|
not a huge fan of the bright green, I'd desaturate it a bit
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 00:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 15:55 |
|
|
I too like the shallow depth. That's also some incredibly soft light for 'just a speedlight'. Great choice of background color too. It's a gorgeous photo of a gorgeous person.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 04:30
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:I actually like the shallow DOF in that shot. I think it would be pretty boring if it was all sharp, in fact. What are you thoughts on the hair? That always drives me up the wall when I shoot with a really shallow DOF and the hair is blurred on an otherwise perfect shot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 04:42
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 04:46
|
|
|
AtomicManiac posted:What are you thoughts on the hair? That always drives me up the wall when I shoot with a really shallow DOF and the hair is blurred on an otherwise perfect shot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 04:49
|
|
|
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. I did a crazy 80s aerobic themed maternity shoot. http://clients.paulchinjr.com/Portraits/pregorobics/11718807_Bm5tn#826949152_o2vVC I can't remember if it was my idea first or we did it together. You've got some pretty good experience lighting already, it shouldn't be too tough for you. What kind of ideas did you have?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 04:58
|
|
|
TheLastManStanding posted:Well if the hair wasn't blurred it wouldn't be a shallow depth of field now would it. Go look at photos by Chuck Close. He did a lot of portraits with extremely shallow dof where even a portion of his subjects faces were out of focus (I suspect he used large format movements to help out). Interesting idea. On shots like that I almost always toss them. I just don't really like the way it looks on that shot, I'm sure I've seen it on other shallow DoF shots and never thought twice about it, but on that shot in particular it just stood out. I think it might have to do with the background being simple enough that it still makes sense in my eye, compared to say a shot with a busy background that's thrown out of focus. In the second type of shot, a little bit of blur seems to go un-noticed, but on that shot it sticks out for me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 05:33
|
|
|
AtomicManiac posted:What are you thoughts on the hair? That always drives me up the wall when I shoot with a really shallow DOF and the hair is blurred on an otherwise perfect shot. Yeah I like it. In fact I posted my own shallow DOF portrait a page ago and did the same thing. I just feel like if the subject isn't in front of something equally as interesting, I like a real isolating composition.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 08:48
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:I did a crazy 80s aerobic themed maternity shoot. http://clients.paulchinjr.com/Portraits/pregorobics/11718807_Bm5tn#826949152_o2vVC I can't remember if it was my idea first or we did it together. You've got some pretty good experience lighting already, it shouldn't be too tough for you. What kind of ideas did you have? It's probably really going to depend on her style, and I haven't met her yet, so that's going to be the kicker really. The photos I've seen that I've liked are more of the black and white, really shadowy, semi-racy type, but I've seen some cool environmental ones too. Hopefully I'll be meeting with her soon so I can get an idea of what she's like and work off that. Oh and that 80's shoot is hilariously awesome.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 13:21
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
torgeaux posted: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. Yeah, that's what I meant by semi-racy. Like near nude in person, but not revealing in the photo. It's a friend of a friend that I don't know yet, so I have to meet her to see what she's thinking and what her general comfort level with her body is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 14:02
|
|
|
This is one of my first attempts at skin smoothing, too much? Does anyone have a link to a tutorial for a good one? My poor wife worked an 11 hour day and was just about to head to bed when I asked her to pose for me. As you can probably tell, she's tired as hell in this shot.  Flash on a stand bouncing off the wall behind me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 15:17
|
|
|
Musician portrait thingy. It's a bit cliche, but I think we ended up with something nice. Only thing I don't like is that little shadow created by her ear. I should have pulled that light around. _DSC5885 by Bryan Cook, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 15:26
|
|
|
What was your lighting setup?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 15:39
|
|
|
AtomicManiac posted:I don't like how the hair is kind of blurred on the bottom right. Try cranking up the aperture and you should get a sharper image. Sometimes when you use a low aperture like 1.8 the focus can miss, and when you're just shooting against a solid colored wall there's really no reason to use such a low F/stop anyway, since the low DoF doesn't really add anything to the image and you can use your speed light to still get a good exposure. Here's what I'll say about the DOF... this was my first time shooting close portraits with my 50mm 1.8. And holy gently caress, that is one paper-thin margin of error on the focus at 1.8. I've had it for a week or two, and have shot various dumb stuff with it, but I guess I hadn't yet fully come to the realization that I could get focus on her bangs, and totally miss on her eyes. Which is what happened on what was possibly my favorite of the day. If I could do it again, I would probably stop down to maybe 2.5 or something. However, like McMadCow was saying (I believe), crazy narrow DOF on portraits isn't necessarily bad. When I was shooting her, I was going DOF-crazy with my new lens, and I was sort of just experimenting with focusing on her eyes. And honestly, I like the blurred hair. I feel like the (non-)focus sort of frames her actual face. McMadCow posted:I actually like the shallow DOF in that shot. I think it would be pretty boring if it was all sharp, in fact. TheLastManStanding posted:I too like the shallow depth. That's also some incredibly soft light for 'just a speedlight'. Great choice of background color too. It's a gorgeous photo of a gorgeous person. Thank yous. Yeah, I was bouncing the flash off the white ceiling and a big, white sliding closet door next to me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 15:52
|
|
|
psylent posted:What was your lighting setup?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 16:04
|
|
|
@Interrupting Moss: Love your portrait- very classy/classic. torgeaux posted: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.  ). Started out in underwear and ended up nude because the underwear just has a distracting muffin-top look when you are going for a belly shot. As torgeaux said, the final crop is almost SFW but the session was not.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 23:20
|
|
|
psylent posted:This is one of my first attempts at skin smoothing, too much? Does anyone have a link to a tutorial for a good one? I think you have the contrast set a little too high.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 23:40
|
|
|
psylent posted:This is one of my first attempts at skin smoothing, too much? Does anyone have a link to a tutorial for a good one? the skin looks a little uneven, try copy and pasting sections of "good skin" and building a layer mask out of that and then you can use it to create silky smooth skin. PS. Tell your wife internet stranger Paragon8 says you're awesome for being so patient with your husband.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 00:05
|
|
|
Interrupting Moss posted:Musician portrait thingy. It's a bit cliche, but I think we ended up with something nice. Only thing I don't like is that little shadow created by her ear. I should have pulled that light around. I didn't notice the ear shadow til you said something about it, now I can't stop staring at it. The colors are very nice though. This a quick snap for a friend's fashion blog, shame it's a bit soft but looks ok web-res:  Here were some makeup tests (not thrilled with the mua):  
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 00:15
|
|
|
Interrupting Moss posted:Musician portrait thingy. It's a bit cliche, but I think we ended up with something nice. Only thing I don't like is that little shadow created by her ear. I should have pulled that light around. Give the edge of the ear shadow a bit of blur or something. It's the sharpness of it that's distracting. Otherwise I dig it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 02:44
|
|
|
Interrupting Moss posted:Musician portrait thingy. It's a bit cliche, but I think we ended up with something nice. Only thing I don't like is that little shadow created by her ear. I should have pulled that light around. What I like most is the shallow depth of field (even though this type of portrait reminds me of a high school yearbook photo (a very nicely shot high school yearbook photo)) My friend, standing on the top floor of a parking lot. I was 'freelensing' it. I like the effect. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 04:25
|
|
|
Shot some photos for a friend, and my flash crapped out on me-- Finally an excuse to pick up the 580 I've been wanting-- Looking for suggestions for future shots, these were all pretty much done with natural lighting:  
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 04:36
|
|
|
Santa is strapped posted:What I like most is the shallow depth of field (even though this type of portrait reminds me of a high school yearbook photo (a very nicely shot high school yearbook photo)) For some reason, I feel like my brain is trying to convince me that the buildings are distracting or something, but I think I actually like everything about the picture.  I'd steal the idea.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 07:13
|
|
|
psylent posted:This is one of my first attempts at skin smoothing, too much? Does anyone have a link to a tutorial for a good one? Did you try the method I posted on page 28? It really helps stop that plasticky look. Use a low opacity on the clone brush for skin tone evening (20%, maybe a touch more). Shmoogy posted:Shot some photos for a friend, and my flash crapped out on me-- Finally an excuse to pick up the 580 I've been wanting-- Looking for suggestions for future shots, these were all pretty much done with natural lighting: I would definitely grab yourself a reflector. You can get some lovely lighting with a simple white reflector and natural light. Reflector left of model on that first one would have made for some really nice lighting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 08:27
|
|
|
Shmoogy posted:Does your friend know she is being chased by two fez wearing terracotta midgets standing one in each leg of a pair of jeans?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 09:47
|
|
|
Gaz: I remember seeing that guide but couldn't remember which bloody thread it was in. Thanks! I'll do a re-edit tonight and try it out 
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 09:53
|
|
|
Santa is strapped posted:My friend, standing on the top floor of a parking lot. I was 'freelensing' it. I like the effect. Glass Knuckles posted:For some reason, I feel like my brain is trying to convince me that the buildings are distracting or something, but I think I actually like everything about the picture. evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 10:59 on Sep 9, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 10:57
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Santa is strapped posted:My friend, standing on the top floor of a parking lot. I was 'freelensing' it. I like the effect. Wait, freelensing as in holding the lens in front of the camera and taking a picture? If so: HOW? Shmoogy posted:You should really pay attention to how shadows fall on your subject's face in natural light. If you could have waited a few hours until the sun was lower in the sky and not so harshly beating down on your subject the shadows on her face would be lessened and a lot less unflattering. Gazmachine is right - a reflector to bounce back some of that harsh light and fill in some of the shadows would really make a difference. I would suggest trying to go this route before spending several hundred dollars on an overpriced flash (I did it too). Then, once you're comfortable with reflectors and natural light: I would NOT recommend spending ~$450 dollars on a hotshoe flash (the 580ex), but rather some cheap vivitars & wireless triggers, or even some Alien Bees or something where the money is actually worth it. (And I kind of agree that the post on the third one needs some work. The combination of slack-jaw, her head being tilted back, and her creepy stalker-shoes makes me like that one the least of the three.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cross-post from the snapshot thread for content: Went out last night and left the lights in the car (too windy) to test out the new 70-200. I'm excited about getting back into portraits with more than natural light.  Ali by Eric Heiden, on Flickr Cannister fucked around with this message at 13:12 on Sep 9, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 12:59
|
|
|
torgeaux 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. Sorry if that came across as smartass. I couldn't work out what was going on in the background till me wife pointed out to me that it was her shoes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 13:03
|
|
|
AnotherFreakboy posted:Sorry if that came across as smartass. I couldn't work out what was going on in the background till me wife pointed out to me that it was her shoes. What? gently caress that, smartass is good, not bad. Sheesh, and you call yourself a goon.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 13:27
|
|
|
Cannister posted:You should really pay attention to how shadows fall on your subject's face in natural light. If you could have waited a few hours until the sun was lower in the sky and not so harshly beating down on your subject the shadows on her face would be lessened and a lot less unflattering. Gazmachine is right - a reflector to bounce back some of that harsh light and fill in some of the shadows would really make a difference. I would suggest trying to go this route before spending several hundred dollars on an overpriced flash (I did it too). Thanks for all the comments everybody-- The sun was ridiculous, and another one of my $35 Quantaray flashes broke, so I'm kind of soured over cheap flashes (I know the vivitars aren't cheap but I wanted to get a legit one. I'm just going to pick up a reflector, since the future shots I take will be in similar situations to these, is this a decent one/price/size: http://www.amazon.com/Westcott-301-Basics-40-Inch-Reflector/dp/B000NFIW98/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1284041103&sr=8-1-spell Or is 40 inch too big for a first reflector? (I'll posit other questions in the (dead) lighting thread) Also noted about the bench shots, I'll be more careful to show more context and less stalkerish midgets.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 15:23
|
|
|
psylent posted:Gaz: I remember seeing that guide but couldn't remember which bloody thread it was in. Thanks! I'll do a re-edit tonight and try it out I'd just like to point out that my example image is actually a bit poo poo - I did it too quickly and with too strong a setting (around 30% opacity). Go lower and make sure you go with a gaussian blur of about 3 pixels. Shmoogy posted:
I've got a 32" reflector which is just fine for filling in faces but an extra few inches won't hurt. The extra inches will be more useful for harsh sun in your outdoor shots, because you can use the translucent option to diffuse the light by putting it between the sun and your subject's face. One thing, try to not use silver in sunlight - although it reflects very strongly, it reflects VERY strongly, and you'll get photos of people squinting. White is better (not racist).
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 17:21
|
|
|
Gold reflectors can also be fun to play around with, produces some nice warm light without the harshness of silver.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 17:27
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:What? gently caress that, smartass is good, not bad. Sheesh, and you call yourself a goon. Good point. I really should stop lurking so much and post more.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 22:01
|
|
|
nonanone posted:Here were some makeup tests (not thrilled with the mua): I've never worked with a MUA, what makes them Good/bad, and what do you look for? quote:Freelensing
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 22:31
|
|
|
AtomicManiac posted:I've never worked with a MUA, what makes them Good/bad, and what do you look for? Well freelensing is this basically: http://lukeroberts.us/2009/12/freelensing/ As for the sharpness comment, this was one of three tries with an 85mm lens and for some reason (maybe I'm imagining this) it was easier to nail the focus than with the 50mm.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 22:39
|
|
|
AtomicManiac posted:I too am interested in what that is, do you mean just like shooting from the hip without looking the in the view-finder? I believe its where you detach the lens from the camera partly, and maneuver it with your hand. Fake edit: Yeah. Furreal edit: ^^^Ha. We even used the same link. grayscale fucked around with this message at 22:42 on Sep 9, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 22:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 15:55 |
|
|
Glass Knuckles posted:I believe its where you detach the lens from the camera partly, and maneuver it with your hand. Haha yea. I like the shallow dof it creates (0 aperture after all) as well as the fact that you can make pseudo tilt shift effects too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 22:52
|
|