|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:Here's another corporate shot, boring, but I like it. Do you ever apply sharpening to your photos? It's hard to tell if you leave them as is or if it's more subtle. Were you slightly above the subject in the first photo? It looks as if you're slightly off horizon and he's leaning back a bit unnaturally to compensate. I would probably clone out the reflection on the table and the outlet on the left side. The second has a bit of a sliced head effect, which I usually don't care that much about but since it's such a tight composition it is a bit more pronounced. I would consider adding a reflector camera left to give some fill. These are all opinions though so feel free to ignore certain parts.
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2011 21:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 03:12 |
|
|
I don't sharpen the photos, it's all lightroom contrast/exposure/black levels. I rarely touch the clarity sliders. You make some good points, I'm going to take out the electrical sockets. I'm not really seeing the leaning issue you mention though. I thought the reflection would look cool, I'll take a stab at removing them, but I have a feeling I won't do so hot of a job. I thought about adding a second light for fill, but in this case, I thought the shadow would help narrow his face more. His hair separates pretty well from the background, as does his shoulder. So I didn't think I would have to make him pop out anymore.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2011 23:25
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:I don't sharpen the photos. You don't sharpen them for your clients either, or...?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2011 00:33
|
|
|
No, it's not part of my normal workflow to sharpen the photos. Should I? Do they look like they are in need of it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2011 00:41
|
|
|
Doesn't Lightroom automatically add base sharpening?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2011 00:52
|
|
Have you seen my apex seals? I seem to have lost them.
|
Yeah, definitely. Lightroom has very solid, easy-to-use sharpening complete with masking. You should be slapped for not using it. EDIT: it will do a little, but your base image is generally a little soft due to anti-aliasing filters in the sensor. It helps quite a bit, doubly so for print. scottch fucked around with this message at 00:56 on Apr 29, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2011 00:53
|
|
|
Aeka 2.0 posted:Doesn't Lightroom automatically add base sharpening? I've heard several times that basically any digital photo needs some amount of sharpening applied. quote:All digital images can benefit from some sharpening. Translating the continuous tones of the real world into a mosaic of square pixels will inevitably introduce some softness into an image. With digital captures, this is more noticeable with RAW files because cameras typically apply some amount of in-camera sharpening to JPEG captures but not to RAW captures. quote:Digital photographs, by their very nature, appear somewhat soft focus. This is because as the picture comes off the sensor it's in a mosaic, sort of like the floor pictures found in Pompeii. The camera electronics interpolate this mosaic into a smooth picture, but sharp edges get a little blurred in the process. Some cameras sharpen the image as part of their software, and some cameras let you specify how much sharpening (if any) you want the camera to do, but usually as part of your processing you'll want to fine tune this process in your imaging program. TheAngryDrunk fucked around with this message at 01:28 on Apr 29, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2011 00:57
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:I've heard several times that basically any digital photo needs some amount of sharpening applied. No. Many shots are fine, straight from camera, I find. Sharpening will help many, or most, photos, but I have plenty of sharp shots I've done zero sharpening on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2011 01:19
|
|
|
I think people sometimes get too obsessed with sharpening (and all sorts of other "proper" things too), and although sometimes it adds to have things tack sharp, sometimes softer is nicer, especially when we're talking about people. I used to sharpen out of a desire for "correctness", but now I rarely do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2011 02:38
|
|
|
 Did a paid headshot for a friend of a friend yesterday who is an engineer/travel writer, we were both happy with how it turned out (although I quietly sperged out about the subtle reflection in the right lens of his glasses when I got home). He originally wanted a B&W shot, but I included the color and low-saturation ones with it and he liked those better. I'm definitely going to pick up a copy of Silver Efex Pro before I leave my university later in the summer though. I'm pretty much a babby at off-camera lighting and posed portrait shooting, how do you guys feel about it? I'm leaning towards competent but nothing special. I definitely want to get some more experience with this before I move, even if it's just shits and giggles stuff for friends. I switched bags for my lighting equipment and left the head for my umbrella stand at home, but was able to improvise on-site with a briefcase on a shelf weighing down the umbrella  Moist von Lipwig posted:What would the lighting setup for a shot like this be like? Haha, I know that shot (and that camera). covet covet
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2011 04:03
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:Here's another corporate shot, boring, but I like it. The reflection could have been clever and interesting if it was "Apollo" reflected instead of "Press, Inc." As it stands currently it looks like an inadvertent mistake. Also I'd clone out the light cover or whatever the cream-colored rectangle is on the left edge of the frame. I think it detracts from the otherwise very clean background. Also also, not much you can do about it, but drat that dude's got some gnarly teeth!
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2011 04:29
|
|
|
Elemeno^P posted:It was pretty good. Thank ya sir.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2011 12:01
|
|
|
scottch posted:Yeah, definitely. Lightroom has very solid, easy-to-use sharpening complete with masking. You should be slapped for not using it. I am not fond of the manual LR sharpening tools; PIMM's high pass approach produces much nicer results. However, the Export / Print sharpening is very good IF you know your output device / resolution.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2011 21:45
|
|
|
Well looks like Digital Rev has shown me a budget way to get neat lighting effects. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6lNCSHH7Vg&feature=feedu
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2011 20:33
|
|
|
Definitely do a bit of sharpening Skater, but only a little. Subtlety is the key. Read up about sharpening techniques. If you use it sparingly, you'll see a real difference. Also, bravo on getting all these jobs - you seem to be getting quite a few.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2011 00:37
|
|
|
I decided to push away from what I know, and try something new. A hard light, athletics type look. Flew an umbrella up over my head, and had a softbox on the floor for fill. Couple other strobes thrown in for accent. Over processed for the hell of it. Not convinced I sold the look. El Borracho by JoshuaVanHorsen, on Flickr I really need some friends.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2011 15:49
|
|
|
Elemeno^P posted:A hard light, athletics type look. Flew an umbrella up over my head, and had a softbox on the floor for fill. The second sentence may be why? If you want hard light why not just try hard light. I do like the poncho though
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2011 19:23
|
|
|
Elemeno^P posted:I decided to push away from what I know, and try something new. I know the dark look was what you were going for, but I think boosting the exposure 2/3 of a stop looks better.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2011 19:30
|
|
|
TiberiusM posted:The second sentence may be why? If you want hard light why not just try hard light. Fair enough. I was shooting a grided strobe camera right for a hard rim, but at some point I must have stepped out of it. TheAngryDrunk posted:I know the dark look was what you were going for, but I think boosting the exposure 2/3 of a stop looks better. I agree. I was trying to rough it up, but I didn't mean for it to go muddy. I'll be sure to watch that. Thanks for the comments!
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2011 19:47
|
|
|
I bought a white screen and decided to test it out! I only had a 430ex and minor outdoor light. It was the first time I used this kind of setting (the stupid roll kept unrolling arrrrghhh!). I gotta say taking pictures of my little one is a harsh project, they don't stand in place. I couldn't snap a decent shot of my little man. He even tore my sheet down (fun time). My wife wanted a family picture before the 3rd kid is born. Help me get better and destroy my self esteem now. J-YG by Portrait, on Flickr  J-YG by My truck bigger than yours, on Flickr  J-YG by Little Family, on Flickr  J-YG by Rock your Horse, on Flickr  J-YG by Blocks!, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2011 00:59
|
|
|
Buy some gels for your flash, you have cool and warm light sources at once and if you can balance them it will look much better. Was the 430EX shot through anything or bare? You can get cheapo Hong Kong softboxes and umbrellas off eBay that will probably be a big help, too.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2011 02:07
|
|
|
The flash was shot with nothing on. Gels for the flash (are they filter?). I am very interested by what your saying. I am really novice in studio lightning and all. I really enjoyed it, I might take a class later on. Could you link me or give me a brand name for those hong kong cheapo stuff.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2011 02:27
|
|
|
You're underexposing as well. See how the background is appearing grey instead of white? Also for a cleaner look, make sure subject has a distance between them and the background so that it doesn't throw shadows on it... or Terry Richardson this setting up and get naked.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2011 17:14
|
|
|
Your camera meter wants to expose everything to neutral gray. So if you have a white background, it will tend to underexpose things to make that gray. Black backgrounds will make your camera over-expose for the same reason. Use manual mode or spot metering on the subject instead. Unless you have an albino or a black guy, in which case I have no suggestions for you. 
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2011 18:56
|
|
|
Spot meterng was the way to go and i forgot to change my setting. I should have over exposed by at least +1in evaluative mode. Also i did not check my histogram (noob mistake). I Will work with the distance of my subject with the background. I hope my next set get better!
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2011 19:22
|
|
|
Gray cards are cheap. Get one.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2011 23:48
|
|
|
Niagalack posted:The flash was shot with nothing on. Gels for the flash (are they filter?). Here's something to get you started: http://www.amazon.com/Rosco-Strobist-Collection-Lumiquest-Strobes/dp/B002SWD8LQ/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1304378186&sr=8-2 Also, read this: http://www.zarias.com/white-seamless-tutorial-part-1-gear-space/
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2011 00:28
|
|
|
Awesome, I will be reading this tutorial. I didn't see lighting difference at first, but after looking closely, I saw the blueish light on the top left and the orange light on the right side.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2011 01:00
|
|
|
Crosspost from the snapshot thread My first portrait for a buddy of mine whos moving out of town 
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2011 14:59
|
|
|
A set of senior portraits I did a while back. Critique appreciated!  
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2011 14:23
|
|
|
just chiming in to say I think all 3 are excellent.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2011 15:44
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:A set of senior portraits I did a while back. Critique appreciated! It's a minor nitpick, but her light hair somewhat blends into the background a bit in the first one. Nice shots, though.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2011 16:09
|
|
|
How's this? 
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2011 20:20
|
|
|
A couple of pictures of people looking down and to the right.  MrBlandAverage posted:A set of senior portraits I did a while back. Critique appreciated! I think the first two work very well as senior portraits, but the third is problematic within that context; looking down on an uncertain subject does not project the exuberance and possibility generally desired for those shots. The first one is probably the safest choice for the final pick, though I would really like to see it with her entire head in the blown out light, because as TheAngryDrunk said, her hair melts into it, I think it would be a rather nice effect for the photo though.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2011 20:50
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:I think the first two work very well as senior portraits, but the third is problematic within that context; looking down on an uncertain subject does not project the exuberance and possibility generally desired for those shots. The first one is probably the safest choice for the final pick, though I would really like to see it with her entire head in the blown out light, because as TheAngryDrunk said, her hair melts into it, I think it would be a rather nice effect for the photo though. Here's a few more. Not sure how to make her hair pop out more from the trees in the background. Maybe some dodge/burn?  Reminded me of Saoirse Ronan and a particular shot from The Lovely Bones:  Not much of a senior portrait, but I liked it on its own merits: 
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2011 04:33
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:
What are you using/Are you lighting these? That light is so soft!
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2011 14:05
|
|
|
XTimmy posted:What are you using/Are you lighting these? That light is so soft! edit: Also a little bit of post. Slight vignette effect on the one you quoted, for example. MrBlandAverage fucked around with this message at 18:08 on May 11, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2011 16:25
|
|
|
My little man getting ready for a shoot: IMG_0421.jpg by www.ShootJoeC.com, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2011 16:27
|
|
|
Took this of my cousin the other day. Thoughts? 
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2011 19:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 03:12 |
|
|
^ I would really like to get a good look at those eyes!
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2011 20:27
|
|
