|
Haggins posted:Yeah you won't notice anything at ISO 400 and even 800 will be hard to tell. I never shot with a 70D but I bet even 1600 will be barely noticeable. I had a 50D and I was always fine going up to 1600. There is off-camera lighting in those shots. A remote flash through an umbrella from above and the front, and a ring light off a reflector on the other side. I'm not using built-in flash or hot-shoe lighting on any of those shots. But ok, I don't generally consider 1/15 to be super slow. Sounds like I should.
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 22:00 |
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:There is off-camera lighting in those shots. A remote flash through an umbrella from above and the front, and a ring light off a reflector on the other side. I'm not using built-in flash or hot-shoe lighting on any of those shots. But ok, I don't generally consider 1/15 to be super slow. Sounds like I should. It was the off-camera lighting that probably helped make the shots look as sharp as they are. The flash exposure is much faster and the ambient probably had less of an impact on the exposure. But generally 1/15 is very slow, yes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
Generally the rule of thumb I've found is to shoot faster than 1/focal length on full frame to avoid camera shake. Also are we calling pictures with women in them cheesecake now? I can dig that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Generally the rule of thumb I've found is to shoot faster than 1/focal length on full frame to avoid camera shake. Not all pictures with women but I think, pretty young girl in lingerie with a sexy but not an explicitly sexual pose kind of counts as cheesecake.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:There is off-camera lighting in those shots. A remote flash through an umbrella from above and the front, and a ring light off a reflector on the other side. I'm not using built-in flash or hot-shoe lighting on any of those shots. But ok, I don't generally consider 1/15 to be super slow. Sounds like I should. Let your flash do the heavy lifting. I'd keep the shutter speed at 1/160th or 1/200th or what ever the max flash sync speed. You shouldn't need to worry about the shutter speed unless you're doing something special like high speed sync stuff for action or over powering the sun or slowing things down for blur / light trails. Most of the time you should just set it and forget it. Aperture is used to balance the ambient light. In a straight up studio setting I set it to whatever it takes to black out all ambient light. Could be f/8 could be f/11, just depends on the place. In an outdoor situation if I want some of the environment in the shot, I would underexposed the background a stop or two and leave it at that. Or I set it to normal exposure to keep things balanced. From there I would then adjust the power of the flash by using distance or the flash setting. After that, if I'm still not getting what I need, I start jacking up the ISO.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 00:30
|
|
|
Haggins posted:
You have this backwards. Aperture is what sets the flash exposure, shutter speed is what balances the ambient. The flash exposure time is the same (relatively) no matter what shutter setting you use as long as it's inside the sync range. To underexpose a background like you describe you would set the shutter speed to -2 stops under a reading for the ambient light and aperture as appropriate for the flash power.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
Pro-tip: don't give advice unless you actually know wtf you are talking about.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
David Hobby felt a chill. It could only mean one thing. Somewhere on the Internet someone was wrong about off camera flash. He called Zack Arias. Zack had felt it too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
Dren posted:David Hobby felt a chill. It could only mean one thing. Somewhere on the Internet someone was wrong about off camera flash. He called Zack Arias. Zack had felt it too. Joe McNally slides down a pole and he doesn't know why
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:Joe McNally slides down a pole and he doesn't know why There's a shipment with a D500, some SB-5000s, and some SB-920s at the bottom of the pole. A note is attached: "make us look good, Joe"
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
I don't know, that's just the way I learned and it works for me. Aperture does affect the flash exposure and ambient light. Shutter speed only affects the ambient light. The reason why I usually don't adjust the shutter speed for balancing is two fold. First, shutter speed doesn't give me the control I need when the max sync speed is 1/200 or 1/250th or whatever. Once you go over that you start to get banding (high speed sync excluded). Secondly, I don't want to worry about blurry images because my shutter speed is too slow (unless that's what I'm going for). Dren posted:David Hobby felt a chill. It could only mean one thing. Somewhere on the Internet someone was wrong about off camera flash. He called Zack Arias. Zack had felt it too. http://strobist.blogspot.com/2007/10/lighting-102-assignment-balance.html quote:1. To alter flash and ambient levels together: So basically I do that, then I control the flash by adjusting the power or its distance from the subject. Haggins fucked around with this message at 03:14 on Feb 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 03:05
|
|
|
Haggins posted:I don't know, that's just the way I learned and it works for me. Aperture does affect the flash exposure and ambient light. Shutter speed only affects the ambient light. If you are using direct flash then you won't get blur until 1/8th of a second (roughly, YMMV based on subject distance). Yes using the aperture will allow you to over or underexpose the image. It won't allow you to balance your ambient fill to a properly exposed flash lit subject which was kinda the point of using the word "balance".
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 03:26
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:If you are using direct flash then you won't get blur until 1/8th of a second (roughly, YMMV based on subject distance). Yes using the aperture will allow you to over or underexpose the image. It won't allow you to balance your ambient fill to a properly exposed flash lit subject which was kinda the point of using the word "balance". No one should ever use direct flash. Edit: without a modifier that is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
Owns Haggins posted:No one should ever use direct flash. Not true at all. On axis fill, hard key lights, rim lights, etc, are all things you can do with an unmodified direct flash.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 03:32
|
|
|
 Lexi by Steve V, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 03:57
|
|
|
drat that's awesome.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 05:01
|
|
|
What's the trick for getting the sun to glow like that? I see it in a lot of portraits but I'm never able to replicate it. Perfect shot or Photoshop editing? E; I think I hit one of my best portraits here. Lighting, pose, depth of field seem to come together. Please point out any glaring mistakes so I can continue to learn. 
Judge Schnoopy fucked around with this message at 02:45 on Feb 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 06:37
|
|
|
 I'm teetering between liking the expression and thinking its a bit too detached.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
iSheep posted:
Expression good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
 ice cream by Tom Olson, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:
The horizon is off, but that's not what seems out of kilter. The sidewalk angles, with the boards of the sidewalk, combined with the slight tilt in horizon is freaking me out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
Street photo? Portrait photo? Why not both? Untitled by Jason, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
I don't always smoke a pipe, but when I do, I also wear a bunch of skull rings (good photo btw)
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
 Yevgeny Thinking About his Mother by Niamh O'Donovan, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
I took some more shots of Anastasia. Still wide open and overexposed but a faster shutter this time. Anastasia 37 by Iain Compton, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 11:06
|
|
|
thetzar posted:Street photo? Portrait photo? Why not both? Mrenda posted:
I really like both of these. Helen Highwater posted:I took some more shots of Anastasia. Still wide open and overexposed but a faster shutter this time. This is a solid improvement on your earlier ones. I'd keep it at 1/50 at the least.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 13:08
|
|
|
^^ Thanks! here's another, 1/100 this time, same lighting setup. Anastasia 23 by Iain Compton, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 14:22
|
|
|
In a Kurtz mood. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 10:32
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
So I'm currently working on the overall look of a shoot I want to do. Here's a couple of images as a bit of proof of concept/standalone work.  What do you guys like/dislike? I'm going for a bit of a soft, painted feel.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
XTimmy posted:So I'm currently working on the overall look of a shoot I want to do. Here's a couple of images as a bit of proof of concept/standalone work. flipped vertically could be neat/confusing
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 03:07
|
|
|
XTimmy posted:So I'm currently working on the overall look of a shoot I want to do. Here's a couple of images as a bit of proof of concept/standalone work. I dislike the right side being crushed to black. The lower right corner is unimportant so that's fine but the banister being reduced to a black shadow takes some depth away. I also understand the green tint and why it's there but I'm a sucker for natural wood. I think you can get some good contrast out of the cherry wood grain, his red face from being upside down, and still keep the muted effect without going green. I like the composition, subject, and idea!
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
Tell us why you chose to colour grade the photos in the way that you did
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 04:38
|
|
|
Judge Schnoopy posted:I dislike the right side being crushed to black. The lower right corner is unimportant so that's fine but the banister being reduced to a black shadow takes some depth away. bobmarleysghost posted:Tell us why you chose to colour grade the photos in the way that you did There are a couple of reasons, the lows are warmed to play nicely with the wood and skin tones and the space itself is quite warm as is the light which is natural and reflected off a building so I didn't want to screw with the overall palette too much. It's also the general palette of the era I'm trying to reference. If I wanted something cooler I would change locations or light artificially. The cyan highlights are a choice. Firstly they offset the warmer tones in the shadows,this is also where I deviate from my reference: While there are examples of eighteenth century portraits with greener tones the highs (Death of Marat by Jacques-Louis David) overall we tend to associate a totally warm palette with these sorts of artists which, as a side note I actually believe has more to do with the degrading of the finish on the painting than the original paint. I wanted to convey a degraded, sickly feel to the light that wasn't really there in the original. I also quite like what it does to the skin tones, again, sick, unhealthy, lethargic. I can definitely pull it back, but I don't want white-white. as I've found it's too monochromatic. TL:DR: I wanted to look sicker yo. EDIT  Whiter highs with shadows up. XTimmy fucked around with this message at 06:45 on Mar 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 04:58
|
|
|
Ah okay, the sickly feeling was conveyed. I didn't notice the highlights being too warm, the lights seem even greenish to me, hence the sickly feeling being conveyed there. Looking at the new edit, I prefer the old. See how it would look with only the shadows slightly up, leaving the colours as is. You can also try masking out the green tint from the wood, and see how that would look.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
Guys, can you recommend a reasonable priced light meter model for flash photography? I don't mind buying used if it's professional reliable brand. Just ordered a manfrotto stand and a 16x16 softbox for now. whatever7 fucked around with this message at 22:05 on Mar 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:Guys, can you recommend a reasonable priced light meter model for flash photography? Sekonic is the best in light meters. They have a whole range, so find the price point you want.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:Sekonic is the best in light meters. They have a whole range, so find the price point you want. Looks like Sekonic 308 is the lightest one without looking like a grandfather's slide ruler.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 22:00 |
|
|
There's also the L-508 which might be a bit more, it's the 'older' version for film, but it works just as easily with modern digital cameras. Plus it has all the features you'll ever need, both incident and spot metering.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 23:43
|
|
