|
Decided to start a mini-series using the set up I posted a little earlier. Here's a new one.
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2010 05:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 16:57 |
|
|
That looks really nice. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2010 06:48
|
|
|
fordan posted:As an employee taking pictures as part of his job, I'd assume the copyright would rest with his employer, making publicity rights/model releases the sticking point. that depends... my job (intern architect) has me insanely busy, but my employer recognizes my photographic skills - so I photograph the firm's work under separate contract and retain copyright
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2010 06:53
|
|
|
Leyendecker posted:Decided to start a mini-series using the set up I posted a little earlier. Here's a new one. That's nice. Would you mind giving some information on your lighting setup?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2010 14:15
|
|
|
Alfajor posted:I've got a gig for Metromix for today... I'm not trying to be an attention whore, I swear  I went and did this, here are the pictures: http://reno.metromix.com/events/photogallery/10th-annual-winter-wine/1729578/content What I learned: People like having their picture taken. Specially if you tell them they're going to be online on a hip/modern site for them to check out and show to their friends. It was a bit stressful, since my mission was to get pictures of "attractive people in their 20s and 30s", and there were a lot more older people than the people I was supposed to get. An hour in, I only had a dozen shots, so I worried I wasn't going to find anymore, but I did eventually. At first, I was a bit shaky asking people if they wanted their picture taken, and even more shaky when I had to ask them for their name. But as I went on, I got more comfortable, and it was a lot more fun. As for the pictures themselves, I need more practice with my flash and exposure. I would have liked to have more background light, and some of them have horrible composition (like a green "exit" sign right behind them), so those are little things that would have made me feel more proud of what I did. However, my mission was accomplished, and I got paid. So, 
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2010 19:25
|
|
|
Do you recall which of the shots were taken with the flash off camera ? I was interested in the Lumiquest products but it seems like there is still a very bright hot spot on people's faces with it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2010 00:36
|
|
|
I actually took all the shots with my flash on camera. I checked the bag and forgot to get my TTL cable out of it, so I was "stuck" with the flash on there and that was it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2010 05:51
|
|
|
 I like this one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2010 22:20
|
|
|
A couple more from me. First, from the photo night thing we do at my office, with strobes:      A couple from a wedding I was at:       
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2010 00:51
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:
I like this a lot more than I like your usual hyper grainy stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2010 01:40
|
|
|
Glad you like it. How about something grainless?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2010 01:48
|
|
|
Reich normally I can get behind your stuff, I'm not crazy about your style but I can see thought behind most of your images, I can see talent, I like dull colours, depressing hues and crushing tones... But I really dislike that image. His face is oddly coloured, perhaps it's my monitor but he has a slight magenta tint that just looks odd. The depth of field isn't picking sides, does it WANT to be shallow and simply reveal an eye or does it want to cover his face? At the moment it just looks as if you took it at the wrong stop or didn't carry the one when measuring DOF. That and the focus appears to be on his cheek bone. You've avoided blow-outs on his skin (barely) which is great but otherwise the lighting looks like it's trying to do the hipster dead on angle thing but comes out looking just flat, blah. I know you like destroying the rules of composition but in this case his centre position in frame just gives him no space to look into and, like the lighting, rather than achieving a deliberate-messy affect it just looks uninspired. Overall it looks like a shot I would have taken with a point-and-shoot at a friends party while he's talking to someone. I don't have anything on you, you're a better photographer than me times a thousand but that image just don't cut it man.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2010 11:49
|
|
|
My latest session. I tried a first, in that the camera was on a tripod and I had a remote shutter in hand. It was so great getting to be close and interact with the subject with no camera in front of my face. Writeup here, with a setup shot too: http://mr-chompers.blogspot.com/2010/01/firstshootwithlightpanels.html   
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2010 14:24
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:My latest session. I tried a first, in that the camera was on a tripod and I had a remote shutter in hand. It was so great getting to be close and interact with the subject with no camera in front of my face. This stuff is amazingly, dramatically awesome. [Edit] My GF says: Either people in Reykjavik dress like they're in Brooklyn, or people in Brooklyn dress like they're in Reykjavik. thetzar fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Jan 31, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2010 17:11
|
|
|
Hop Pocket posted:That's nice. Would you mind giving some information on your lighting setup? It was just an sb-600 bounced from the ceiling at like 1/16 in a dark room- but it was in a doorway, so the light really bounced around a lot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2010 18:39
|
|
|
thetzar posted:This stuff is amazingly, dramatically awesome. Thanks. It's shot here in Cologne, Germany, and the model is German, but he lived in CA for a while.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2010 21:08
|
|
|
XTimmy posted:Reich normally I can get behind your stuff, I'm not crazy about your style but I can see thought behind most of your images, I can see talent, I like dull colours, depressing hues and crushing tones... But I really dislike that image. His face is oddly coloured, perhaps it's my monitor but he has a slight magenta tint that just looks odd. The depth of field isn't picking sides, does it WANT to be shallow and simply reveal an eye or does it want to cover his face? At the moment it just looks as if you took it at the wrong stop or didn't carry the one when measuring DOF. That and the focus appears to be on his cheek bone. You've avoided blow-outs on his skin (barely) which is great but otherwise the lighting looks like it's trying to do the hipster dead on angle thing but comes out looking just flat, blah. I know you like destroying the rules of composition but in this case his centre position in frame just gives him no space to look into and, like the lighting, rather than achieving a deliberate-messy affect it just looks uninspired. If you ask me, based on your critiques, this is probably one of Reichstag's most successful images.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2010 21:22
|
|
|
Just plain people   
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2010 03:16
|
|
|
Just a snapshot. drat bag on the couch. Any hints on the white balance? Seems a tad red I think.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2010 03:16
|
|
|
nonanone posted:Just plain people Very technically accomplished shot good work! miasma blues posted:Just a snapshot. drat bag on the couch.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2010 03:59
|
|
|
nonanone posted:Just plain people Liking all 3 of these, doesn't hurt they're all handsome.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2010 11:00
|
|
|
 I do have a photo of both of them, just not postprocessed it. Lesson learned: 3d-glasses make for a lot of reflections.  This one is a tad dark, but I like it a lot. Click for big.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2010 03:06
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:
What differentiates this from a random snapshot? Do you put any conceptualization into these? To me your photos always seem like a formula of random interesting friends + film colors = good photo. I don't see anything engaging, or unique in the actual shooting. What do you actually do at the time of taking the photos that would differentiate your photos from a digital shooter grabbing snapshots of their friends?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2010 13:01
|
|
|
Edit: screwed that up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2010 13:45
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Questions... Reichstag posted:I'm glad that got so much interest in that photo. I'm leaving for the airport in a few minutes, so I don't have time to respond, but have a good couple months. Looks like he's not going to be able to answer your question (for a while). (Also, I was always under the impression that the photos were composed as to look as much like a snapshot as possible, as to try and recreate some imaginary scene of friends. But that these people were posed, rather than him just capturing them standing. But this theory isn't based on much.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2010 13:47
|
|
|
I get the feeling reichy would very much like us to think that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2010 13:52
|
|
|
 Natural light from our balcony, I'll be pulling out the reflector next time I do this. repost from SAD
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2010 14:36
|
|
|
Would be a tad more engaging if she were looking at you!
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2010 14:50
|
|
|
XTimmy posted:I get the feeling reichy would very much like us to think that. Well, I assumed he would want us to think that, so I also assumed that he would actually do that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2010 15:49
|
|
|
nonanone posted:Anime eyes 
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2010 16:27
|
|
|
Some shots for work. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2010 23:14
|
|
|
Tziko posted:Some shots for work. I like the way the green banner bulges a bit. Makes it look kind of like a button. A jolly, candy-like button.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2010 23:45
|
|
|
HPL posted:I like the way the green banner bulges a bit. Makes it look kind of like a button. A jolly, candy-like button.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2010 01:16
|
|
|
its so web 2.0
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2010 01:20
|
|
|
I'm definitely seeing some sort of cartoon paint tube.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2010 01:48
|
|
|
nonanone posted:Focus on the eyes, not the nose! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2010 02:08
|
|
|
they are in focus  I think...edit, he has contacts
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2010 02:12
|
|
|
These are from a company party. How do they look?  
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2010 14:01
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:These are from a company party. How do they look? Gel your flash to match the ambient (tungsten, it looks like) if you're going to shoot at a large aperture or slow shutter speed. I'm pretty sure that's why the lady's forehead is a cool tone. You can see the same effect at the top of the wall in the second shot. They're all slightly underexposed. The wall is entirely unnecessary. I also wouldn't get so close with a 50mm. All I see is that lady's nose. Whoever who shot those for will be very happy, however.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2010 15:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 16:57 |
|
|
Interrupting Moss posted:They're not bad. Looks like you bounced, which is of course a good idea. Now I'll lay on the bad stuff... ohhhh thats what the blue is from. It was creeping into everything towards the top of photos. I've been meaning to get some gels since they are pretty cheap. Thanks man. Should there be more space around the first portrait of the woman or is that just an unflattering angle for her nose? I thought the wall was kinda cool, but I could see it also being a distraction.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2010 16:28
|
|