|
 thanks. I didn't even notice that. Fixed!
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 20:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 19:39 |
|
|
CarrotFlowers posted:I had a session with my sister and a couple of friends yesterday so that I could practice with people. I dunno how you guys do it so well. We went 2-3 hours before sunset, but the sun was so bright it was directly in everyone's eyes, so I ended up shooting in a shadowed area. I had my camera on Av with spot metering on their face (correct, incorrect method?), and it kept underexposing so I bumped up my exposure compensation by 2/3 or a full stop, and they still came out underexposed...sigh. I shot in RAW, so it wasn't the end of the world, but still frustrating. I'm also going to ask my sister to not wear a white shirt next time, as it really threw off my sense of proper exposure. Can you show me an original underexposed picture? Also, do you put your ISO in auto or do you set it to the lowest? I use AV + ISO 100 (most of the time especially at the time of the day you shot) + Spot metering (on the eyes) and the exposure comes out okay ;o P.S: I think the pictures are gorgeous, your sister and friend should be very happy with them.  The only one I find "odd" is the first one of your sister's set.. It looks like she's putting way too much pressure on her face with her hand. Other than that the composition and processing are good
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 21:24
|
|
|
xenilk posted:Can you show me an original underexposed picture? Also, do you put your ISO in auto or do you set it to the lowest? I use AV + ISO 100 (most of the time especially at the time of the day you shot) + Spot metering (on the eyes) and the exposure comes out okay ;o Sure. This one is straight out of camera. I had it on AV with ISO 400 because I was shooting in shadow with my 70-200 and was nervous about camera shake. I was using spot metering on the eyes, and this is what it was giving me, even with +2/3 exp comp. It's way blue, I assume because of the shadow, and I had it on auto wb. What was I doing wrong?  steph unedited by bernsai, on Flickr And thanks! They were really happy with them, so while I still see room for improvement, I'm really glad that they love them. I agree with the hand thing. I didn't notice it until I was editing them, but I put it up just to have some variation in her poses and keep the amount of pictures roughly equal between the two. We're going back out in a couple of weeks so I am really appreciating all the tips! Especially to the two people who commented on flickr..no idea who you are, but thanks!
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 21:49
|
|
|
I had a quick 5 minute go with my friend as we were walking around the market and we saw a wall we liked. I usually enjoy post processing my normal street shots but I didn't know what the hell to do with these...     Posed Set by Clwn, on Flickr Do they still look like snapshots? Which I guess they were.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 21:57
|
|
|
Clown posted:Do they still look like snapshots? Which I guess they were. The shots themselves look pretty nice but man am I turned off by seeing him talk on the phone. It just seems like such an incredibly pretentious activity to capture, regardless of whom the camera is pointed at. Maybe I'm way off base though, so I'd like to hear other opinions on the matter...
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 22:32
|
|
|
Mmm. It's such an everyday thing for me. Maybe this has turned it into more of a candid shot rather than a proper portrait? drat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 22:47
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:From the same day - I really love the black and white one. I see your point and how the black and white one doesn't mesh well with your intent with the photo, but for me, I'd much rather look at that one than the colour. It's awesome! Her ribs kind of freak me out a bit though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 23:13
|
|
|
Clown posted:Mmm. It's such an everyday thing for me. Maybe this has turned it into more of a candid shot rather than a proper portrait? drat. It's not that I don't see it as an everyday thing when I see someone on the phone out on the street. It's that when I see it in a picture I always get the impression it's being used as a prop to indicate "important person* attending to important matters" and it reads as false. I think the well has been poisoned by a million and one Craig's List "photographers" who inevitably have a lovely shot of someone on their cell phone trying to come off looking like a VIP. *real or imagined
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 23:40
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:
Gotta be honest: Went to your website and drat if I don't feel inspired to shoot more. Also a little outclassed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 02:15
|
|
|
CarrotFlowers posted:Sure. This one is straight out of camera. I had it on AV with ISO 400 because I was shooting in shadow with my 70-200 and was nervous about camera shake. I was using spot metering on the eyes, and this is what it was giving me, even with +2/3 exp comp. It's way blue, I assume because of the shadow, and I had it on auto wb. What was I doing wrong? That's 2/3 stop more? That's odd. Not sure what's causing that. As for the blueness well that can be fixed with White balance since you're in raw, which isn't too bad. I usually set my white balance to whatever it is outside (sunny/cloudy) just to see what the pictures look like and to give the model a better idea since auto white balance can be weird at times. Also, I just realized that most of your pictures on that set are vertical instead of horizontal... do you have any reason why? I usually mine horizontal since we view life in an horizontal manners and it makes much more sense with our brain but that's me :P
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 05:16
|
|
|
CarrotFlowers posted:I had a session with my sister and a couple of friends yesterday so that I could practice with people. I dunno how you guys do it so well. We went 2-3 hours before sunset, but the sun was so bright it was directly in everyone's eyes, so I ended up shooting in a shadowed area. I had my camera on Av with spot metering on their face (correct, incorrect method?), and it kept underexposing so I bumped up my exposure compensation by 2/3 or a full stop, and they still came out underexposed...sigh. I shot in RAW, so it wasn't the end of the world, but still frustrating. I'm also going to ask my sister to not wear a white shirt next time, as it really threw off my sense of proper exposure.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 08:34
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:It's not that I don't see it as an everyday thing when I see someone on the phone out on the street. It's that when I see it in a picture I always get the impression it's being used as a prop to indicate "important person* attending to important matters" and it reads as false. I think the well has been poisoned by a million and one Craig's List "photographers" who inevitably have a lovely shot of someone on their cell phone trying to come off looking like a VIP.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 14:01
|
|
|
Clown posted:Should I just give up on props all together?  T. by Clwn, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 14:54
|
|
|
xenilk posted:That's 2/3 stop more? That's odd. Not sure what's causing that. As for the blueness well that can be fixed with White balance since you're in raw, which isn't too bad. I usually set my white balance to whatever it is outside (sunny/cloudy) just to see what the pictures look like and to give the model a better idea since auto white balance can be weird at times. I usually use auto wb and just fix in post because it's so easy to do, but you're right - doing it in camera would give me a much better idea of how it'll look when it's done. I'm not sure why I do a lot of portrait orientation...probably because when I think of portraits, that's what comes to my mind. I would like to play around with more horizontal shots though. I find then I get too much empty space, but if I learn to make it artistic empty space, it could work. I will try this all next time evil_bunnY posted:Or, use manual and look at the histogram (expose to the right, watch your highlight in all color channels). I switched to manual for the ones that are backlit by the sun, but even afterwards in post, I was having a hell of a time judging whether it was under/over exposed. If I get it to where I want her face to be, her shirt is blown right out, and if I keep the details in the shirt, her face was too dark. I ended up doing some dodging on her face and some recovery/burning to balance the two, but I'm still not 100% happy with it. Also, I can't find a way to view my histogram "live" without using live view, and I hate using live view. Or I could view it after I take the picture, but it seems like even if I do that, and I keep my highlights in check, her face will still be underexposed? I imagine this is the same sort of issue wedding photographers have to deal with, and I think I remember someone saying they prefer to just blow out the dress than have the faces underexposed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 17:02
|
|
|
The face is definitely (usually) the most important part. I just like to keep my highlight blinkies on and if you have the histogram on for the brief review on the screen after you take a photo, it gives you a much better sense of exposure. Having said that, I think you're totally missing the point. If the problem is her face needs more light in comparison to her clothes, add light to her face. In the case of a backlit sun, a reflector or anything that reflects light will do nicely. Why worry about editing when it's so easy to fix the first time?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 19:04
|
|
|
nonanone posted:The face is definitely (usually) the most important part. I just like to keep my highlight blinkies on and if you have the histogram on for the brief review on the screen after you take a photo, it gives you a much better sense of exposure. Having said that, I think you're totally missing the point. If the problem is her face needs more light in comparison to her clothes, add light to her face. In the case of a backlit sun, a reflector or anything that reflects light will do nicely. Why worry about editing when it's so easy to fix the first time? Yeah, I was thinking I should turn the blinkies on for the review. I should have used a reflector, but I wanted to keep the setup really simple this time and just use the natural light that was available. What do you guys normally use for a reflector? I really can't spend any more money this month, regardless of how cheap a manufactured one is, so a do it yourself one would be awesome. Would just a piece of white cardboard work? In the case of the setup where we were shooting in shadow, I'm considering buying a flash and diffuser, as that's really all I see that will help that situation, because there's no light to bounce back. Please correct me if I'm wrong, because I could really put off buying a flash for a while.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 19:55
|
|
|
CarrotFlowers posted:Yeah, I was thinking I should turn the blinkies on for the review. I should have used a reflector, but I wanted to keep the setup really simple this time and just use the natural light that was available. What do you guys normally use for a reflector? I really can't spend any more money this month, regardless of how cheap a manufactured one is, so a do it yourself one would be awesome. Would just a piece of white cardboard work? I know you said you wanted cheap/free... but I bought this 43" 5 in 1 reflector for 15$ on ebay and am pretty satisfied with it. http://www.ebay.ca/itm/120717859067#ht_4694wt_906 I rarely use it tho since I mostly work alone.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 20:04
|
|
|
CarrotFlowers posted:Yeah, I was thinking I should turn the blinkies on for the review. I should have used a reflector, but I wanted to keep the setup really simple this time and just use the natural light that was available. What do you guys normally use for a reflector? I really can't spend any more money this month, regardless of how cheap a manufactured one is, so a do it yourself one would be awesome. Would just a piece of white cardboard work? It's a bit blasphemous but I find reflectors to be sort of unnecessary. Same goes with a flash. You can get a lot of mileage out of natural light if you can really move around and place your subjects. Virtually everything I've shot recently has just been natural light only.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 20:36
|
|
|
xenilk posted:I know you said you wanted cheap/free... but I bought this 43" 5 in 1 reflector for 15$ on ebay and am pretty satisfied with it. Well $15 is pretty good :P I say I don't want to spend more money, then I convince myself that I can skimp the money from elsewhere. Oh photography... And Paragon8, that is encouraging because I really like the light in your stuff.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 20:40
|
|
|
The main thing is just to get consistent light. Since I shoot mostly in England where 9 out of 10 days the sky is a uniform and soul crushingly depressing grey you can really get nice light from it. I do have a giant reflector that I've ended up using more for naps and rain protection than light manipulation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 20:55
|
|
|
CarrotFlowers posted:Well $15 is pretty good :P I say I don't want to spend more money, then I convince myself that I can skimp the money from elsewhere. Oh photography... You can literally use a piece of printer paper or a piece of cardboard covered in tin foil, or one of those car window reflector thingies. I agree with Paragon too that a lot of times a reflector isn't necessary (I often don't use one too) but sometimes the sun just doesn't want to cooperate and a reflector takes 2 seconds to make life a million times better.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 21:26
|
|
|
Thanks, guys! I will put my creative skills to use and make one for this next shoot on the chance that I'll need it. Here's hoping for an overcast day!
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 21:42
|
|
|
Overcast days, or shade. Tree shade works particularly well on sunny days.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 01:10
|
|
|
IsaacNewton posted:Overcast days, or shade. Tree shade works particularly well on sunny days. Just try to keep highlights out of your background if you're shooting from open shade. It's pretty distracting unless it's carefully planned out. I'm in the Bay Area so I get another instance of "nonstop blanket of clouds makes a natural softbox".
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 01:19
|
|
|
IsaacNewton posted:Overcast days, or shade. Tree shade works particularly well on sunny days. Shooting during the "Golden hours" is pretty risk free also... (~2 hour after sunrise or ~2-3hrs before sundown)
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 03:37
|
|
|
Printed this one last night, I'm pretty happy with it. Maria in the Streets by McMadCow, on Flickr EDIT: And another, same model.  Maria by McMadCow, on Flickr McMadCow fucked around with this message at 17:26 on Sep 14, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 17:19
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:Printed this one last night, I'm pretty happy with it. Dig this one a lot. I forget, did you ever post a tutorial on how you do your borders?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 19:17
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:I forget, did you ever post a tutorial on how you do your borders? No, but it's done on the enlarger. The picture gets masked off and then there's a lot of burning with a #00 and a #5 filter. Obviously an oversized negative carrier is used.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 19:35
|
|
|
These are a few shots I did recently in an old stairwell in my office building, using co-workers for models. ms proulx by thetzar, on Flickr  mister rahmani by thetzar, on Flickr  ms russo by thetzar, on Flickr  ms montgomery by thetzar, on Flickr I hadn't shot them intending to do the diptychs; if I had, I probably would have played with the format of them a bit more. Shot them as straight squares, then got the idea while editing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2011 14:30
|
|
|
thetzar posted:
I really like how they came out! The processing/black and white is awesome. Here are a few shots from a shoot I did yesterday  IMG_8872 by avoyer, on Flickr  IMG_9032 by avoyer, on Flickr  IMG_8882 by avoyer, on Flickr  IMG_8994 by avoyer, on Flickr  IMG_8732 by avoyer, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2011 22:45
|
|
|
thetzar posted:
this is the weakest. Good model, but direct profile shot is weakest one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2011 01:30
|
|
|
xenilk posted:I really like how they came out! The processing/black and white is awesome. I'm really liking these first three. The split-toning is working well for you, with the cool shades not distorting the skin tones too much.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2011 12:51
|
|
|
thetzar posted:
I like these a lot. I like the feel and the B&W treatment. The only thing I would suggest watching out for is to make sure your subjects have enough light in their eyes. That said, here's a subject with a completely unlit face...  Maria by McMadCow, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2011 17:18
|
|
|
First shoot with my new beauty dish. Tried some texturing with two of them, didn't really add to the third so I left it. The first one's pretty boring but the model likes it. Shrug. I'm not convinced. Third's my fav.   
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2011 03:54
|
|
|
Cyberbob posted:First shoot with my new beauty dish. Tried some texturing with two of them, didn't really add to the third so I left it. And I like the second one, even tho the cropping is a bit odd, oops. haha Cool job with the makeup/blood, pretty cool! P.S: I can understand how she likes the first one, she looks very good in it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2011 04:06
|
|
|
The zombification looks obviously fake. Find some way to make it look natural - makeup, or obfuscation, and they'll be better.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2011 04:25
|
|
|
Cyberbob posted:First shoot with my new beauty dish. Tried some texturing with two of them, didn't really add to the third so I left it. Are these for some sort of joke?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2011 05:26
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Are these for some sort of joke? They were for a silly "Zombie pinup" runway competition at a recent Melbourne Tattoo expo. The Model jumped across the road to my place for a quick shoot before going to the comp. Dare I ask why? Cyberbob fucked around with this message at 06:15 on Sep 20, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2011 06:01
|
|
|
The grunge overlay, vignetting and zombification are all distracting and disconnected, to the point that they look like they're from a different image than the model. This is compounded by the posing, which is static, upright and unnatural: all things that are directly opposed to the supposed theme of 'Zombie Pinup.'
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2011 08:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 19:39 |
|
|
I think the zombie bits look good, but that's just me. What I don't like though, is how clean and composed she seems to be despite the fact she has rotting flesh. It's not "enough". I'm not really suggesting to add more rotting bits, I'm just saying it doesn't look like it belongs. Her smile is way too clean, her face is too "pretty", even if it's a "pin up". Her eyes are too "beautified" ....they should be darker, glazed over, milky, scary looking. When I think "zombie pin up" I think of a pin up model in a suggestive pose with a freaky as hell looking face and something "off" in the frame. Maybe a limb or something, i dunno.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2011 09:06
|
|
