|
How to shrub people and make them like it:
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 03:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 06:18 |
|
|
XTimmy posted:70-200mm for head and shoulders, 50mm/17-50mm for anything wider. Longer focal lengths allow you to shoot at larger distances, reducing perspective distortion. Also 200mm at f2.8 is just gravy. I used the 70-200mm exclusively for the shoot. You're pretty much dead on in your assessment. One of the kids modeled well. It was impossible to get Danielle to look at me while I was shooting her. Someone else showed up with a camera and I guess she was busy looking at him.  Book Cover Photo by benruset, on Flickr  Book Cover Photo by benruset, on Flickr  Book Cover Photo by benruset, on Flickr  Book Cover Photo by benruset, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 00:58
|
|
|
I took some pictures! Feedback welcome! A girl:  AJK_2770.jpg by SAFistLips, on Flickr A guy:  AJK_2933 by SAFistLips, on Flickr More on my Flickr page if you want to have a look.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 08:17
|
|
|
FistLips posted:I took some pictures! Feedback welcome! Film or digital? I didn't see any exif information on your flickr.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 13:05
|
|
|
ZippySLC posted:Film or digital? I didn't see any exif information on your flickr. Digital, Nikon D7000 and the Tamron 60mm Macro for both.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 14:37
|
|
|
FistLips posted:Digital, Nikon D7000 and the Tamron 60mm Macro for both. Nice. That 2270 picture has a really nice film feel to it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 15:19
|
|
|
FistLips posted:Digital, Nikon D7000 and the Tamron 60mm Macro for both. Like that lens? Have thought about replacing my Canon 50 1.8 with one for potrait work. Ok on Macro?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 15:22
|
|
|
Bob Mundon posted:Like that lens? Have thought about replacing my Canon 50 1.8 with one for potrait work. Ok on Macro? As someone said in the macro thread, the AF is SLOOOOOW, but the results are good. I love it for portraits, despite the slow AF. Macro is good too, but I suck more at macro than at portraits, so I don't have any good examples for that. Searching for the lens on Flickr gives a few examples that people have been able to get good results from it, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 15:30
|
|
|
FistLips posted:As someone said in the macro thread, the AF is SLOOOOOW, but the results are good. I love it for portraits, despite the slow AF. Macro is good too, but I suck more at macro than at portraits, so I don't have any good examples for that. Searching for the lens on Flickr gives a few examples that people have been able to get good results from it, though. Good idea thanks. And yeah it would mostly be for portraits anyway, so that was my main concern. Definitely a couple of nice examples of what it can do there too. Curious, as Zippy said 2270 has a nice feel to it, what did you do to get that?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 15:38
|
|
|
Bob Mundon posted:Curious, as Zippy said 2270 has a nice feel to it, what did you do to get that? Just some split toning and vignette in Lightroom, nothing special. Another picture from the same set, but less processing done to it:  AJK_2769-Edit.jpg by SAFistLips, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 15:45
|
|
|
Someone recommend me a good portrait lens (preferably a prime) that can also double for macro use and is <$300. Thanks nerds. Is the Tamron 60 really that good? I could probably spring the extra cash if it's a superb portrait lens, but I'm also interested in other options.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 18:35
|
|
|
Wario In Real Life posted:Someone recommend me a good portrait lens (preferably a prime) that can also double for macro use and is <$300. Thanks nerds. What system?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 18:46
|
|
|
Oops, Canon crop.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 18:49
|
|
|
Wario In Real Life posted:Someone recommend me a good portrait lens (preferably a prime) that can also double for macro use and is <$300. Thanks nerds. <$300 will be tough. If you can spring a little more, the Canon 60mm is a good option. You could also buy a 50mm (f1.8 or the f/1.4) and also buy some extension tubes for macro work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 20:14
|
|
|
I'm planning on taking a few pictures of one of my female friends tonight. The idea will be that she will sit with a fairly bright building to her left and behind which should light up half of her face, and the other half will be fairly dimly lit. I want to go for a high contrast b&w sort of thing. How do folks think I should expose for this? Should I meter off the bright side of her face, the dark, or see what the readings are for both and pick something in the middle? (Sorry if this is an overly newbie question.) Edit: If it matters, this is the building I'll be shooting by. ZippySLC fucked around with this message at 21:39 on Sep 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 21:35
|
|
|
ZippySLC posted:I'm planning on taking a few pictures of one of my female friends tonight. The idea will be that she will sit with a fairly bright building to her left and behind which should light up half of her face, and the other half will be fairly dimly lit. I want to go for a high contrast b&w sort of thing. Shooting digital? All of the above, make notes and see what does what when you get the shots home to process. Seriously, experience is the best tutor, don't be afraid to experiment to get a handle on what metering corresponds to what resultant exposure on your camera. Between that and Lightroom (or whatever raw processor you prefer - you ARE shooting Raw I hope?) you'll get an evening's assignment and some pleasing results  <edit> Unrelated, but I got some unexpectedly cool lighting at the last burly I covered:  Scarlett Daggers - The Coquette Collective - 21st September 2013 by NoneMoreNegative, on Flickr Was expecting the lights to go down for the fire-eating bit of her act, but not the blue fill light; rolling the shutter down to 1/60 meant I could keep the ISO sensible and catch some motion in the flames, though I did get a few blurred shots during anything fast-motion. Only thing to learn from this set is to roll down the aperture a bit from 2.8 for extra DOF if someone's going to perform side-on - this was almost a good one: https://www.flickr.com/photos/nonemorenegative/9882469004 except I had 9-point focus mode on the center and got misplaced DOF  Can't inline my favourite favourite here from the act as it might be NWS  http://www.flickr.com/photos/nonemorenegative/9882565923 - love that devilish tiki volcano-goddess light.Other faves from the evening:   (I think I'm a sucker for diagonal leg poses or something) ps. Whoever said I should move around from the single shooting point last time; yup, got some nice stuff from center-back and the opposite side from my usual vantage point, good call
NoneMoreNegative fucked around with this message at 00:52 on Sep 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 00:29
|
|
|
NoneMoreNegative posted:Shooting digital? All of the above, make notes and see what does what when you get the shots home to process. Seriously, experience is the best tutor, don't be afraid to experiment to get a handle on what metering corresponds to what resultant exposure on your camera. Between that and Lightroom (or whatever raw processor you prefer - you ARE shooting Raw I hope?) you'll get an evening's assignment and some pleasing results Definitely shooting RAW, although I am an Aperture consumer. Edit: Doesn't matter, my friend bailed on me. ZippySLC fucked around with this message at 02:32 on Sep 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 00:45
|
|
|
NoneMoreNegative posted:Shooting digital? All of the above, make notes and see what does what when you get the shots home to process. Seriously, experience is the best tutor, don't be afraid to experiment to get a handle on what metering corresponds to what resultant exposure on your camera. Between that and Lightroom (or whatever raw processor you prefer - you ARE shooting Raw I hope?) you'll get an evening's assignment and some pleasing results I agree with this approach buuuutttt as much as I agree with experimenting for experience, pre-planning and being able to predict results without stepping on-location is a useful skill. The way you'll want to meter it is dependent largely on what you want the image to look like. Want something dark and moody with perhaps little or no detail in the darks? Meter for the highlights. Want something high key and perhaps a little blown out: Meter for the shadows. Want something technically correct but probably super dull: Average the two. Try all three, but try to visualize what each will look like before hand, and ask how you'll achieve each version without going near your camera.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 10:19
|
|
|
Wario In Real Life posted:Oops, Canon crop.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 12:09
|
|
|
Spot meter off the side you want properly exposed, IE the side that's lit. Also +1 to the nifty fifty as a good portrait lens on a crop body. On a full frame I hear the 85 f1.8 is an amazing value.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 16:36
|
|
|
I loved the 85 1.8 for portraits when I was still on Canon. While it seems like not as many people like it, the 50 1.4 was great for somewhat wider shots where I wanted to give a sense of the environment. It's definitely delicate though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 18:01
|
|
|
Here are a few from an engagement shoot I did for some friends. It was directly after the question was popped and champagne was shared, so the lovey poses were easy to get. Fun fact, using a tripod in a NYC park makes you a professional and thus requires you to have a $400 permit. Or you know, just run away.  DandT_Firsts_Full-11 by Bud_lish, on Flickr  DandT_Seconds_Full-21 by Bud_lish, on Flickr  DandT_Firsts_Full-17 by Bud_lish, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2013 13:08
|
|
|
Bud posted:Here are a few from an engagement shoot I did for some friends. It was directly after the question was popped and champagne was shared, so the lovey poses were easy to get. First is really good. Second looks like they're watching something more interesting off to the side and I don't like the processing. Third is almost there but I feel like it's missing something. Maybe if she was looking at him or her face was more out of focus with the ring taking a bigger portion of the frame. I like the framing with them, but if that's what you want then make them the focus and not the ring. Also she will like you more if you make her veins less obvious (it looks like you did some skin smoothing but it just made her hands look airbrushed and didn't solve the problem) and also maybe liquify her hands a little smaller since they only look so big because of perspective distortion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 07:36
|
|
|
FistLips posted:Took this picture that I was pretty happy with of a friend the other day. The light where we were was primarily some daylight, but mostly lit by heating lamps on the walls/in the roof. I know her eyes are a tiny bit dark - she's promised me that I can photograph her under better conditions, though! Finally got around to taking a few more pictures of her!  AJK_3085 by SAFistLips, on Flickr  AJK_2989 by SAFistLips, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 09:55
|
|
|
FistLips posted:Finally got around to taking a few more pictures of her! The first one is very nice, haunting eyes. The second shot seems too dark for me; those shadows just drop right out. Is that what you were going for? I've got some snapshots/candids for y'all.  Untitled by thetzar, on Flickr  Untitled by thetzar, on Flickr  Untitled by thetzar, on Flickr  Untitled by thetzar, on Flickr  Untitled by thetzar, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 01:02
|
|
|
thetzar posted:The first one is very nice, haunting eyes. The second shot seems too dark for me; those shadows just drop right out. Is that what you were going for? I wanted a dark feeling to it, yes. But I see your point. I might play a little with it later. thetzar posted:
Love this. Looks like it could be from a movie or music video!
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 05:52
|
|
|
FistLips posted:Finally got around to taking a few more pictures of her!  I like the first one and that one too, even tho it seems a bit underexposed to me. Love the connection. As for me, did a random shoot in a friend's condo yesterday featuring some gear for a music event here.  IMG_6821 by avoyer, on Flickr  IMG_6842 by avoyer, on Flickr  IMG_6402 by avoyer, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 15:00
|
|
|
xenilk posted:
Love this. Of course I don't know if it's because of the photograph or the model.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 00:43
|
|
|
Been doing a lot of studio stuff lately and just a little location type shots. Still very new at this whole portraiture thing, so all critique is welcome and greatly appreciated. Stephanie by eachus, on Flickr  Jason Headshot by eachus, on Flickr  Kay by eachus, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 01:53
|
|
|
ZippySLC posted:Love this. Of course I don't know if it's because of the photograph or the model. Hoping a little bit of both ;P
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 04:05
|
|
|
ZippySLC posted:Love this. Of course I don't know if it's because of the photograph or the model.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 04:10
|
|
|
The couch being off line is bothering me. I know its not directly supposed to be horizon-level, but egh.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 04:20
|
|
|
Wario In Real Life posted:What exactly do you love about it? Because I'm looking at it and nothing stands out as particularly interesting at all. I would love to hear your opinion on it. I realize that it's mainstream, but I personally like the attitude/vibe going on. And I enjoyed doing it without going the easy way of having her remove as much as possible to make it more appealing. Miko posted:The couch being off line is bothering me. I know its not directly supposed to be horizon-level, but egh. Yeah I had problems with my lines, I ended up using the wall line as the level, but I see what you mean
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 04:27
|
|
|
I agree the shots look crooked, and just seem really off-ballance. Also I'm not a fan of the composition of the first one, theres too much negative space above her of a blown out window, it's really not doing anything for the photo. The blown out window is very distracting and makes the image hard to look at, as the exposure is fine on the model, but it's like she's being shot against the sun, a blank wall would have been much better. The cups everywhere indicates it might be the morning after a party or something, but with the bottles closed and at such rigid angles in the photo it kind of kills the vibe, also she's looks far too well made up for a "morning after" photo. Sorry if that doesn't make any sense, just off the top of my head.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 04:55
|
|
|
xenilk posted:I realize that it's mainstream, but I personally like the attitude/vibe going on. She's trying to convey attitude with the super edgy middle finger and labels-conspicuously-turned-away bottles of alcohol but her face just looks like she's constipated and the way she's holding her arm so close to her body to lift her shirt is awkward as hell. The second is almost okay in a generic poor man's Maxim sort of way, but the hand on the bottle looks too posed. If she had both hands in her hair or really anywhere else except laid floppily across the bottle it would probably work. The third is alright. You've posted some really good stuff in this thread but I'm not feeling anything with these particular photos. The blown out backgrounds are especially not doing anything positive. That drat Satyr posted:Been doing a lot of studio stuff lately and just a little location type shots. Still very new at this whole portraiture thing, so all critique is welcome and greatly appreciated. Last one has a nice photojournalistic feel to it. The other two are competent but not particularly interesting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 05:20
|
|
|
Spedman and Mephistopheles said all I had to say.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 11:35
|
|
|
Not to lay it on too thick, Xenlik, but I have to add to the dissenting voices here. They seem utterly thoughtless in terms of composition, the light is flat and uninteresting and she has no spark or connection. The finger is so forced and she looks like she's waiting for the photo to be taken. with the second shot, I don't know whether she is meant to have a headache from drinking all the booze the night before or if that is a sexy hand in hair pose. The arrangement of stuff in the frame feels pretty thoughtless and the window pane slicing through her head vertically is awkward, as is she. There is a fuckton of window light there; using it to side-light her would've looked much nicer, I'm sure. Work hard on metering as carefully as possible. After all, you have all the time in the world to nail the exposure with something like this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 14:08
|
|
|
I hear you all and you raise some good points, thank you for the elaborate critiques!
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 14:35
|
|
|
xenilk posted:As for me, did a random shoot in a friend's condo yesterday featuring some gear for a music event here. Well if it is a MUSIC event ...  She looks so bored. You have branded material, that is not showing the branding fully on her... What exactly were you thinking you were going to convey with this image? Given that you have greek letters in your "gear" I am guessing that this is for a college event? Maybe ask them for help with set design next time? What are full vodka bottles and cups on the ground supposed to convey? Everyone came over, took a cup, and tossed them on the ground? Why is she flipping us off? To make her seem harder to get? Then why does she look like she is offering us the booze? This whole image seems lazy and poorly thought out. If you want to show us a hot girl, great, you did it. If you are trying to do anything beyond that, I think you were pretty lazy and really failed in that sense.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 17:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 06:18 |
|
|
Evilkiksass posted:Well if it is a MUSIC event ... Well, to be fair I think we're probably seeing the photograph out of the context that it's going to be published in. It probably makes more sense in context. I don't really have a problem with the pose or the composition. Yeah, maybe she looks *slightly* bored but who knows, maybe she's not a professional model and doesn't know how to pose correctly. Technically, I think the only problem is the blown out window which is distracting but, in my opinion, doesn't ruin the shot. Edit: Reading back through the critiques, I guess I am less discerning than most in here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 18:14
|
|