|
If it's a "real" show, you'll have enough lighting that you won't need a flash. I'd use the 70-200 and maybe a monopod. Shoot the models as they come down the runway, not when they pose at the end. Thats about it. It's not really hard, once you get the settings figured out it's all exactly the same. If it is too dark, you'll have to use a flash and wait till they come down the runway, but if you can avoid flash at all, that's best.
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2010 02:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 02:33 |
|
|
Monopod! Great idea. I'm off, will post pictures later.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2010 02:23
|
|
|
dunkman posted:100mm Macro too in case the 24-70 isn't long enough? Wow! Look at the stitching on that dress!
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2010 02:36
|
|
|
Ugh. I didn't know what I was getting in to. It was in a "burlesque themed club." With only LED lights, and half of them were red, and the other half were white. Also the catwalk was perpendicular to the crowd, and there was no platform for photographers. I hope that none of the models were wearing shoes, because I definitely wouldn't have been able to tell. Here's a preview of one of the better shots. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2010 05:33
|
|
|
I feel your pain. I've shot in plenty of clubs like that. Looks like you probably should have taken that monopod, put your camera on it, hoisted it up and taken a few Hail Mary shots.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2010 05:37
|
|
|
Penpal posted:Yeah, I get what you're saying. I read your lighting blog a bunch, too! I usually click on it every couple of days but you don't update very often. I think one of the reasons why I feel that way is because I'm very saturated with photographers my age who are doing the "million strobes" thing to make a photo more dynamic, when you can achieve dynamism other ways. I'm thinking of band photos, portraits, that sort of thing... sometimes with HDR or high-pass cranked way up. With rim lights so hot it's like there are three suns pointed at the person, whether or not they're in a car park, in a forest, or any other setting. Check the strobist blog. He does a lot of stuff with 2 lights that looks pretty natural, though I do agree that often times it's harder to get something natural looking with 2+ lights. I think people love to use a multitude of lights because it sets them apart from amateur photogs that exclusively use available light or worse- pop-up flash. AtomicManiac fucked around with this message at 07:54 on Sep 17, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2010 07:52
|
|
|
Yeah, the strobist blog is one that I know I should make daily checkups on but never do. Also that sucks about the fashion show, I haven't been to one (locally) that was either too dark, or lit horribly (giant deep yellow and red lights). Seems like if you frame it tighter you can get a 'swarm of adoring people' type of photo. I would bump the exposure and cut the fat on the left.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2010 13:52
|
|
|
Have rented an 130cm Octabox for the weekend for £10, I have two shoots to do - poets and wrestlers, in that order. Never used an Octabox before. I just set it up now and I like  Will throw up some results on here next week when all is done.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2010 14:41
|
|
|
AtomicManiac posted:...amateur photogs that exclusively use available light... <  >
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2010 17:10
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:< Except your results are way better than plenty of professionals, and almost all of the strobist advocates I've seen (I'm kind of one of them).
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2010 17:32
|
|
|
Gazmachine posted:That first picture is unfeasibly cute. Not only that, but you've brought some interest and character out in a child portrait, which so many people never, ever, ever do, because all they need is one fairly well exposed snap on their kid and 99% of parents will be happy with it. You've actually bothered to go further than that and make it interesting to people who aren't the child's parents. Post is lovely, too - is there a spot of yellow split toning going on? Arinel posted:I really love these, and I thought they were yours before I saw your name. I think the 2nd one is the best, and the dark greens really frame the child. The 3rd one is just adorable. Penpal posted:this would be an excellent triptych to hang in a home if the last picture was vertical as well. They're really good mono photos. Thanks guys. Yes there is a little bit of yellow there. I think kids are like cartoon characters and I try to capture them that way. I just want to capture a bit of personality and something unique about anyone I shoot.  AtomicManiac posted:I think people love to use a multitude of lights because it sets them apart from amateur photogs that exclusively use available light or worse- pop-up flash. So only an amateur photographer would exclusively use available light? McMadCow posted:< Amateur. Whitezombi fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Sep 17, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2010 17:45
|
|
|
AtomicManiac posted:... or worse- pop-up flash. Honestly I think sometimes one can use pop up flash and it makes things look nice. But you have to know what you're doing. But I wouldn't say that it's always bad. (Not that that's what you said, I'm just sayin'.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2010 18:00
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:< Don't you know that photogs should only use artificial light? CHRIST. Order your Profoto Artificial Sun now!
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2010 18:19
|
|
|
properly planned natural light is the best.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2010 18:20
|
|
|
I've definitely come full circle. I used to be afraid of lights, shooting au naturale, then picked up some lights and used them more and more to the point where they were almost a crutch, and now I'm back to trying to use as much natural light as possible when it makes sense. A reflector is a wonderful tool! e: This is obviously a ridiculously stupid generalization but I think you know what I mean.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2010 19:29
|
|
|
BobTheCow posted:I've definitely come full circle. I used to be afraid of lights, shooting au naturale, then picked up some lights and used them more and more to the point where they were almost a crutch, and now I'm back to trying to use as much natural light as possible when it makes sense. A reflector is a wonderful tool! I absolutely agree with you. I assist some ridiculously good photographers who almost exclusively use natural light (Hell I know more than they do about strobes) and because they are able to pick and choose when and where they shoot they can produce spectacular results. So I've gone from natural -> strobist -> studio -> natural again. For example this cover was shot on a shoot I was assisting on - all natural light, no reflector even. 
Paragon8 fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Sep 17, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2010 19:45
|
|
|
Yea, I didn't mean the available light thing as an insult. There's a pretty big difference between the people that just take pictures with whatever light is around without thinking about it and the people that know about lighting and position their models and/or scout spots that use the available light to their advantage.
AtomicManiac fucked around with this message at 21:53 on Sep 17, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2010 20:17
|
|
|
AtomicManiac posted:Yea, I didn't mean the available light thing as an insult. There's a pretty big difference between the people that just take pictures with whatever light is around without thinking about it and the people that know about lighting and position their models and/or scout spots that use the available light to their advantage. Quick, back peddle your way out and completely contradict what you said!
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2010 05:05
|
|
|
My shoot are all tomorrow but I thought I'd better get some practice in with the Octabox. Soon found that it's too fooking large for my front room - ceilings are too low. I've got a real range of stuff to capture tomorrow for various reasons, so I'm hoping to milk as much potential out of the thing as possible. Seeing as my pops was visiting today, I thought I'd nab him for a practice session. Any regular Octaboxers got advice / little tricks / nuggets of knowledge to pass on to me? How are these looking? First I tried camera right, fairly level with subject:  dad1 by Gareth Dutton Photography, on Flickr Then I tried it farther behind the subject's face, camera right:  Dad2 by Gareth Dutton Photography, on Flickr Then I went with a more direct setup, above subject but not dramatically so and slightly to right, but only really so I could fit in the gap:  dad3 by Gareth Dutton Photography, on Flickr Messed with the post in various ways, too, as you can see. Anything glaringly wrong that I'm not spotting off the bat? Anything you spot would be most appreciated, or at least it will be if it reaches me before my shoots tomorrow!
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2010 15:01
|
|
|
A reflector would go a long way on these. Still I like them and your pops is a good model 8)
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2010 16:20
|
|
|
Sure - I think for tomorrow's stuff I might take a smaller softbox to act as fill light, as (a) I'll be doing a variety of shots, many of them full body or 3/4 and (b) I doubt anyone will be available to hold poo poo for me. Thanks for the feedback and oh my god I love Octaboxes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2010 17:13
|
|
|
I haven't had much direction in my photography before, but recently I've discovered that I really enjoy taking portraits! I think I have a lot of work ahead of me though... 20100731-DSC_0296.jpg by Pipe Merchant, on Flickr  20100731-DSC_0281.jpg by Pipe Merchant, on Flickr  20100801-DSC_0368.jpg by Pipe Merchant, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2010 20:41
|
|
|
Pipe Merchant posted:I haven't had much direction in my photography before, but recently I've discovered that I really enjoy taking portraits! I think I have a lot of work ahead of me though... This is nice, interesting composition. p.s. - I like wrestling and I don't care if you know.  Dominator1 by Gareth Dutton Photography, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2010 22:07
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:For example this cover was shot on a shoot I was assisting on - all natural light, no reflector even. How the hell. I would love to know more about how the guy who shot this achieved that without a reflector. I'm impressed!
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2010 18:49
|
|
|
Cannister posted:How the hell. I would love to know more about how the guy who shot this achieved that without a reflector. I'm impressed! Looks like one of those dreary cloudy days much like Vancouver 90% of the time. Light bounces everywhere because the clouds act like a giant softbox.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2010 19:01
|
|
|
Cannister posted:How the hell. I would love to know more about how the guy who shot this achieved that without a reflector. I'm impressed! Where is it you think the reflector would have been, had this been shot with the aid of one?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2010 19:51
|
|
|
HPL posted:Looks like one of those dreary cloudy days much like Vancouver 90% of the time. Light bounces everywhere because the clouds act like a giant softbox. Yeah but overcast clouds are above you, in the sky. It just seemed like there was light coming in from in front of her face. I supposed I wasn't thinking about magic hour and how light can come in more laterally at that time. poopinmymouth posted:Where is it you think the reflector would have been, had this been shot with the aid of one? More or less straight in front of her face, just to the left of the frame of the shot, about 10 feet back? The highlight on her lips look like a light source other than the sky, I don't know. I suppose that would put some more light on her neck, which is pretty well in shadow. I'm not the best in the world at reading back photos to what the lighting setup was. Cannister fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Sep 20, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2010 19:59
|
|
|
Cannister posted:Yeah but overcast clouds are above you, in the sky. It just seemed like there was light coming in from in front of her face. I supposed I wasn't thinking about magic hour and how light can come in more laterally at that time. Keep in mind there was probably at least a little post lifting up the face. Also just because it's without dedicated lighting equipment, doesn't mean the photographer is in the middle of a field. Could easily have been taken between two buildings designed to block out some side light while only allowing it in from above. Or any other structure, trees, etc. But either way, it would be very very difficult to get this kind of soft even lighting with a reflector.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2010 20:06
|
|
|
Cannister posted:How the hell. I would love to know more about how the guy who shot this achieved that without a reflector. I'm impressed! Yeah it's just a properly exposed shot is all. It looks good, don't get me wrong, but it's really simple.. light source (probably the sun behind some clouds or something like that) is directly above the model casting that shadow on her neck and lower cheeks as such. I think the eyes have been touched up, they don't seem consistent with anything else. I could be wrong!
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2010 20:08
|
|
|
10 months out of the year I'll be shooting under a giant, sky-sized softbox in San Francisco. PIMM's suggestion that landscape or buildings could be close by is probably true, I've got plenty of shots with dynamic lighting on the model simply because they had a wall to one side and the sky to the other. The biggest thing I have to look out for is shadows over the eyes. If the pose allows it, I'll generally tell the model to keep their chin up and treat the sky as their light source. Reflectors work great for filling in shadows in deep-set eyes but there's always the possibility that light will also ruin the natural sculpting you're getting from the sky.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2010 20:17
|
|
|
Children tend to be the most fun potrait shooting for me. Most are too young to feel shy or embarrassed. As long as you can make them laugh they tend to just ham it up and have fun. Thumb! om nom nom  Click here for the full 800x640 image. Bright eyes.  Click here for the full 800x640 image. Pensive. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2010 01:00
|
|
|
Gazmachine posted:p.s. - I like wrestling and I don't care if you know.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2010 07:48
|
|
|
Thankyou, you are most kind. I'm shamelessly cross-posting, but here's some posed Octabox lit stuff from the same evening:  William Gáylord 1 by Gareth Dutton Photography, on Flickr  William Gáylord 3 by Gareth Dutton Photography, on Flickr  Parliament1logo by Gareth Dutton Photography, on Flickr full set Right, that's me done hammering all the threads - just wanted to share the love. Oh, and it's pronounced "Gah-lord", so stop sniggering.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2010 09:00
|
|
|
Gazmachine posted:Oh, and it's pronounced "Gah-lord", so stop sniggering.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2010 09:06
|
|
|
Haha, that'd be good actually.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2010 09:27
|
|
|
I think you've got the wrong accent on the "a". Isn't it supposed to be going the other way? Otherwise it's gay like happy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2010 23:05
|
|
|
A friend of mine got sponsored by a drum company, and needed some promo shots. Click  Click  Click  Click
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2010 05:00
|
|
|
Anti_Social posted:A friend of mine got sponsored by a drum company, and needed some promo shots. I really really love what you did with the first two. They're creative and very well executed. I don't like the second two equally as much. Your lighting just isn't working on his face at all for me. In the second of the pair, I'd go as far as to say it looks like his right side is deformed. The shadow by the dridge of his nose up to his right eye makes it look like the eye is drooping. Am I crazy? Is anyone else seeing that?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2010 06:02
|
|
|
HPL posted:I think you've got the wrong accent on the "a". Isn't it supposed to be going the other way? Otherwise it's gay like happy. Hm, you may be correct, although I doubt any of the fanbase will point that out! It really is a gift of a gimmick for a bad guy - good ol' homophobia! Anti_Social posted:A friend of mine got sponsored by a drum company, and needed some promo shots. Can I ask a quick question? What order did you take these shots in? Did you take the drum shots or the straight up portraits first? He looks more relaxed in the pics with his kit, for sure. Did you put a light inside the drum, or is that all post? I love the lighting setup on the drumkit shots, but I wonder if you could've got him playing something to music - something he's really fond of? Obviously it'd be on one drum only, but I think it might've brought out a bit more character in him. Sorry, I know you didn't ask for a critique and I'm really nitpicking at this point, but I'm only nitpicking because I really like those drum shots, and I think a bit more movement would make them even better. Would like to see close up headshots / head and shoulder with him holding some branded drumsticks, head down a touch, eyes up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2010 08:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 02:33 |
|
|
I did the drum shots first, then the portraits real quick afterwards. I strapped a gelled flash to the snare stand with bongo ties below - I actually had to photoshop some of it out because I am retarded and didn't hide it very well. It wasn't possible to get him really playing something. After one snare hit, most of the water was already on the ground. The company that sponsored him is Respira, and they currently only make snares - I wanted something that would still very clearly show the logo on his shirt, but still look cool. I also cheated with the lighting. The snare itself was a composite; I just don't have enough lights to cover everything I needed it to.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2010 11:49
|
|