|
Whitezombi posted:
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2010 23:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 13:57 |
|
|
Met Sarah outside a coffee shop, when her friend was shooting portraits of her up against the wall. Asked if I could join in and take a few. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2010 07:44
|
|
|
First time playing around with my new stand, umbrella and radio trigger, using a 580ex II. It's the cheapest of the cheapest available on all counts, my first foray into modding a hot-shoe cable failed miserably, new one's in the mail. Took some snaps of coworkers, using the above and a big, for the purpose unwieldy, reflector. I'm very happy with the results, though still trying to find my own personal color scheme. Although different colors suit different people, or maybe I should just stick to the 'true' white balance and get the skin as close to reality as possible?    And finally, yours truly   Also a shoutout to all the advice posted in here, and photos aswell, it's very inspiring and helpful. Thanks! edit: If I click my thumbs, I get three tabs, one with the raw picture and two of the link to the flickr page. What am I doing wrong?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2010 12:01
|
|
|
Ok people, tell me whats good.    I finally hung up a bed sheet and took a bunch of photos of my wife's new haircut.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2010 23:02
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
I also did a few test shots with a friend this afternoon, just as an experiment to try to figure out off camera lighting  . I borrowed an Umbrella/stand and a 580 ex from a friend, and a 430ex from another, to supplement my 430I had a 430ex pointed into an umbrella just out of the frame on the left, a 430ex behind her pointed to the hair, and a 580ex on camera pointed forward   How'd I do?  I'm happy with the results, except for the glare on her glasses and the few small shadows
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2010 00:50
|
|
|
They seem a tiny bit under-exposed to me. There's a big reflection on her right glass lens, but not on the left. The whole left hand side seems a bit dark - maybe it's just my monitor...
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2010 01:27
|
|
|
psylent posted:They seem a tiny bit under-exposed to me. There's a big reflection on her right glass lens, but not on the left. The whole left hand side seems a bit dark - maybe it's just my monitor... I played around with the lighting setup, i was never able to get rid of the reflection, just minimize it at that. The question is, what's the best way to get rid of the reflections on the glasses?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2010 02:09
|
|
|
Tongsy posted:I played around with the lighting setup, i was never able to get rid of the reflection, just minimize it at that. http://www.studiolighting.net/lighting-eyeglasses/ please crit the poo poo out of my portraits, i think i have a big problem trying to compose like landscapes and next time im oing to force myself to shoot more angles once i have lights set up, rather than just sticking to what i had in mind   
fenner fucked around with this message at 09:13 on Mar 22, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2010 09:08
|
|
|
fenner posted:Your first two are technically fine (second feels just a little bit too contrasty, I don't know why) but the third is excellent. The expression is dead-on for someone bored out of their skull on a school bus, and the yellowish desaturated cast is pretty much the perfect toning for her expression, and then the crazy graffiti all over makes it seem like something out of a high school burnout's acid trip. Bravo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2010 11:01
|
|
|
Agreed, that last shot is fantastic. Was it all natural lighting?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2010 12:29
|
|
|
psylent posted:Agreed, that last shot is fantastic. Was it all natural lighting? Nope, 2 lights. 1 Brolly outside of the tram lighting her face and 1 on the other side of the tram with no modifier acting as a slight rim, can see it on the poles and her hair.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2010 13:21
|
|
|
Tongsy posted:How'd I do? But the underexposure's the main thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2010 13:54
|
|
|
torgeaux posted: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. 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? Tongsy posted:How'd I do? I'm still trial and error getting rid of reflections in glasses, but I found that you just have to angle the lens of the glasses away from the light at like a 45% angle and then shoot straight on so the light is bouncing off the glasses at an angle the camera lens isn't looking at. You can also angle the glasses slightly down or up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2010 14:43
|
|
|
fenner posted:http://www.studiolighting.net/lighting-eyeglasses/ My only problem with the third one is that it doesn't look nearly so nice minimized on flickr. It really looks much better large. Great job on composition too. The first one I think you got too close to her - or cropped it too tight. I'd like to see more separation between her chin and her neck.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2010 15:17
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:You're missing a stop of light or so. Also, you're kinda setting your own bear-trap by posing a white person in a black-as-night shirt close to a white background. Thanks for the feedback. It was kind an impromptu "hey I borrowed some equipment, come over and let me take your picture". Next time I'll have to direct her as to what to wear.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2010 15:25
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Crossposting from the general photo thread, because everyone doing portraits can learn from this: Billy Hunt Photography: 4 Tips for Looking Beautiful in Photos
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2010 15:53
|
|
|
jackpot posted:Crossposting from the general photo thread, because everyone doing portraits can learn from this: Billy Hunt Photogra-phee-eee-eee-eeee
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 00:52
|
|
|
I have finally gotten some gear together to start looking into portrait photography. My first attempt at pestering friends & family to take their pictures is shown below. After weeding through the shots and post-processing for an hour I am having a hard time evaluating the result objectively. There are probably tons of things to improve, but what would be the most obvious points to tackle first ? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2010 06:26
|
|
|
"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
|
|
|
Cross_ posted:I have finally gotten some gear together to start looking into portrait photography. My first attempt at pestering friends & family to take their pictures is shown below. After weeding through the shots and post-processing for an hour I am having a hard time evaluating the result objectively. The first thing that sticks out for me is that the girls hair is just drowned in the background. 2 easy fixes: brighter background or more light on her hair. I think the best fix in this cicrumstance is just to throw up a reflector on the right itll brighten up those dark shadows and throw some light at her hair whilst staying a nice and simple family portrait. Solid on-the-spot thinking torgeaux, they came out really well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2010 10:24
|
|
|
It's about time to get some feedback from people who will actually be critical. These were shot in either in the bedroom, or against a wall, so the background definitely could be less distracting. Also, some of the photos have been cropped for reasons which will probably become apparent. (These shots contain no actual nudity, however do contain underwear.)  https://wi.somethingawful.com/7d/7dd1e0a22d0ae2d52de8f70bffaa88c761b22350.jpghttps://wi.somethingawful.com/e1/e126bf27cd4781d3ede41224d4255b7befab12c7.jpgThese were shot with a vivitar 285 hotshoe bounced off the roof, using a business card as a bounce card. There's a skylight above where I was standing which created a small amount of ambient, but also was a bitch to try and bounce because of. (These shots again contain no actual nudity, however do contain lingerie.) https://wi.somethingawful.com/54/5405767c58975690ddd4cddc90ac87bf8c43757b.jpgThis was an attempt to stylize a shot that was incredibly underexposed, but the pose was good. 285 shot through a mixing bowl beauty dish with a shower curtain light diffuser. https://wi.somethingawful.com/1d/1d24167aac747afca72d978f0e1d2ed2e4e14b09.jpgSame lighting setup, pop up flash for fill.  Click here for the full 1024x491 image.  Click here for the full 1024x683 image. Same setup. https://wi.somethingawful.com/a5/a5181c86d3aba5a5978c4d16a50fdfe9c48bf558.jpg(Shot in shower, but no actual nudity.) 285 bounced off the wall opposite the shower door, and the roof. I really had no idea how to light this, and I had to use a wide angle lens because the bathroom was too small for my 50mm on a crop sensor. Pop up flash for fill. I've had a difficult time getting consistent shots due to the DIY nature of all of my lighting diffusers (and how I stand them up). I also can see there's some serious under exposure going on. But please, be critical even if the flaws are obvious. It's good to hear them from people who know what they're doing, as I really just fumble my way through it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2010 08:17
|
|
|
So you're shooting for a 'low-budget-internet-porn-circa-2002' kinda vibe, huh?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2010 08:22
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:So you're shooting for a 'low-budget-internet-porn-circa-2002' kinda vibe, huh? Heh, you're not far off the mark. "candid" promos for a cam model.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2010 08:31
|
|
|
Fiesty Francis posted:It's about time to get some feedback from people who will actually be critical. These were shot in either in the bedroom, or against a wall, so the background definitely could be less distracting. Also, some of the photos have been cropped for reasons which will probably become apparent. Reichstag isn't far of the mark. They're fairly boring, and you could probably do a lot better. The following is criticism to make them better "porn" pictures rather than just better portraits. With the ones of her lying on the bed go for a vertical crop, much tighter on her. http://j883376.mirror.waffleimages.com/waffleimages/files/1d/1d24167aac747afca72d978f0e1d2ed2e4e14b09.jpg - This is your strongest image of her I think - clone out her vaccine scar. The shower one is a nice idea that could use better posing. Maybe with her hands on her stomach? If you can do a reshoot, you definitely need one of her rear end to you while she looks over her shoulder coyly with a finger in her mouth. Remember the target audience you're going after - you should be filling at least 80% of the frame with her. Crop much tighter. Paragon8 fucked around with this message at 10:22 on Mar 29, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2010 10:19
|
|
|
Fiesty Francis posted:It's about time to get some feedback from people who will actually be critical. These were shot in either in the bedroom, or against a wall, so the background definitely could be less distracting. Also, some of the photos have been cropped for reasons which will probably become apparent. I think you're trying to hard with your lighting, try turning up the ISO and turn down the flash power and create more dynamic lighting, letting it fall onto the subject. I have the same problem, when I first tried out the umbrellas, I just put on full blast and everything was lit. I'm still making the same mistakes, but you have to think about lighting what's important. The bed, the rails, the wall... they are not important, so why light them? For the posing, you should go the more soft core porn route. If she wants to sell her cam, they should be way more seductive than these. Get closer on her boobs and rear end. Don't have her smile so wide, I don't think she even needs the pout-y lip thing. A neutral expression with some shyness in the eyes would probably make her look good. Agreeing with Paragon8 about framing her much tighter. I don't like the shower shot, the wide angle hurts because it makes her proportions look weird, just seems her shoulders are as wide as her hips.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2010 14:53
|
|
|
This thread is hilarious how it alternates from child portraits, to nice headshots of wives to softcore porn. Another thing worth keeping in mind is that you don't want them to look too professional - the look that a lot of people are going for is that kind of amateur/voyeur quality. Guys want the feeling the girl they're throwing down four bucks a minute on is doing it all by herself. So, stuff like on the bed is great and in the shower too. Sex sells, and you don't have to be too subtle about it with this client. There's a definite difference when someone shoots a pornstar for porn stills or when just using her as a model. I've seen some really beautiful pictures of girls who I later found out did hardcore porn, it's pretty astounding how different girls look when working with different kinds of photographers and MUAs. I was also totally browsing the thread in PYF about pornstars and for a second thought it was SAD, and was all "wow, goons are getting pretty adventurous with their photography"
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2010 15:19
|
|
|
Aim a hotshoe flash at the ceiling: avoid horrible shadows behind the subject, but end up with bags under the eyes. How to avoid, when you've got no options/room for off-camera lighting? Examples A, B:  Fiesty Francis posted:
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2010 18:22
|
|
|
jackpot posted:Aim a hotshoe flash at the ceiling: avoid horrible shadows behind the subject, but end up with bags under the eyes. How to avoid, when you've got no options/room for off-camera lighting? Examples A, B: You can fix it somewhat by having a white card on the flash to provide some fill. The card should be parallel to the flash head so the flash can project up and off the ceiling, but the card will catch the light going backwards and reflect it forwards for fill.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2010 19:08
|
|
|
HPL posted:You can fix it somewhat by having a white card on the flash to provide some fill. The card should be parallel to the flash head so the flash can project up and off the ceiling, but the card will catch the light going backwards and reflect it forwards for fill. Here is a template for one I made. Fits a 580ex II. I just wrap the small end around the flash and hold it in place with a wide rubber band. I use a semi-matte paper. I think it was Epson Semi-matte proofing paper.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2010 19:22
|
|
|
You know what would also help, at least a little? If I read the loving instructions on my flash and realized the built-in wide-angle extender piece can be used to do exactly the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2010 20:20
|
|
|
jackpot posted:You know what would also help, at least a little? If I read the loving instructions on my flash and realized the built-in wide-angle extender piece can be used to do exactly the same thing. What flash do you have? The one on the 580ex II just wasn't enough for me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2010 20:26
|
|
|
Sigma 530 Super. I'm sure one of the add-on bounce cards will work better than the built-in, but it's nice to know I've got an alternative. I probably should've asked about this before taking 400 photos at a party yesterday. Then again the birthday girl was turning 100, so at least I can't be blamed for the bags under her eyes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2010 20:43
|
|
|
jackpot posted:I'm sure one of the add-on bounce cards will work better than the built-in, but it's nice to know I've got an alternative. I probably should've asked about this before taking 400 photos at a party yesterday. Then again the birthday girl was turning 100, so at least I can't be blamed for the bags under her eyes. It should simply because it's so much larger. It won't cost you much if at all to try it out, so why not?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2010 21:09
|
|
|
jackpot posted:Aim a hotshoe flash at the ceiling: avoid horrible shadows behind the subject, but end up with bags under the eyes. How to avoid, when you've got no options/room for off-camera lighting? Examples A, B: I have lately been bouncing the light, when possible, over my shoulder and slightly to the side. You end up getting nice, directional lighting, strong catchlights in their eyes, and a lot of times will avoid the shadows that kill ceiling-bounced shots. Of course, for this to work, there needs to be a wall or relatively close behind you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2010 21:34
|
|
|
HPL posted:It should simply because it's so much larger. It won't cost you much if at all to try it out, so why not? Hop Pocket posted:I have lately been bouncing the light, when possible, over my shoulder and slightly to the side. You end up getting nice, directional lighting, strong catchlights in their eyes, and a lot of times will avoid the shadows that kill ceiling-bounced shots. Of course, for this to work, there needs to be a wall or relatively close behind you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2010 22:13
|
|
|
jackpot posted:Oh I'm definitely going to do it; I just meant if I forget to bring a card it's nice to know something's built in. Not that it would be hard to find a white index card and some tape, even if I did forget to bring something. In a pinch, you can even use your hand to bounce the flash.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2010 22:34
|
|
|
As said before, they look like the shots porn websites used to use years ago. I feel bad critiquing because I am still extremely unhappy with my images. I don't even upload pictures to flickr anymore, unless it's to send something to a few people. Here are my critiques, they may seem harsh, and others may disagree, but I am just trying to help you out. Fiesty Francis posted:
Crop tighter on her, and those frames in the back are distracting. quote:(These shots again contain no actual nudity, however do contain lingerie.) I really don't like this- The pose, the colours, nothing about it strikes my fancy. It looks like she's mid sneeze rather than possibly moaning. Clone out the scars on her arm. Maybe if you showed her arms, or her on a bed laying on her back with that pose it would work better. quote:
quote:
I don't quite like the first one here, I think maybe there was too much post on her skin or something. Don't like that you cut off her breasts in the bottom of the picture. It's too wide, and I think the shadow doesn't help the image so much. The second picture is much better. You have underboob showing, the shadow helps slightly. Too much empty space on the left side. quote:
You cut off her elbow and legs  quote:I've had a difficult time getting consistent shots due to the DIY nature of all of my lighting diffusers (and how I stand them up). I also can see there's some serious under exposure going on. But please, be critical even if the flaws are obvious. It's good to hear them from people who know what they're doing, as I really just fumble my way through it. There are a few problems with your lightning, which you are aware of. The problems with posing are likely due to her being nervous/new to it, and there isn't all that much you can do other than try to help her through it. I think that if you improve lightning, and your crops (I'm pretty certain you weren't intending on keeping them as they are right now, but there is way too much negative space all around her, and she's dead center in a lot of the frames, rule of thirds would probably help, and allow you to integrate the noisy backgrounds into the image.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2010 02:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 13:57 |
|
|
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. Am I alone here?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2010 13:09
|
|