|
ConfusedUs posted:Do you get what I'm saying, though? It's hard to put together a coherent portrait set without at least some idea of what you want it to look like before you start. Even if it's something generic like "I want them to look tough" or "I want pretty mountains as scenery," at least that's something to build on. You have a foundation. Somewhere to start. No, I totally get you. I didn't really like the arrangement either. It was really last minute so even though I was willing to scope out some locations, flesh out some ideas with them, etc., I had absolutely no time. They liked and were able to use at least one of the pictures (dis one), but I wasn't really 100% happy with the whole experience. Something to bear in mind for next time. I hadn't realized it until you put it into words, but the fact that I had like zero direction really was devastating. It also made directing them during the shoot all but impossible. I mean, aside from making sure everyone is in frame, what can you really say to your model(s) when you don't know what you're trying to convey in an image?
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2009 05:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 02:53 |
|
|
In the future, if you have to shoot in strong light again, I find a good generic direction to take is just "strong" images. Imagine high contrast, strong body language, etc. Once you start on an idea too, it grows and you can build from there. Another problem I see in the set is that the people aren't really interacting. This is probably most evident in the pics with the two girls.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2009 05:55
|
|
|
My two cents even though I'm not a photographer: Myself and a bunch of my studio mates recently got photographed for a magazine, and the vast majority of the "posed" shots ended up looking really lame as we were all tense, trying our hardest to hold a pose, smiling until our cheeks ached, etc. When the photographer started joking with us and encouraging us to chat with each other, joke ourselves, etc, the photos became a thousand times better. I'm sure any photographer with at least a few hours of experience will know this, but for those few newer ones out there -- give it a shot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2009 06:10
|
|
|
ConfusedUs posted:I don't like the construction stuff in the second and third at all, but the biggest problem is her expression. She looks unhappy. Solid. I will get her to smile and go around the corner to avoid the construction. Sounds simple enough. How did you feel about the composition, posing, and lighting?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2009 14:38
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:Solid. I will get her to smile and go around the corner to avoid the construction. Sounds simple enough. How did you feel about the composition, posing, and lighting? I think I agree with ConfusedUs, she needs to smile more. I think she looks almost like she's just doing it to humor you. Her disposition also carries out through her posing, as well. It looks to me like she's almost uncomfortable. The biggest issue I've found with taking portraits (especially with children): If they're not having fun, or what have you, the pictures will definitely reflect that, regardless of the smile or pose. As far as composition, to me (I'm still an amateur at best.) it seems a tad busy in the background, with the bricks, and especially in the 2nd shot where the fences overlap. Maybe drop the bricks a little more out of focus? She's also wearing a similar color to the bricks, so she doesn't stand out as much, either. The first shot, I think, is mainly hindered by her pose / expression. I do like the lighting use in the first 2 shots. The reflection on the close hand rail in the 2nd shot looks pretty cool. I'm still really new to "non-point-and-shoot" style of photography, so my observations may be way off the mark.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2009 16:20
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:Solid. I will get her to smile and go around the corner to avoid the construction. Sounds simple enough. How did you feel about the composition, posing, and lighting? Posture might help, tell her no slouching! The pictures would portray a bit more confidence, I think
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2009 06:38
|
|
|
Not sure if you guys can see this, it's set to private on Flickr to avoid ire from my clients. This is probably my most favourite portrait recently, though the godawful shadow on the topright is annoying my, but there was nowhere else I could have repositioned without it disturbing the picture. Also, overdone vignette, although that's my personal taste, and the guy wincing a bit, which I noticed only later. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2009 13:15
|
|
|
Fragrag posted:This is probably my most favourite portrait recently, though the godawful shadow on the topright is annoying my, but there was nowhere else I could have repositioned without it disturbing the picture.  ). Hell, even the lighting looks the same.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2009 14:30
|
|
|
Verman posted:Ive learned to never show them test shots or bad shots, people like when they see themselves looking good and get more confidence in you and themselves, the first sign of them looking bad is going to bring them down like lead weights so pick and choose what frames you show them. I was working with someone last weekend and she had a lot of good shots. In between places in the car I showed her a few of the ones I liked. We got to a new place and she kept doing something that looked awkward on the camera. I couldn't explain to her how to stop looking the way she was so I showed her sand said "This is what it's looking like" it was obviously a bad shot but after seeing it she knew how to correct what she was doing. Anyway, I'd show a bad shot if I was having trouble with the model(s) and needed them to further understand what they're doing looks like. Once I shot a couple for their engagement, hideous couple at that, but they kept A hugging. You know where they lean over and hug like they're good ol' chaps or something. No matter how many times I tried to get them to move in and embrace each other it didn't work. So I ended up having to show them the beautiful arch between their bodies they were making to give them a clue. Anyway, I don't think it's so bad to show bad pictures if your subject doesn't understand what their actions are looking like on the other side.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2009 14:49
|
|
|
benisntfunny posted:Once I shot a couple for their engagement, hideous couple at that, but they kept A hugging. You know where they lean over and hug like they're good ol' chaps or something. No matter how many times I tried to get them to move in and embrace each other it didn't work. So I ended up having to show them the beautiful arch between their bodies they were making to give them a clue. Good lord. They must have sex with all their clothes on or something. Maybe you should have put some nice music on, told them to slow dance and photographed that. And yeah, FragRag, definitely give Photoshopping out the shadow a try. It is a good shot. Might also want to try increasing the fill light a bit too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2009 18:12
|
|
|
benisntfunny posted:stuff Yeah its definatley a matter in which you have to pick and choose depending on the shot/model because I know there are people that if they see a bad photo of themselves you are not going to see a shred of confidence out of them the rest of the shoot. Then there are those that you can say "this is what I need you to change...and they change it so that definately comes with how you perceive your model to be. One of my first shoots was for an engagement and they asked to see some of what I was taking and they saw one really bad shot, where the girl started to talk and looked "special" and the guy had an equally as weird of a look and I didnt see them happy/confident the remainder of the time. Another time I showed a doctor his portrait and how everything was coming out the same...as you mentioned and it helped so it is definitely a delicate thing to contemplate. Typically if Im not getting anywhere then yes I will show bad ones in order to change something up but if I am getting good usable photos from them then I dont bother.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2009 19:01
|
|
|
Fragrag posted:Not sure if you guys can see this, it's set to private on Flickr to avoid ire from my clients. I agree about the shadow in the top right. The vignetting is obnoxious, although I have a strong dislike for anything more than tiny, incidental vignetting. I'm not sure how I feel about the shadow in front, the only thing I get about it is that it adds to the linearity of the picture but just their bodies might be enough. I might have tried to fillflash that out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2009 06:52
|
|
|
Any good tips or resources on self-portraits?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2009 14:57
|
|
|
unprofessional posted:Any good tips or resources on self-portraits? If you're using a delayed timer, make sure you give yourself plenty of time to get into the pose you want. It may help to put a clock or a stopwatch nearby so that you know when your camera is about to fire. If you're using a release cable, be sure to hide it (and the fact that its in your hand) from view.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2009 15:36
|
|
|
HPL posted:Good lord. They must have sex with all their clothes on or something. I'd really hope so. For the sake of humanity that they don't actually bread. Used to be friends of mine; back when I would have and did shoot an engagement for free. It was a disaster in the end. I got very few decent shots (most looked like they were trying way too hard to act loving instead of actually being in that state). They were very rude (Hi! Free Photographer who is your friend) and in the end the Fiance who is a bitch (okay they weren't both my friends) accused me of making her "fatter" in photoshop after seeing a few samples (Why would a photographer do this?). They started "demanding" to send them all the raw files... At which point I deleted all the photos and told them good luck and go gently caress yourself. Cheap son of bitches are married now; they never did have another engagement shoot. or perhaps they did and those were also so ugly it was impossible to show. Their wedding shots consist of some jackass using a Canon Digital Elph with the flash going off in every shot regardless of need. It's something special... memories to cherish forever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2009 17:07
|
|
|
I assisted the university photog today doing headshots of the football team (just basic stuff, setting up/breaking down, getting the names/order of everyone). As an unexpected bonus, the athletic department shoehorned the women's volleyball team in ahead of them. With the volleyball team he had a few of them in the room at a time, which made it go faster (they all saw the poses he wanted ahead of time) and put them more at ease. The football team was like herding cats, they dicked around, distracted each other, etc. So I'd say what I got out of it was "for single headshots of groups of people, shoot women with other women in the room, and probably do the guys one at a time". benisntfunny posted:I'd really hope so. For the sake of humanity that they don't actually bread. Used to be friends of mine; back when I would have and did shoot an engagement for free. This is all pretty funny, and a good lesson to for the rest of us. Pompous Rhombus fucked around with this message at 23:41 on Aug 15, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2009 23:36
|
|
|
benisntfunny posted:They started "demanding" to send them all the raw files... At which point I deleted all the photos and told them good luck and go gently caress yourself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2009 00:17
|
|
|
Fragrag posted:Not sure if you guys can see this, it's set to private on Flickr to avoid ire from my clients. Buy a reflector; it would work really well for a shot like this. It'll be the best ~50 bucks you ever spent, trust me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2009 10:53
|
|
|
Fragrag posted:Not sure if you guys can see this, it's set to private on Flickr to avoid ire from my clients. Make a heart vignette. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2009 12:31
|
|
|
Ok I'm back this time with more smile. These were done around 3pm making the sun was pretty harsh, so I brought the sb-600 for fill. I learned a lot. The idea this time was just focusing on good portraits. Any crits?  
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2009 15:33
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:Ok I'm back this time with more smile. These were done around 3pm making the sun was pretty harsh, so I brought the sb-600 for fill. I learned a lot. The idea this time was just focusing on good portraits. Any crits? The first is significantly better! The second is a great example of why redheads should not wear pink. Also her eyes are lidded.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2009 03:01
|
|
|
How can you diminish a subject's scars and poor complexion while taking a portrait? Aside from the obvious cleaning up in post -- any lighting, etc. technique? Sorry, I'm not really up to snuff yet on lighting. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2009 03:18
|
|
|
No. 9 posted:How can you diminish a subject's scars and poor complexion while taking a portrait? Aside from the obvious cleaning up in post -- any lighting, etc. technique? Sorry, I'm not really up to snuff yet on lighting. Overexposing the skin a little helps clear things up a bit. Soft light helps hide wrinkles and the like by preventing any hard edges. Otherwise, yeah, makeup and post-processing are it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2009 03:33
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:Ok I'm back this time with more smile. These were done around 3pm making the sun was pretty harsh, so I brought the sb-600 for fill. I learned a lot. The idea this time was just focusing on good portraits. Any crits? I think you really need to work on keeping your highlights under control, even if that just means going out at a different time of the day. The super hard light combined with the direct fill just makes for an aesthetically unappealing photograph.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2009 05:53
|
|
|
ConfusedUs posted:
Pink looks great on me, hush. It's just an unattractive shirt (sorry). I love her eye make up though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2009 09:11
|
|
|
ConfusedUs posted:The first is significantly better! Thanks, and what do you mean by lidded eyes? Is that the kind of sleepy look shes got? Does the pink top clash with the color of hair? Does it make the whole image look too red? TsarAleksi posted:I think you really need to work on keeping your highlights under control, even if that just means going out at a different time of the day. The super hard light combined with the direct fill just makes for an aesthetically unappealing photograph. Ok, I'll try to keep those highlights in mind.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2009 14:27
|
|
|
I suggest shooting the in the shade, or near sunrise/sunset to get a softer light. Also, try not to cut off body parts at weird lengths (ie, just the top of the knees showing in the first one).
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2009 15:05
|
|
|
My first portrait shooting experience was interesting to say the least. My dad wanted me to shoot an outdoor party (with a Great Gatsby theme, which was a lot of fun) in the evening. While having the sun behind me is nice, the problem was that it was going through a tree, and as the night went on, it got away from the tree and blew out about half the area I was shooting. Ordinarily, "change the shooting area!" is the order of the day, but this was in front of a friend's 1914 Model T (which was loving gorgeous) and he didn't want to move it if he didn't absolutely have to. This is an example of what I was dealing with. Smaller groups, I obviously got in closer, but this was a problem all night. Would there be something I can do down the line to fight that?  I already know the picture isn't great by any means, but I had just received my new flash and had virtually no time to practice with it, so everything was on AUTO settings. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2009 16:54
|
|
|
DJExile posted:My first portrait shooting experience was interesting to say the least. My dad wanted me to shoot an outdoor party (with a Great Gatsby theme, which was a lot of fun) in the evening. While having the sun behind me is nice, the problem was that it was going through a tree, and as the night went on, it got away from the tree and blew out about half the area I was shooting. Ordinarily, "change the shooting area!" is the order of the day, but this was in front of a friend's 1914 Model T (which was loving gorgeous) and he didn't want to move it if he didn't absolutely have to. 1) shoot raw 2a) meter between sunlit and shadow, adjust histogram in post to maximize the camera's dynamic range and have real shadows and highlights. 2b) if you have a good working knowledge of your camera's meter and dynamic range, then meter off the sunlit white clothing and meter for +X where X is the max amount of stops above neutral your camera can capture. you can recover somewhat blown highlights in post even if your camera is flashing the clip warning.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2009 17:42
|
|
|
TsarAleksi posted:I think you really need to work on keeping your highlights under control, even if that just means going out at a different time of the day. The super hard light combined with the direct fill just makes for an aesthetically unappealing photograph. For the first shot, I think that perhaps a stronger fill would actually be preferable. I dunno about you, but to my eyes, it seems that the sunlight is overwhelming the flash and that's why there are still shadows across the face. What do you think? That shot is definitely a lot better, purely because the subject seems happy. My only real criticism of the pose is that the knees are messy and distracting. Either change the pose, or crop them out: 
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2009 09:16
|
|
|
nonanone posted:I suggest shooting the in the shade, or near sunrise/sunset to get a softer light. Also, try not to cut off body parts at weird lengths (ie, just the top of the knees showing in the first one). spog posted:That shot is definitely a lot better, purely because the subject seems happy. My only real criticism of the pose is that the knees are messy and distracting. Either change the pose, or crop them out: I will look out for shade next time. I thought that the knees were at an appropriate angle, they are not foreshortened into an unnatural length or forced into a weird perspective that makes her look contorted. I wanted to include more of her body because it anchors her on the stairs and the pose is more comfortable looking. With the crop Spog suggested, its unsure what her pose is and the what the background is. But I will keep these comments in mind when I want to show more body.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2009 14:50
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:Ok I'm back this time with more smile. These were done around 3pm making the sun was pretty harsh, so I brought the sb-600 for fill. I learned a lot. The idea this time was just focusing on good portraits. Any crits? First photo: She's got a really bad shadow running down her chin, as well as a wicked highlight blowing out her hair. Her glasses (or at least looking towards the left / her right) are casting a shadow back onto her. Theres a bad shadow on the left / her right arm. Basically to sum all the lighting up: a reflector would have saved it. I think you're right that cropping it makes it weirder than with the knees -- but at the same time, the knees don't look that great either. If you could get just a little more of them that would have been better.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2009 15:26
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:I will look out for shade next time. I thought that the knees were at an appropriate angle, they are not foreshortened into an unnatural length or forced into a weird perspective that makes her look contorted. I wanted to include more of her body because it anchors her on the stairs and the pose is more comfortable looking. With the crop Spog suggested, its unsure what her pose is and the what the background is. But I will keep these comments in mind when I want to show more body. I will certainly concede that it would be better to include all her legs - but I couldn't really show that without breaking out MSPaint..... My point is: be careful when chopping off body parts. Having half a set of knees looks odd. On a wide scene like that, it's better to include the whole body.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2009 15:58
|
|
|
I found this video very helpful http://www.howcast.com/videos/9743-How-To-Take-a-Nude-Portrait
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2009 20:45
|
|
|
Portraiture is kind of how I got into photography when I was shooting film. It's just a hobby for me, but it's a fun one. Someone earlier in the thread (ConfusedUs, I think) mentioned how any lucky beginner can take a good portrait through trial and error — pros can do it without thinking. I think that's true, and I'm trying to make it from the former to the latter, but I'm not there yet. Over the last year or two I've been playing more and more with controlled lighting. Anyway, I sometimes think that I've hit a plateau, and I can't seem to push past it. I'd love to get people's thoughts. Old stuff, from ~5 years ago, on film:       When I made the transition to digital, I felt like the quality of what I shot rolled way back. It's taken me a long time to get back to something I'm rather happy with. More recently:                 I seem to have a running theme of liking to make people look at least vaguely threatening. I guess it's a comfort zone of mine. Making people look angry is easy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2009 23:44
|
|
|
Toupee posted:I found this video very helpful I am confused, is this a joke? I never envisioned nude portraits with a porn setting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2009 19:38
|
|
|
Toupee posted:I found this video very helpful I found that video absolutely useless.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2009 20:32
|
|
|
thetzar posted:Portraiture is kind of how I got into photography when I was shooting film. It's just a hobby for me, but it's a fun one. Someone earlier in the thread (ConfusedUs, I think) mentioned how any lucky beginner can take a good portrait through trial and error — pros can do it without thinking. I think that's true, and I'm trying to make it from the former to the latter, but I'm not there yet. Over the last year or two I've been playing more and more with controlled lighting. Anyway, I sometimes think that I've hit a plateau, and I can't seem to push past it. I'd love to get people's thoughts. I like what you do. e: Some of your shots there are underexposed and I don't see a creative reason for doing so. JAY ZERO SUM GAME fucked around with this message at 20:56 on Aug 24, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2009 20:52
|
|
|
ConfusedUs posted:I found that video absolutely useless. Don't. loving. Touch. Them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2009 20:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 02:53 |
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:Ok I'm back this time with more smile. These were done around 3pm making the sun was pretty harsh, so I brought the sb-600 for fill. I learned a lot. The idea this time was just focusing on good portraits. Any crits? Keep this thread rollin'... The sun is awful. If you are in love with the location but it's a lovely time of day, but you gotta shoot now...just gobo the sun. Either get an assistant or a stand/clamp/foamcore and block out the sun directly over your model....then light to taste with flashes. The sun will still handle the surroundings. These books are fantastic for the strobist/location portrait shooter. Same author for both and they're cheap. I highly recommend them Minimalist Lighting: Professional Techniques for Location Photography http://www.amazon.com/Minimalist-Lighting-Professional-Techniques-Photography/dp/1584282304/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252140611&sr=8-3 Minimalist Lighting: Professional Techniques for Studio Photography http://www.amazon.com/Minimalist-Lighting-Professional-Techniques-Photography/dp/1584282509/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252140653&sr=1-4 When you want to start impressing your photog friends (or just annoy them), the next step in really understanding light is: Light: Science and Magic: An Introduction to Photographic Lighting http://www.amazon.com/Light-Science-Introduction-Photographic-Lighting/dp/0240808193/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252140611&sr=8-12
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2009 09:56
|
|
