|
XTimmy posted:This is solid but maybe up the saturation on the cloth or pick something a little less rough next time. Cool idea it just seems a little bit off to wrap a baby in cheesecloth to me. Unconventional is great and all, but the purpose of a headshot is to show the head. The 8x10s of this will end up in a pile with other ones, with casting directors sorting through them as quickly as possible. The reason simple lighting is preferred is because it allows those looking to see what someone looks like BEFORE they're lit; to allow them to imagine what they will look like with their makeup and setting. Hinting and suggesting and themeing lighting is fine, but you're being so directional here that it's kinda hard to tell what the guy actually looks like.
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:42 |
|
|
Whirlwind Jones posted:I tried to do some newborn stuff for my nephew but he was being a little squirmy bitch and it was probably the most frustrating experience. Last time I ever offer to do that. Kids in general are super frustrating; a pair of my friends ask me to shoot their one year old fairly regularly. I don't mind since they're awesome friends and it's good practice. I find since it's not a job, I can go in expecting to play with the kid and maybe get a couple of okay pictures, and anything else is bonus; that way I don't end up annoyed (because what logic is there in getting annoyed at kids? they're kids; kids are awesome). Anyway we went out this weekend and while I have a few more shots that are better technically, I ended up rather fond of this one just because it shows off his personality. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
am i doing this right: ill connect by PC-P, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
I really hope that's a wide lens
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
Got a 10 millimeter tucked up in my belt lookin to pop off on some chumps
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
thetzar posted:Unconventional is great and all, but the purpose of a headshot is to show the head. The 8x10s of this will end up in a pile with other ones, with casting directors sorting through them as quickly as possible. The reason simple lighting is preferred is because it allows those looking to see what someone looks like BEFORE they're lit; to allow them to imagine what they will look like with their makeup and setting. Hinting and suggesting and themeing lighting is fine, but yo're being so directional here that it's kinda hard to tell what the guy actually looks like. Oh I know, he got a fair few of just head and shoulders, I picked the ones I thought were photographiclly interesting to post.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
Tony Two Bapes posted:am i doing this right: If you're doing comedy ultrawide portraits you are required by law to be using a ringlight.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:If you're doing comedy ultrawide portraits you are required by law to be using a ringlight. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
 Gabriella by SPV Photo, on Flickr TheAngryDrunk fucked around with this message at 02:25 on Apr 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
That rocks I tried and tried to take a good self portrait for a FB profile pic, but, turns out, I'm ugly and I dress funny. Will eventually get over it and stop imitating Bertillon. 
Tricerapowerbottom fucked around with this message at 23:08 on May 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 07:59
|
|
|
XTimmy posted:
I really like the last two. What little can be seen of the background does not disturb me, actually gives some context. I don't like the first pic because the person seems lost in a sea of junk, does not give the "bad guy in control" vibe.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 11:13
|
|
|
Tony Two Bapes posted:am i doing this right: Yes that rules.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 11:58
|
|
|
Tricerapowerbottom posted:That rocks is this in profile because pun?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
Actually it was the only angle I was happy with, in all the other ones I looked like somewhere between  and  I'll adopt your idea though, yeah. Totally meant to do that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
So I'm going to be messing around taking some shots in a photo studio for the first time this weekend. They supply two strobes and two continuous lights. I've never worked with more than one strobe before. Do people generally mix the continuous & strobes in one shoot? You'd need a pretty slow shutter speed for that, right? Just curious. I'll probably just stick to using the two strobes, but figured I'd ask what possibilities are out there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:I've never worked with more than one strobe before. Do people generally mix the continuous & strobes in one shoot? You'd need a pretty slow shutter speed for that, right? It sucks and you should probably try not to do it. I mean you totally can but you may find yourself unable to avoid suicide.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:So I'm going to be messing around taking some shots in a photo studio for the first time this weekend. They supply two strobes and two continuous lights. White balancing that would be murder. The closest I've ever gotten is using the sun and a fill flash. Even that sucks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
I mix stuff occasionally when I don't have enough strobes on hand, but it's much easier to just stick with one or the other. And even wimpy-ish strobes tend to be orders of magnitude brighter than continuous lights anywhere remotely near the same class.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 02:35
|
|
|
rcman50166 posted:White balancing that would be murder. The closest I've ever gotten is using the sun and a fill flash. Even that sucks. It wouldn't be that bad, depending on the continuous light source. If they're tungsten you could just slap a CTB on it to balance it out. The difference in brightness would be the worse issue.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
Or put CTO on the strobes since they've got far more power to spare.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:It sucks and you should probably try not to do it. Haha okay fair enough! I will stick to using one or the other, especially since I'm a beginner. I'd hate to have to commit suicide so early in my career 
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:So I'm going to be messing around taking some shots in a photo studio for the first time this weekend. They supply two strobes and two continuous lights. It's possible depending on the strobes and continuous lights. White balance shouldn't be much of an issue because they're probably both daylight balanced. The big issue will probably be the power setting on the strobes. It's possible that the lowest power setting will require an aperture that is far to small to get an exposure from the continuous lights. Unless, as you hinted at, you go for some ridiculously low shutter speed....like 1 second! Bottom line, it is possible, but don't worry about it right now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 08:49
|
|
|
 Gabriella by SPV Photo, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 09:39
|
|
|
 Claire and Cece by SPV Photo, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 06:15
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:
I like the colours, but I find the overexposed sidewalk a bit jarring compared to the background. Maybe it's just me though.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 15:33
|
|
|
 JJC&B by voodoorootbeer, on Flickr I really like doing panoramas and I need to work on shooting more of them.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 04:31
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:
Beautiful model, beautiful light, beautiful composure, but I can't get over that the right side of her face/head looks warped.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 05:06
|
|
|
voodoorootbeer posted:
This is interesting, what focal length did you use? Also, what is the benefit of this over just shooting normally, other than the drastically bigger picture?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 07:14
|
|
|
Geektox posted:This is interesting, what focal length did you use? Also, what is the benefit of this over just shooting normally, other than the drastically bigger picture? You're imitating the use of a larger sensor to get depth of field separation similar to medium or large format.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 08:35
|
|
|
Ark posted:Beautiful model, beautiful light, beautiful composure, but I can't get over that the right side of her face/head looks warped. kind of looks like some lens distortion
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
Geektox posted:This is interesting, what focal length did you use? Also, what is the benefit of this over just shooting normally, other than the drastically bigger picture? Shot it with a 50mm f1.8 stopped down to f2. Combining 9 shots yields me a final product that would have effectively been shot at 30mm f1.2 (according to the calculator. ...and I just noticed the stitching error on the pear tree. Not thrilled with the ancient version of Photoshop Elements that I'm using for stitching and Hugin is a giant pain the the dick, but I guess that's the price you pay for not buying new software.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
voodoorootbeer posted:Shot it with a 50mm f1.8 stopped down to f2. Combining 9 shots yields me a final product that would have effectively been shot at 30mm f1.2 (according to the calculator. Were you using the Brenizer Method for this?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
Ark posted:Were you using the Brenizer Method for this? As far as I know? It's a 9 shot matrix as such: code:
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 04:01
|
|
|
voodoorootbeer posted:As far as I know? It's a 9 shot matrix as such: I'd love to hear some of your experience working like this. I've never really been able to nail panorama stitching, but I love this effect. What did you use, have any trouble? Two casual shots, and one for a friend's profile photo for her small, new kitchen-based business.  Untitled by thetzar, on Flickr  Untitled by thetzar, on Flickr  Untitled by thetzar, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
thetzar posted:I'd love to hear some of your experience working like this. I've never really been able to nail panorama stitching, but I love this effect. What did you use, have any trouble? voodoorootbeer posted:ancient version of Photoshop Elements voodoorootbeer posted:stitching error on the pear tree Whenever I have issues, it tends to be with tree branches. I try to keep the subject in a single frame to avoid errors in clothing or phantom limbs. I've had enough practice that I at least have more hits than misses now and I've pretty much committed to being happy with my composition before I buy new software for stitching.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 05:49
|
|
|
The best way to simulate the look of medium/large format is to shoot medium/large format 
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 13:50
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:The best way to simulate the look of medium/large format is to shoot medium/large format For better or worse, the Brenizer method has its own look, but yeah there are tools better suited for the job. Considering the relative low cost of entry to shooting 6x6 with something like a Yashica TLR, it's something everyone should at least try.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 14:14
|
|
|
Medium format is a great way to spend every cent you own on lenses and development 
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 15:02
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:42 |
|
|
 Macy by SPV Photo, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 05:38
|
|