|
I think people are confusing Skater's pics with Atomic's pics.
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2011 11:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 14:04 |
|
|
Gazmachine posted:I think people are confusing Skater's pics with Atomic's pics. I'm not.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2011 13:49
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Why is this outdoors? You've ignored the lighting of the scene and used your own, and she is far enough away from it that she isn't a part of it. It might as well be a composite for all the interaction she is doing with it. It doesn't even have to be seamless - just a white wall or a wall with a consistent pattern. Wide open backgrounds are hard to work with especially if your images don't interact with them or use them to their advantage. I've seen people get awesome silvery backgrounds just shooting in front of an elevator door.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2011 13:59
|
|
|
HPL posted:It's come to the point where I can look at photos without seeing the user name and pick out AIIAZNSK8ER's photos. In other words, congrats on finding a style. Thanks? I didn't post 'pale chick in the woods', I hope you didn't think that was mine. Now if you see 'dude in suit', that's probably mine. Gazmachine posted:I think people are confusing Skater's pics with Atomic's pics. Good god, I hope not. Reichstag posted:'Bland' is not a style. Truth
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2011 14:28
|
|
|
best critiques in dorkroom are itt
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2011 17:25
|
|
|
A fun video about a really good headshot photographer It's always interesting to see someone take one aspect of photographer and just perfect the hell out of it
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2011 17:41
|
|
|
AtomicManiac posted:2) That's actually fairly close to her actual skin tone, she's incredibly pale. I've wanted to get some Gel's to mess with, but the local camera stores don't sell them and I've been lazy. Any recommendations? Also, should I add some kind of layer-mask to warm her skin up even if I came fairly close to her actual skin tone? http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/634658-REG/Rosco_1100STROBKIT_Strobist_55_Piece_Filter_Kit.html And what I use to organize them: http://www.staples.com/Rolodex-36-Card-Black-Faux-Leather-Compact-Business-Card-Book/product_609003?cmArea=SEARCH Holds all of the color balance gels, and the neutral density gels.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2011 18:09
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:How much other photography do you look at? Not trying to insult the guy, but there really isn't anything noteworthy that should make it memorable unless you only look at photos here in the dorkroom. There are hundreds, if not thousands of people with off camera lighting that do shots that could be slipped in without anyone noticing. It's not a technical thing. He seems to be able to coax a relatively relaxed, comfortable look from most of his subjects. I know from his past work that he has been working hard on it. Considering that he largely works with non-models that aren't used to being photographed and in fact may be uncomfortable with being photographed, I think he does a decent enough job of it. Of course lots of people light photos better or compose better or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2011 21:47
|
|
|
This is very true - people shouldn't forget that working with "normal" people is hugely different to working with models or anyone used to being photographed at all. They don't look into the lens, they screw their face up in terror, they suddenly raise their eyebrows / open their eyes wide for no reason, they do weird things with their face, they blink a lot. You need to work out how to relax them and usually in a short space of time. A lot of really amazing portraiture of people who aren't models, performers etc is usually a product of the photographer taking up residence in the environment that individual is in for a number of days, or at least a situation where they've been allowed to spend a good hour with the individual. I get the impression that Skater has to take these office dudes to one side during their working day and snatch a 10 minute photo session. Not that there isn't anyone who doesn't know that here, but just sayin'.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2011 09:56
|
|
|
gently caress models. Real people are almost always better. You just need to make them feel comfortable, which is something I can easily understand goons would have trouble doing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2011 18:19
|
|
|
Dorkroom: models are not real people. I get what you mean though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2011 19:35
|
|
|
It shouldn't matter if the subject is a trained model or not, it's the job of the photographer to elicit something from the sitter. When I look at awesome portraits of celebrities, a lot of the context of that photo comes from the on screen personality that we associate with them. However, I know that if I were given that assignment, I wouldn't automatically have a great photo. A camera lens always looks both ways. A good typical shoot for me so far. I show up, it's an interesting office with good natural light and nice looking furniture. The owner is easy for me to talk to and I can quickly find a common interest within the first 3-5 minutes. I'm able to get 40 minutes total with most of the time spent talking. I get 3 poses with 2 locations. Sitting, standing, one in the office and one in the lobby. I get my safe shot, and I thank them for their time, hand them a business card and ask for a business opportunity (corporate party, photos for the website, and family portraiture). Everyone's happy. A not so good shoot starts out the same way, but I can never click with the person. I continue to work for 20 minutes and end up getting blank or tired expressions against a horrible background. Last week, I asked one woman to shift her weight and put one hand on her hip, kind of a more friendly feminine pose. She told me "No, that's not who I am". I kind of froze and thought, well ok, standing there stiff as a board will work then... In retrospect I should have said "What pose would you say your COO/CFO would represent you better?" I don't know. Today, I had a lady who was having a hard time actively smiling because "smiling makes my wrinkles look worse". So she's already super self conscious and I had a hell of a time getting her even remotely comfortable. Finally, some images from shoots that went well in my opinion.  jessico-1468 by AIIAZNSK8ER, on Flickr  jessico-0063 by AIIAZNSK8ER, on Flickr  taylor made diagnostics-0036 by AIIAZNSK8ER, on Flickr  pipeline industrial group-0053 by AIIAZNSK8ER, on Flickr Of course, like many of you know, these are boring, but hopefully getting consistent. I'm still working on making them more interesting. At least I think my lighting is getting better. When I look at stuff in Inc. magazine and Bloomberg, those photos have a stronger concept behind them. They really describe the person's business. But what do I do for the umpteen IT government contractors I shoot?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2011 05:23
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER - I think you've got the right attitude to be honest. These are just portraits of local business owners and they're solid, they're not supposed to be high art. As you go along you can start experimenting with different lighting etc, but for what they are they do the job. I remember your pregnancy yoga shoot as being quite fun 
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2011 06:27
|
|
|
A friend needed some pictures because an apparel company made a special edition shirt in his name. They needed some pictures for the website so I decided to put my foot forward on that. My first try doing something a bit "gritty." Big Mike Eeffect  Big Mike Eeffect 2
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2011 05:12
|
|
Have you seen my apex seals? I seem to have lost them.
|
Paragon8 posted:A fun video about a really good headshot photographer Ok so why use Kino Flow when I can go to Home Depot and get a bank of florescents that are arranged the same way? or is it something completely different?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2011 05:35
|
|
|
Aeka 2.0 posted:Ok so why use Kino Flow when I can go to Home Depot and get a bank of florescents that are arranged the same way? or is it something completely different? Florescent lights will flicker and cause all sorts of white balance headaches. I hate shooting in offices with heavy florescent lights.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2011 06:00
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:Florescent lights will flicker and cause all sorts of white balance headaches. I hate shooting in offices with heavy florescent lights. aren't there "better" lights that can fit in the same fixtures? Or is it just the nature of the beast? I have seen the strobe of a florescent show up in pictures.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2011 06:09
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:It shouldn't matter if the subject is a trained model or not, it's the job of the photographer to elicit something from the sitter. When I look at awesome portraits of celebrities, a lot of the context of that photo comes from the on screen personality that we associate with them. However, I know that if I were given that assignment, I wouldn't automatically have a great photo. A camera lens always looks both ways. Are you trying to be a stock photographer or something?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2011 18:15
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:Are you trying to be a stock photographer or something? What's wrong with that?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2011 19:04
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:Are you trying to be a stock photographer or something? needs more blinding white for that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2011 19:17
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:Are you trying to be a stock photographer or something? Not trying, but I assume from your line of questioning, I'm heading there unintentionally.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2011 22:25
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:Of course, like many of you know, these are boring, but hopefully getting consistent. I'm still working on making them more interesting. At least I think my lighting is getting better. When I look at stuff in Inc. magazine and Bloomberg, those photos have a stronger concept behind them. They really describe the person's business. But what do I do for the umpteen IT government contractors I shoot? The "drier" shoots I do are with Web Designer Magazine, which are exactly this - shoots with a bunch of web dudes. I used to talk with them over the phone or by email beforehand, make some notes, then run some suggestions by them, all before the day of the shoot. I've changed that since, though, because I turned up with a bunch of ideas for this web dev company who have a red square for a logo. I spoke over email with one of the creative directors I was shooting, and he was on board with lots of my ideas. Anyway, I got there and the MD was just straight up "no. We had some guy in here last month making us look goofy and we ended up looking like gay cowboys in the magazine". So the directive changed to "just get shots of us looking natural". Great. It turned out fine, though, and I realised that it's actually much easier to get there about an hour early, scope out all the locations in the office and nearby, and find interesting backgrounds to work with an places to set them up. Take a couple of test shots for your lighting and keep them in your camera so you can refer to each setting easily when you position your subject in the scene. I got them to sit up on a raised piece of marble in reception and let them chat to each other and got some good, natural shots. At one point, I overheard little bits of their conversation between their sniggers and said "...what are you guys chatting about?" "Shagging." It's always shagging.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2011 12:19
|
|
|
Ok, how did I do with this one? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2011 21:33
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:Ok, how did I do with this one? I like the idea of the open window but it feels distracting and makes it maybe a little too busy for a portrait. Maybe a shallower DOF would have fixed it? I dunno, but I feel like she's not separated enough from the background. I like the lighting a lot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2011 22:51
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:Ok, how did I do with this one? I like her expression, it make her look very business-ish while staying welcoming. Why did you go portrait mode on this one however? Wasn't there anything interesting on her sides? It's fairly uninteresting outside and she seems to have a pretty / clean desk. What is she? A proof reader or something?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2011 22:52
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:Ok, how did I do with this one? You've avoided isolating her with your framing and depth of field, but as far as I can tell, there's nothing relevant in the additional information. Either isolate her, or use the surroundings to add depth to her personality.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2011 23:02
|
|
|
surgical scar posted:You've avoided isolating her with your framing and depth of field, but as far as I can tell, there's nothing relevant in the additional information. Either isolate her, or use the surroundings to add depth to her personality. This is what I was trying to say.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2011 23:03
|
|
|
surgical scar posted:You've avoided isolating her with your framing and depth of field, but as far as I can tell, there's nothing relevant in the additional information. Either isolate her, or use the surroundings to add depth to her personality. Yeah, agreeing with this. She's nicely lit, but the parking lot background is hugely distracting. Also I thought she was just doing something weird with her hands at first because the glasses sort of disappear into that wild pattern on her shirt.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2011 23:05
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:This is what I was trying to say. Ditto.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2011 23:05
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:Ok, how did I do with this one? Crop out the top/bottom. If you remove the brown part of the desk at bottom it makes the image have more of an impact. Same for cropping out the top. No one wants to look at blinds/blind pully things. Why were the blinds left open? Level the picture, it seems off by a degree or two. Why are the books there? Are they significant? If not, then why are they there? If only for a prop, you should have used a less prominent pair. The red is very distracting. If they are important, why can't you see what they are? It also took a while to see that she's holding glasses... you would assume a pen but there isn't one so it is kind of off-putting. What does she do? Does she even work there? What is her position? The portrait says nothing about the person, which in some cases is fine... but I'm sure you're trying for more. The light is nice and not as flat as the others though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 01:02
|
|
|
I have little experience with lighting and even less shooting portraits so I set up a shoot with my cousin this past weekend to get some practice. With neither myself or my cousin knowing much of anything about posing I just chatted with her for about an hour and snapped far too many shots. I am reasonably happy with the results for a first try but would appreciate some advice.  
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 01:37
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:Ok, how did I do with this one? Like the others said, the background distracts...unless she works at a car lot or manages a parking facility.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 01:38
|
|
|
Thanks everyone, the books are ones that she wrote. The article is about her consulting business, which aren't directly connected with her books. I didn't think the background would be so distracting, or the glasses in her hand would be so awkward. But now I will keep those in mind.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 05:39
|
|
|
I rented a 24-70mm 2.8 and took some pics. It was the first time doing family portraits, a few that I really like: IMG_2377.jpg  IMG_2294.jpg  IMG_2224.jpg I gave the client both color and B&W. I had no idea how much tweaking went into making a color photo into a satisfying "black" and white. Not all photos had "extreme" composition. Those were the ones I just happened to like. The husband had a problem with squinting that I couldn't fix. I kept trying to get him to rest and close his eyes and then asked him to open them when I was going to shoot. It wasn't working =( The sun was harsh, so I did the best I could. Aeka 2.0 fucked around with this message at 06:57 on Feb 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 06:54
|
|
|
jsmith114 posted:I have little experience with lighting and even less shooting portraits so I set up a shoot with my cousin this past weekend to get some practice. With neither myself or my cousin knowing much of anything about posing I just chatted with her for about an hour and snapped far too many shots. I am reasonably happy with the results for a first try but would appreciate some advice. lighting is too "hard" and it looks like you may need to use a longer focal length to flatten and isolate. What focal length were you using? Honestly I think everyone in here can benefit from kelbytraining.com, their membership is well worth it. I don't get paid to say this either. The videos are very good at explaining this stuff. Best money I've spent in a very long time. Another member here mentioned them and now I can't stop watching their videos. Aeka 2.0 fucked around with this message at 07:04 on Feb 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 06:59
|
|
|
Let's give this portrait photography thing a go. Two lights, both stage right - one through an umbrella, the other just outside the frame pointing upwards at a bounce umbrella on the ceiling. 
Zegnar fucked around with this message at 15:32 on Feb 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 15:27
|
|
|
Zegnar posted:Let's give this portrait photography thing a go. I'm looking right *through* his ear. Its... hypnotic, and kinda gross.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 16:55
|
|
|
Aeka 2.0 posted:lighting is too "hard" and it looks like you may need to use a longer focal length to flatten and isolate. What focal length were you using? Thanks for your thoughts. I was using the good old nifty fifty, next time I will try something longer. Do you find the light too hard in all of the shots? In the first two I was using an unmodified flash to camera right with a make shift reflector on the left but in the third I was using a small shoot-through umbrella. Perhaps it was not close enough to the subject to make enough of a difference.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 18:12
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:Thanks everyone, the books are ones that she wrote. The article is about her consulting business, which aren't directly connected with her books. I didn't think the background would be so distracting, or the glasses in her hand would be so awkward. But now I will keep those in mind. Just to add my 2 cents, I also think that you should choose between either going more in or going less in if that makes sense. Either make it ALL ABOUT THE PERSON or ALL ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT in which the person plays a small part and the items/background should all have significance. Right now it feels really inbetween, where there's enough background to distract from the person, but not enough to tell a story. I think for that portrait, maybe a better idea would have been her mostly isolated at a desk, with the books placed very conspicuously so that viewers can know that it has a lot of significance. Or maybe set up like in a book signing set-up or similar that gives us a familiar context.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 18:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 14:04 |
|
|
Ended up doing a shoot for my friends band. I did it for free, now I know the rule of "Just because a business isn't profitable doesn't make them 'non-profit'" of the "Should I work for free?" flowchart but I owed them after they got me working pass for the Bon Jovi tour in Melbourne     Super simple set up.  The lead singer is a former full time model, and it shows in every pic I take of her.. She can't do 'natural'
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2011 02:08
|
|