|
jwvgoethe posted:Hey guys, shot for the first time today using my lighting, here are some photos of my friend, don't know how to upload the (large) full res other than dropbox links. No retouching has been done yet. Try and pull your subject away from the background and then light the background separate to the subject, if you don't have enough lights for this still pull your subject back. If you're going for traditional portrait light it's not normally a good idea to have a dead-set front on light, that just flattens everything out. You normally want it at least 45 degrees to one side. I normally recommend more, in fact I'd normally recommend about 110 degrees, so that your light is upstage from you and your subject but that's because I'm used to lighting for films. Composition wise you're leaving way too much head room, if I'm doing traditional portrait stuff I generally place their eyes at about the top thirds line. Also http://imgur.com/
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 02:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 15:08 |
|
|
What do you want criticism on the most, then? I ask because you know yourself that the backgrounds are no good. 1.)It looks like you're using two lights camera right. You don't need both lights on that side. What lights do you have? 2.)You seem to be using a high ISO and only the last pic is in focus, or close to being in focus. Did you also use a slow shutter speed? 3.)Have you set your white balance correctly? Setting it to "flash" should help a little. 4.)She's also pretty central in the photo, which is an unappealing composition decision most of the time. Which of those do you want me to expand on?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 02:10
|
|
|
I was using two 250 watt bulbs at about 3200 K, without a diffuser. They were to the left and right of the camera, I pointed one to the ceiling and another on the floor so as not bother the model by having them directly in her face. I was using a shutter speed of 200 on a 50mm 1.8 on my crop sensor, aperture about 2.8, which, in hindsight didn't seem to be enough as she was quickly changing her poses. I had my ISO set to auto for convenience, ISO ranges from 800-1000 in these images. I can apply noise reduction in post. Anyway, I shot about 350 images, was using manual focus point with only the middle on my Canon T3i, so focusing might have been a problem, I've noticed that so many of my images are out of focus. To the novice's eye, I think they look pretty good, but I came here for more serious criticism, so thanks. I had limited space to work with, so I don't know really how I could have pulled her further back, I was already stepping out into the hall, a wider lens might be the answer? Thanks for the tips on lighting angles and composition.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 04:04
|
|
|
 Do the colors work here? Is it too muted in the background?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 04:42
|
|
|
jwvgoethe posted:I was using two 250 watt bulbs at about 3200 K, without a diffuser. They were to the left and right of the camera, I pointed one to the ceiling and another on the floor so as not bother the model by having them directly in her face. 1/200 wasn't fast enough at 50mm? You should be able to get down to 1/80 or so and still have no handshake in your photos. If she's moving too fast, tell her to slow down and actually hold a pose for a second. I think it's around 1/30 where you start to get subject motion blur, so 1/80 should be fine if she's standing still. I would definitely reduce my iso. Sure you can do it in post, but why not just do it in camera? (that being said, I left my camera on iso 800 for a landscape shot on a tripod tonight  )In terms of not having enough room to pull her away from the wall, you've got a ton of negative space around her in most of those. Definitely pull her away from the wall and just take a more closely cropped frame of her, even if it turns out to be just a headshot - her body language in most of those isn't really dynamic enough to warrant the need for a full length portrait anyway, in my opinion. You would get rid of the shadow behind her, the background would be more separated from the subject, and it would just overall create a more pleasing portrait. I wouldn't go wider - wider lenses for portraits tend to have an unflattering effect, and like I said, I don't think it's necessary as you've got quite a bit of negative space around her already. Try going outside, even if it's winter (snow makes for pretty light, I think). You can practice your composition and focus with natural light, so don't have to worry about everything at once. And then you can back up as far as you need to to get a full length shot and practice those if you don't have enough indoor space yet. Also 350 images for 1 practice portrait session? Holy bananas, I thought I shot a lot. Should let you practice getting focus though! She seems like a willing model, and has a nice natural smile so take advantage of that and practice practice!
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 06:37
|
|
|
Got together with a girl on Saturday to try and do some photos, she was really happy with how they came out. There are like 500 of these things, I'm shocked with how many pictures I was able to get in a short time. Amanda1 by cythieus, on Flickr  Amanda_2226-edit by cythieus, on Flickr  Amanda_2297-2 by cythieus, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 12:34
|
|
|
In the first one where is the majority of the light/flash/whatever? It's not on her face, which is where it should be. The second picture is underexposed. I've noticed that a lot of you pictures have exposure problems... It's definitely something you're going to need to tackle if you want to improve as a photographer. I think the third one is the best of the three. Here's a tip for the next time you take photos of someone: do it against a white or some other solid color wall. The backgrounds in these photos are rather bad. Also using such an orange light on a blue/gray overcast day looks bad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 14:21
|
|
|
jwvgoethe posted:Hey guys, shot for the first time today using my lighting, here are some photos of my friend, don't know how to upload the (large) full res other than dropbox links. No retouching has been done yet. I know you were talking about not having enough space, but honestly I think you're TOO far back. The first and last ones would be good, composition-wise, if you just tilted your camera down and came in a bit. There's way too much negative space above her. Also, this has a nasty side effect of cutting off her feet. She has feet, right?  The middle two don't work (for me) because of the orientation. The lamp and the wardrobe(?) aren't doing anything for me. Again, turn your camera the other way, and move in more  People have already mentioned the lighting - the double shadows off to one side look kind of odd. So, that's just my two cents. Shoot, share, learn, repeat! Keep at it!
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 14:24
|
|
|
CB_Tube_Knight posted:
This photo would be wonderful if it weren't backlit, thus underexposing her. Definitely pay attention to how the sun is falling on her! Use a reflector if you need to. She's a beautiful model, and this would be the best picture of the three if she had a little more light on her.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 14:26
|
|
|
chadxor posted:
No, I think it works really well. Her gingerness pops out of the muted background better. It's funny, she looks so much like a model I've worked with on a few occasions. My only critique is that in the moment of getting a nice natural expression from her, that expression has sort of distorted her face and hid her eyes from us. She's obviously looking into or very close to into the camera, but we can barely see her eyes because of how closed they are. If you got something similar but with wider eyes I'd suggest that should make the cut sooner. Overall a nice shot. CB_Tube_Knight posted:Got together with a girl on Saturday to try and do some photos, she was really happy with how they came out. There are like 500 of these things, I'm shocked with how many pictures I was able to get in a short time. As others have said, the lighting in the 1st and 3rd is effectively excluding the rest of the picture around her. Your color temperatures are obviously mixing too, and not in a successful way. As far as the second shot goes, I don't mind backlighting- I do it myself all the time- but in this case there isn't some compositional reason for it and the result falls flat. One thing I've noticed in these three shots is that your location really isn't part of your picture. Sure it's in it, but that's not the same thing. She's have just as much relationship to her setting if she was in front of a white backdrop. If you're going to shoot on location, have the location play a role in the picture, and have the subject exist in the location.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 18:52
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:In the first one where is the majority of the light/flash/whatever? It's not on her face, which is where it should be. The sky was actually completely clear the whole day, we were just underneath something. As for the light, there's this very low hanging light on the railing and its literally just to the side of her so most of that light comes from there. I'm using the speedlite too though. I should have probably gotten her more, under the light instead of next to it. The exposure thing I'm not exactly sure how to adjust to fix it so I will have to look over the settings I'm using and see if there's some issue there. QPZIL posted:This photo would be wonderful if it weren't backlit, thus underexposing her. Definitely pay attention to how the sun is falling on her! Use a reflector if you need to. She's a beautiful model, and this would be the best picture of the three if she had a little more light on her. Is this something I can fix with the RAW? McMadCow posted:As others have said, the lighting in the 1st and 3rd is effectively excluding the rest of the picture around her. Your color temperatures are obviously mixing too, and not in a successful way. I'm going to have to come up with ideas on how exactly where I want to do any other shoots because parks just seem be a bit too much for me to work with right now and I'm thinking that if I had something more single use I could get a straight forward set of pictures out of it. Thanks for the advice everyone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 19:39
|
|
|
Try this: go location scouting before you take your model. Take some test shots there, get a feel for some nice background scenes and then take your model to that scene and fit her in it. Try and think about how it looks when it is a flat, 2D image, if that makes sense. For example, with this image of mine from a couple of pages ago: Gazmachine posted:I arrived 30 minutes early and hastily scooted around the interview location like a loon, looking for an interesting background and snapping a few test shots. I chose this background because of the various lines and shapes going on, the camera and the sort of natural frame in the bottom right where I would be placing my subject(s). You can also practice getting the correct exposure this way, too. You should be in control of your exposure levels before you do anything, really, so I would read up on exposure and how shutter speed, aperture and ISO affect your exposure levels before you move ahead. Once you get a firm grasp of the basics and put it into practice, the easier the shots will come.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 21:31
|
|
|
Gazmachine posted:You should be in control of your exposure levels before you do anything, really, so I would read up on exposure and how shutter speed, aperture and ISO affect your exposure levels before you move ahead. Once you get a firm grasp of the basics and put it into practice, the easier the shots will come. I agree with this. CB_Tube_Knight, keep in mind that the reflective meter in your camera is not generally going to give you the correct exposure when shooting (Caucasian) skin. You need to learn how to account for this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 21:56
|
|
|
It's like learning guitar without learning scales. Which is why I suck at guitar.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 22:10
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:I agree with this. CB_Tube_Knight, keep in mind that the reflective meter in your camera is not generally going to give you the correct exposure when shooting (Caucasian) skin. You need to learn how to account for this. What's your exposure usually at where you shoot Caucasian skin? -1 ? I realize it must change depending on the lightning but I'm still curious to see if there's a "general rule" on this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 22:15
|
|
|
xenilk posted:What's your exposure usually at where you shoot Caucasian skin? -1 ? +1, actually. A reflective meter reads based on Zone V, but Caucasian skin is typically Zone VI, which means you need to add a stop of exposure. NOTE: I'm speaking generally, and not addressing things like Nikon matrix metering or anything like that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 22:32
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:+1, actually. A reflective meter reads based on Zone V, but Caucasian skin is typically Zone VI, which means you need to add a stop of exposure. What, really? I'll have to give it a shot with bracketed exposure and see the difference myself. Consider my mind blown, ha ha. Good to know, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 22:33
|
|
|
Is there a guide on that somewhere, where it just lays out the basics and the science behind why?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 22:58
|
|
|
A guide to what? How meters work and what they report? All reflective meters report based on their target being 18% reflective grey. If what you point your meter at isn't in fact middle grey, you're not going to get a true result. This is why we have grey cards. You can point your meter at a known value like a grey card and get your exposure for your lighting situation. Caucasian skin is MORE reflective than 18% grey, so your meter will report an exposure that is lower than what it needs to be. This is easy to test- just put a grey card next to a Caucasian model's face and point a spot meter at both of them. The model's skin will show a lower exposure value than the grey card. If you don't have an incident meter or a grey card with you in the field, the fastest way to get the right exposure for white skin is to set your meter to +1 and then meter the skin.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 23:14
|
|
|
Alternatively, Canon hates white people. But yeah, this is why I love my fact that even in shutter priority my canon allows me to overexpose by 2 stops, since I usually find that +2/3 to +1 is correct for white skin tones.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 23:17
|
|
|
Alternatively you could invest in an incident meter and not care about reflective metering
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 23:52
|
|
|
RizieN posted:Is there a guide on that somewhere, where it just lays out the basics and the science behind why? This is pretty decent guide to lighting and retouching people. http://www.amazon.com/Skin-Complete-Digitally-Photographing-Retouching/dp/0470592125/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1326159723&sr=1-1 If you general photo science metering just read The Exposure by Ansel Adams and you will learn more than you will ever need to know.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 02:44
|
|
|
dukeku posted:Alternatively you could invest in an incident meter and not care about reflective metering I use an incident meter for my model work, but don't you as a landscape/architecture shooter primarily work with a spot meter...?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 08:13
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:I use an incident meter for my model work, but don't you as a landscape/architecture shooter primarily work with a spot meter...? walk inside peoples houses and meter their interiors with incident meters erryday.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 09:46
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:I use an incident meter for my model work, but don't you as a landscape/architecture shooter primarily work with a spot meter...? For landscape: point dome up, point dome down, guesstimate the average somewhere between there 
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 14:45
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:For landscape: point dome up, point dome down, guesstimate the average somewhere between there  Non-zone shooter spotted!
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 18:08
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:
Actually that was a joke - I spot meter the shadows that I was definition in, and then expose -2EV to get them in zone III, so boom 
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 18:22
|
|
|
Zones are for nerds. Things should be categorized as ' a bit darker than that bit over there, but lighter than this bit.'
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 19:27
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:I use an incident meter for my model work, but don't you as a landscape/architecture shooter primarily work with a spot meter...? I can't afford a spot meter (too much film), so I psuedo-spot - I run around and take incident readings under different light and try to fudge the zone system that way
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 19:47
|
|
|
Shot some portraits at the Royal College of Music the other day, pretty pleased with the results: 
m4mbo fucked around with this message at 21:19 on Jan 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 21:14
|
|
|
I took some pictures of my baby:   She never stands still, so out of the 50 000 photos I have of her, I'm sure over half is either the back of her head, or just a blurry shape running from me. And if I do get eyecontact, she often just gives me this kind of grumpy stare, to tell me to quit asking for her to smile. She's obviously busy, like in the last photo. She was organizing cupcake wrappers, and I was in the way. She's a very happy kid, and smiles all the time, just not to the camera. She was younger in this photo:  And here's one of my little sister: 
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 22:00
|
|
|
m4mbo posted:Shot some portraits at the Royal College of Music the other day, pretty pleased with the results: I really like these yours too tekopp but you might want to resize the huge baby pic
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2012 00:58
|
|
|
tekopp posted:I took some pictures of my baby: AAAAAAAAAAA My Tables!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2012 01:07
|
|
|
m4mbo posted:Shot some portraits at the Royal College of Music the other day, pretty pleased with the results: Lighting and composition is really nice on the first one. The second is kinda boring.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2012 01:12
|
|
|
m4mbo posted:Shot some portraits at the Royal College of Music the other day, pretty pleased with the results: What were you trying to accomplish with these?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2012 01:16
|
|
|
tekopp posted:
Really like that one. She looks comfortable, the look is calm yet intense... the tones are great and the bokeh is a nice added bonus.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2012 01:39
|
|
|
m4mbo posted:Shot some portraits at the Royal College of Music the other day, pretty pleased with the results: I really like the second one, what did you shoot that with? It has a great timeless feel, though the first is probably what most people would prefer from a portrait. Being a former music student makes that whiteboard feel very familiar to me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2012 02:57
|
|
|
Sorry for the gigantic baby.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2012 08:35
|
|
|
I think these pictures are way better than the original ones.  IMG_1964 by cythieus, on Flickr  IMG_1946 by cythieus, on Flickr  IMG_1939 by cythieus, on Flickr  IMG_1934 by cythieus, on Flickr  IMG_2146-2 by cythieus, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2012 13:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 15:08 |
|
|
CB_Tube_Knight posted:I think these pictures are way better than the original ones. Are these from a second shoot with this girl or the same shoot? They are better. I will critique at some point for you (although I'm sure someone will beat me to it).
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2012 14:14
|
|