, and upped structure a bit, and made the beard darker and eyes brighter. If you used the original RAW file it would look much better, the compresses JPEG just doesn't have as much information. Some various fiddling for about 5 minutes got me this, which could be improved, too:  It doesn't look like you messed with it much out of camera, actually. Post-processing is okay, go hog wild, just do it right. JAY ZERO SUM GAME fucked around with this message at 15:35 on Dec 22, 2009 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2009 15:14
|
|
|
Interrupting Moss posted:My attention goes to his beard immediately because of the light falling on it, which probably isn't desired. Dodging his eyes/face or burning down his beard a bit may help that.  hats!!! I could not survive without a bounce card on a flash.Interrupting Moss posted:I did a B&W conversion on this. I use Silver Efex pro with six control points
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2009 17:04
|
|
|
Cheers for the tips. I'll go dodge/burn crazy and see what I come up with. They don't do his bright eyes justice, they were bloody glowing I tell ya. A step in the right direction? I'm worried I might be overdoing it now. Cyberbob fucked around with this message at 23:05 on Dec 22, 2009 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2009 22:53
|
|
|
Way too far on the eyes
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2009 23:22
|
|
|
Interrupting Moss posted:go hog wild, just do it right. dude has been into the spice too much
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2009 23:32
|
|
|
Haha, my thoughts exactly. *dials it down a notch* Didn't want him to look like the next muad'dib, but Ive entered the "look at something too much and it'll lose meaning" phase. Like saying the word "Spoon" too many times. Cyberbob fucked around with this message at 23:49 on Dec 22, 2009 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2009 23:43
|
|
|
Cyberbob posted:Cheers for the tips. I'll go dodge/burn crazy and see what I come up with. They don't do his bright eyes justice, they were bloody glowing I tell ya. woa, its like hes an extra from the movie Dune, when their eyes glow blue from the spice. id dial it down juuust a tad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2009 01:09
|
|
|
The spice may extend life for some people, but hopefully take three is better. I'm actually worried I overcooked the burn/dodge on his face. Hmph. Cyberbob fucked around with this message at 08:29 on Dec 23, 2009 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2009 01:50
|
|
|
Just picked up a D300. Shot with a 50mm 1.8. Still figuring out the camera.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2009 16:00
|
|
|
shykid10 posted:Just picked up a D300. Shot with a 50mm 1.8. Still figuring out the camera. Typical mistake made with using that lens? Shooting at f/1.8 has a razor thin depth of focus, and this missed. It's great for portraits, but the eyes need to be in focus for that to really work. Other wise, stop down to f/5.6 or so.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2009 16:58
|
|
|
Interrupting Moss posted:I'd like to say I chose the wardrobe and everything but frankly, the only thing I knew going into the shoot was that it was a female and I hopefully would have a light-toned wall. She was just a powerful person. Seriously, 6'2", can dunk the ball (for real, not just a slightly higher layup), holds state record in high jump, and just gets by on raw athleticism. I would have used a stronger light, maybe a smaller umbrella, but everything else checks out  
LuisX fucked around with this message at 13:53 on Dec 27, 2009 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2009 05:09
|
|
|
LuisX posted:I would have used a stronger light, maybe a smaller umbrella, but everything else checks out 
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2009 07:15
|
|
|
pwn posted:Clone out that lump of dark on the lower right side My apologies, it was an unfinished shot It should be updated by now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2009 23:16
|
|
|
Any hints on shooting someone with almost no chin?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2009 12:16
|
|
|
psylent posted:Any hints on shooting someone with almost no chin? Shoot slightly above eye level, butterfly lighting, avoid profile and be careful with 3/4 shots.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2009 16:06
|
|
|
I'm loving my new 50D and 580EX II!      
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2009 17:20
|
|
|
Whitezombi posted:I'm loving my new 50D and 580EX II! I hear that. I started out working with Vivitar 285HVs in manual mode and upgrading to a E-TTL-II flash was incredible. Suddenly I didn't have to worry about small lighting details like flash power, distance to subject and all that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2009 17:24
|
|
|
Whitezombi posted:I'm loving my new 50D and 580EX II! Your child is a random reaction image generator! Excellent pictures.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2009 21:47
|
|
|
manpants posted:Your child is a random reaction image generator! Excellent pictures. Thanks - she is my niece. I had a blast shooting her - I couldn't stop laughing. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2009 22:38
|
|
|
Whitezombi posted:Thanks - she is my niece. I had a blast shooting her - I couldn't stop laughing. Post them all. Expressive kids rule.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2009 22:45
|
|
|
That is the best baby I've ever seen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2009 14:10
|
|
|
Here's a portrait sitting I did on Sunday. I was able to get the subjects to smugle their Nutcracker costumes out of the dance studio for a more interesting backdrop. I think I am getting better with my lighting, had my wife assisted me with a foam core bounce board and used CLS to trigger my sb-600. Annoying things on location were that they required a hard surface to do their dancer things and the ground was really muddy, so I chose these stairs. Three things, first being critique. Obvious flaw is that stupid blown sky. Don't know what happened there. It wasnt super bright and was fairly overcast. I metered for proper exposure first and concentrated on their faces with fill. I dont remember getting any blinkies on it either. Second concern is that I'm not sure why they aren't sharper when looked at close up. I don't think I will have any problems printing 8x10s. Is the kind of bluey glow what the call Chromatic Abberation? Should I have stopped down to f/4.0 or f/5.6? It seems I didnt get that much subject sepparation at f/3.5 and I was worried about to thin a depth of field at f/2.8 for 2 people. Third, what is an ideal focal length that would show both subjects full length framed by the stairs and stair banisters like photo number 4? Is this the kind of situation where an 85 f/1.8 or 105 f/2.8 would have made a difference for subject separation and could I have framed it simliarly? I was using the tamron 17-50 for all of them. These are on my smug mug. links to the full size file are underneath.  f/2.8, 1/100 - DOF was probably too thin. http://clients.paulchinjr.com/photos/751939429_JpaCd-O.jpg  f/3.5, 1/125 http://clients.paulchinjr.com/photos/751934508_EHP22-O.jpg  f/3.5, 1/125 http://clients.paulchinjr.com/photos/751936898_pmCya-O.jpg  f/3.5, 1/100 - focal length was 20mm. I was back probably a good 10 or 12 feet away from the subjects. http://clients.paulchinjr.com/photos/751935776_qPn5F-O.jpg  f/2.8, 1/125 http://clients.paulchinjr.com/photos/751937486_7CGMC-O.jpg  f/2.8, 1/200 http://clients.paulchinjr.com/photos/751937700_6eB69-O.jpg I liked these the best and representative of what we did.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2009 16:45
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:Here's a portrait sitting I did on Sunday. I feel like if you ever get the opportunity to do this again you ought to have more fun with it; except for the park setting there's no difference between these shots and what someone might have taken of them onstage. It seems cliche (someone in CC already did something like this with fairy tale heroines, if I remember right), but I'd like to see them doing un-Nutcracker-like things. Reading a newspaper together, or eating a paper-wrapped street vendor hotdog. These are probably terrible suggestions, but you get the idea; we already know what the sugarplum fairy looks like in a pose, so either show her not posing, or do it in a way that's new and interesting. Feel free to disregard this post, because god knows I've posted some bad poo poo in this thread in the past. I'm not sure I'm qualified to give advice yet. Whitezombi posted:I'm loving my new 50D and 580EX II! LuisX posted:jackpot fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Dec 29, 2009 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2009 20:56
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:
I think the background is a little busy on these, it either has to add to the composition or you have to work around it with shallower DoF or something. Especially this one, the sword just kind of becomes one with all the trees behind it and it's hard to read.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2009 21:05
|
|
|
jackpot posted:lack most is just good composition. brad industry posted:I think the background is a little busy on these I totally agree with you both on the depth of field. How can you go wide and still maintain depth of field? I couldn't figure a way to put any more distance between the subjects and the trees. Is the key to use a longer focal length like a 105mm or 70-200? Full length wides are really difficult because I can never seem to get any depth of field. Close ups are easier. I missed symmetry on a few of these. The ground was a muddy mess and was not trying to misstep and fall on my rear end. haha, I really wanted to do stuff like them in a grocery store or have the nutcracker pose as the burger king, in a burger king restaurant. But the point of the shoot was portraits for the dancers and thats what they wanted. Also, the guy for some reason was already anxious about being outside in costume. So getting him to play along in a public place was never going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2009 21:17
|
|
|
Yeah pretty much, longer focal length and more distance from the subject. That blue stuff is CA but it's pretty easy to fix in post.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2009 21:20
|
|
|
The Canon 135mm f/2.8 soft focus lens is actually not a bad portrait lens. It must have been designed from the ground up as a portrait lens because I can't think of why else you would want soft focus except for maybe flower photos or something. The lens is light, cheap, compact and it's not razor-sharp, but that's not necessarily a bad thing in portrait photography. Another down side is that AF is awfully slow on the lens as it seems to take forever to go from lock to lock compared to other lenses. Again, not necessarily a bad thing if your subject is relatively static. EDIT: Holy crap, I take back what I said about it being cheap. It was cheap but it seems to have rocketed in price in the last while. It seems to have doubled in price up to $500-$600. What the gently caress? http://www.photoprice.ca/product/00012 HPL fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Dec 29, 2009 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2009 21:34
|
|
|
brad industry posted:Yeah pretty much, longer focal length and more distance from the subject. welp, i guess its off to gear land. At least I can quantify exactly why I need it instead of buying it without knowing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2009 21:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 14:46 |
|
|
Shot a baby for the first time. Goddamn it's difficult getting a 10 month old baby to stay in one place.   And an outtake:  Any tips on how I could improve?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2009 22:21
|
|
