|
brad industry posted:I don't think that kind of information is useless, just that if you go into a shoot with a person in front of you and are worrying about tiny things like whether the catchlights match or what the "correct" angle for someone's eyes are you've already lost sight of the big picture. I think it's a matter of where you are. For me, seeing a list like that is first intimidating, then instructive, then reassuring. I'll never do all that, but it helps guide my thinking when I do my first setup. THEN, after thinking about those guidelines, I'll do what Brad suggests. But I, amateur with little time on my hands, need both.
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2009 02:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 18:12 |
|
|
Penpal posted:did a bunch of portrait shots of my sister. I used a light box I created which was too her left, and a snooted flash at 1/16th behind her for the hair light. It's easy to work with someone when you're related and already have a decent relationship OK, maybe it's just me, but the hair light seems way way too bright. There's a blown out spot in each of the shots that is distracting. I think you needed to aim a bit higher to keep the light off her shoulder. Otherwise I like them.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2009 14:56
|
|
|
psylent posted:I took these of my wife ages ago, forgot about them and then found them just now. Afternoon sun streaming in through a window and bouncing off a big white wall. The first smile seems like a camera smile. Middle is more natural, but I like the third the best, but it seems a bit underlit compared to the others. When I find older photos, the first thing I think about is how I would have done it differently. Did you go thru that?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2009 13:06
|
|
|
Luk3 posted:Did some family portraits this weekend... not all that happy with the result. The weather seemed to turn to total poo poo the moment the family stepped out of their car, the wind really picked up, it started to snow and it became bitterly cold. Noone was dressed for the weather. The girl definitely shouldn't face the camera directly. It's extremely unflattering for her build. Dad, far right, needs to angle in more also, as he looks uncomfortably posed. The lighting seems a bit flat to me, also.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2009 13:29
|
|
|
notlodar posted:
Dude on the far left of the group portrait is suffering from some radical lens distortion.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2009 21:24
|
|
|
jackpot posted:Woman second from left in the group portrait is just suffering She is the nightmare of photography...the "I don't smile, I just look dour" person.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2009 21:48
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:She is the nightmare of photography...the "I don't smile, I just look dour" person. Her stripes are horizontal, a rookie mistake. They either need to be broader (to blend more with the shelving) or vertical (to blend with the books). She's really just hiding herself below the waist. Since it's a given that she's a virgin, that may be the point.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2009 22:00
|
|
|
notlodar posted:I am now a big fan of the unconventional approach. High contrast film + hard light from a flash I played with as a child... I think that look can really work...or be really out of place. Any really strong effect is that way, though. I think your shots here turned out fine. I like one and three, as quoted, but I would like to see your model's eyes. Not necessarily in that shot, it works for me, but I'd like the second one in that series to be more of a departure. The second shot quoted I'm on the fence about the focus.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2009 13:59
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:In the first shot, they seem tilted a bit...caused in part by the angle of the head of the mother...but added to the impact is the actual slight tilt of the photo. Use the perpendicular line of the wall above their heads. In the second, they're all looking at the camera, and giving a camera smile...the best you'll ever get out of that group as you describe them. Finally, I feel your pain. I'm shooting my son's daycare classes on Thursday, and group shots suck. You've hidden two women almost completely, and if it was a formal, "we want a group shot of all of us" that's unacceptable.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2009 14:30
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
notlodar posted:That entire set is really cute Yes, sad to say, my first thought wasn't about the merit of the photo, but, "Hey, pimm is smiling!!"
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2010 10:38
|
|
, it's nice to know your face doesn't shatter if you smile
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:If you think sorority girls are bad, try college football players This was an "icebreaker" shot in the middle of about 10...getting them all to look at the door. I liked it, but can't use it, so didn't process it at all. But, I've found that with kids if I can get them all looking away, when I tell them to look back, I have a second when they are all going to be looking right at me. 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2010 20:29
|
|
|
JaundiceDave posted:I did say quick conversion. I'm sure with a little effort that horrible black pit of despair that is her mouth could be lightened, for instance. Black and white makes any freckling or age spots 10x worse...I think she's better off in color. It's not so much the conversion as the nature of the black and white.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2010 14:19
|
|
|
oncearoundaltair posted:That's it, really. I just wanted a rant. Any similar experiences? Paging ConfusedUs. He does lots and lots of paid children photogigs. I do lots, too, but A) I know all the kids, B) I almost always get them in unposed, fun locations and C) it can still suck. One of the kids in my son's class is autistic. Highly functioning, but it manifests in his wanting to basically play by himself. He does NOT like to be photographed, and now seeing me makes him shy away, sometimes in almost a panic. Breaks my heart, he's a great kid, very photogenic too. I make a point to never ever have my camera around him if I can help it. Group photos for his class, he had to leave.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2010 16:20
|
|
|
Oprah Haza posted:
Look at how light her skin is in the last shot. For me, that's a negative, as she as a nice color to her skin but it's washed out.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2010 15:18
|
|
|
Kids, in their natural habitat, are a joy to shoot. Kids in a forced, smile-for-the-camera-while-wearing-nice-clothes-and-keep-your-hair-neat suck.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2010 14:48
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:Here's a head shot I did after a corporate event ended last Monday night. I should have renegotiated a separate contract, but she was the one who hired me for the event. It looks dark here, blah, and hallways are never that exciting. The problem this presents for me is all background. The better lit portion of the wall is directly to the picture left of the subject, and that space is otherwise dead, so it draws the eye. If cropped tighter, you could eliminate most of the door on the picture right, all the door picture left, and the contrast in lighting on the wall wouldn't be as dramatic.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2010 17:40
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:Ok people, tell me whats good. Number 3, far and away. The first one gives the impression of slightly crossed eyes. She looks too posed in two. Three is very nice, no caveats.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2010 00:09
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:Full length poses are difficult. We worked a lot on posing and worked from the Zeltsman posing guide. Does 'too posed' mean awkward or too traditional and contrived? Sorry. Too posed means the pose seems posed, rather than natural. If it stands out as posed, for me that means it's contrived. She seems not comfortable with her stance, basically.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2010 15:36
|
|
|
"Hey, you have your camera, right? We need some portraits. It's bright in the conference room...wait, what? You want me to stand right next to the note paper? Won't it be in the picture?" Fluorescent lights, with a butcher block note pad camera left for some bounce/fill. 70-200 f/2.8, tripod.  
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2010 02:11
|
|
|
psylent posted:When doing full length shots of people, I have this really terrible habit of cutting off their ankles. I don't know what the gently caress is wrong with me. Yes. Very, very alone. My similar problem is causing keystoning because I'm trying too hard to get the whole body in without moving too much.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2010 13:25
|
|
|
OJ.SImpson posted:Im still getting into this whole thing so im mostly working on getting the right look before i go into making the images interesting. Nailed the focus, nice lights in the eyes...now get in there and fix the discolored tooth.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2010 14:04
|
|
|
This girl...long time family friend, and she can take good photos, as long as they are completely candid. See the muscle in the chin where she's basically clamping her mouth closed? Always there.  This is much better, I think. It shows her personality, it's more attractive, despite the trappings. So, how do you get an actual, planned portrait out of someone like this? 
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2010 11:01
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2010 01:33
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Is the haloing around him and what looks like intense over-sharpening part of the concept? No and yes...in fact, the haloing is part of the attempt to really separate him from the background, done without much subtlety. I'm going to re-examine it, as I think it may be better as b&w with less aggressive post. The intent was to really emphasize the harsh look he has...and intense, obvious sharpening was for that purpose. The shirt hanging loose on him is also good, since the sort of gaunt, even a bit haggard look is why I like this shot. Nothing I can do about the arms being severed, though. edit: In fact, I need to re-examine the crop. I don't want to lose the arms at the bottom, because how skinny those arms are in the shirt is important...but I need to figure a way to draw the eye to that as well. edit2: Not sure I like this better, despite how heavy handed the original post was. 
torgeaux fucked around with this message at 02:14 on May 4, 2010 |
|
#
¿
May 3, 2010 15:01
|
|
|
Cross_ posted:@torgeaux: I have looked at this on two different screens now and it still seems really underexposed. All I notice is a bright yellow shirt and a beard- the rest is darkness. In my opinion you should at least use a reflector to cover the right side of his face if not his entire face. That would also give you the desired separation instead of using a halo. Your revised version looks a lot better than the original, but does not have the sharpness. Maybe limit unsharpen to just his face ? Thanks. As always, good tips in here.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2010 02:19
|
|
|
Taz posted:I think he's going for "how long until people call me out on this poo poo". Seriously, silence works better.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2010 16:22
|
|
|
nerdz posted:Is there such a thing as candid portraits? Tried doing some with my manual 1.2 wide open at an artist's bar meeting using the bar's own light sources and it was hard. The lens natural softness and high ISOs didn't help either: Sure. Candid portraits at wedding receptions, for example. Use a 70-200, f/2.8, wide open for isolation, you can get some nice ones. It's different from street where you're using a normal/wide lens for stylistic reasons, as you don't want to influence the subject with the knowledge of the photography.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2010 14:52
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:
The tease of bright colors hurts this a bit. It makes me want it more traditionally exposed, but doesn't really pull me in.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2010 13:26
|
|
|
Whitezombi posted:This is a great portrait shot. Really stands out for me in this set, even though I liked the others. pwn posted:You're right, I didn't think of that when I shot it. I'm starting to get some ideas, will post back when they've been shot. Thank you for the critique. By the way, the shots you posted in SAD of this girl were very, very nice. Done in ambient with the setting sun, really seemed to get her character. If she'd been posing, I think the light would have played well to your intent.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2010 13:30
|
|
|
I like this guys face for photography. Lots of character.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2010 18:35
|
|
|
Whitezombi posted:
This is one of the better shots in the series.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2010 15:45
|
|
|
Fragrag posted:I've got a shoot tomorrow with a model who's missing a leg. Any tips on posing her without drawing too much attention to that fact? Why? I mean, I know why you wouldn't actually want to draw attention to it, but I assume you mean "minimize it." Normal posing, normal shots, just with only one leg, is the way to go. She's not trying to make it appear she has two legs, right?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2010 20:49
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:
She's lovely, and photogenic. I like the lighting, but the posing is really awkward.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2010 19:21
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:What are you trying to achieve with this comment? Are you trying to a dick because you could have phrased that much more constructively or just attacked the inexplicable trend of empire waisted tops instead of my photography. Take poster history into account, you'll find it was an inartful critique, not deliberate dickishness. And, I loving hate those tops. No one, no one in the whole world, looks good in them.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2010 20:46
|
|
|
Haggins posted:I just did my first portrait shoot last Monday. Shot 7 different girls for a hairstylist. I made a few mistakes but I think things got better with each girl. I like them as straight up portraits, but as portraits for a hair stylist, I'm not sure there's enough emphasis on the hair.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2010 00:56
|
|
|
Jiblet posted:Does this count as a portrait? Sure, and a nice concept as well. I'd like to see a bit more light on the bottoms of the feet, just a reflector maybe.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2010 14:42
|
|
|
rockcity posted:I've read most of this thread as it's come along and I don't recall reading about this, but has anyone done any maternity shoots? A friend of mine has a friend that is looking to get them done and I offered to do them for her. I have some mental ideas from some maternity shots I've seen in the past, but I've never really seen a shoot set up or anything. Is this someone who is going to be comfortable around you? Some of the most effective maternity shots I've seen have been nude or close to it. The photo isn't necessarily that revealing, but the setup may be. If not, at least find out how much belly she's going to be willing to expose.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2010 13:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 18:12 |
|
|
Shmoogy posted:Greater depth of field needed here. Someone else has already made a smartass comment about her shoes, but it took me a second to figure out she was laying down with feet up.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2010 12:58
|
|
