|
I think it's great that we have had two lesbian engagement shoots posted in a row.
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 16:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 20:11 |
|
|
8th-snype posted:I think it's great that we have had two lesbian engagement shoots posted in a row. don't be jealous of them luscious locks
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 17:05
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:I usually just pop some diffused on axis fill gelled CTO for golden hour stuff. I prefer to just use a reflector but things happen. I think the real problem is your shots aren't "gimmicky golden light over powering the sun" or "fill so subtle that you don't notice". Anything in between looks hamfisted because while it's clear that you know how to use artificial light. It's not clear why you are using it. Thank you, this is really helpful. Thanks to everyone else too, your brutal honesty makes me a better photographer. This week has been packed with engagement shoots. When I'm not shooting same sex couples, it's usually rednecks.   The dog on the left wouldn't look in my direction no matter what I did. The dog on the right is deaf. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
Wooten posted:
Is that a corgi/heeler mix on the right? It's adorable
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
Her name is Kali and she's a Jack Russel and Australian Cattle Dog mix the other dog is Patti and she's a Lab and Boxer mix.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
Wooten posted:Her name is Kali and she's a Jack Russel and Australian Cattle Dog mix the other dog is Patti and she's a Lab and Boxer mix. She's very cute. stumpy leg heeler - love it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
You've blown your highlights something fierce in the top photo, and the white of her skirt is a little glaring in the bottom photo. Tone it down. I like the overall composition of the bottom photo but why on earth is the woman standing so far away and leaning in? It looks really awkward and unnatural.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
It seems like you tend to go to hard on your lighting. Expose for the background then add fill lighting to match. If you do that, the background isn't going to be dark, and the people aren't going jump out at you so hard. You can't only think about how the lighting will look on the subject. In the middle, as far as the dog, bring an assistant with you. Or at least someone who doesn't mind hanging and helping out. That may have helped you out. Bottom photo is nice. As said above, skirt is blown out. Expose for the background, match the lighting in the foreground and those issues start going away. Overall, it looks like you have good control over the shoot. No awkwardness in their body language at all. vxsarin fucked around with this message at 22:49 on Oct 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
Fraction posted:You've blown your highlights something fierce in the top photo, and the white of her skirt is a little glaring in the bottom photo. Tone it down. I really wanted a photo that was about those boots what I posed this, that hat was stealing the show up until this point, I think I succeeded. Pukestain Pal posted:It seems like you tend to go to hard on your lighting. Expose for the background then add fill lighting to match. If you do that, the background isn't going to be dark, and the people aren't going jump out at you so hard. You can't only think about how the lighting will look on the subject. These are great points. Thanks again for all the time you've spent writing critique for me. It's easy to get into bad habits when you only hear good things about your work. I will definitely apply all of this to my upcoming shoots.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
Pukestain Pal posted:Expose for the background, match the lighting in the foreground and those issues start going away. I always hear this but have no clue how to do it. Is this a function of the camera or something I have to work out manually? For reference I'm shooting with a Canon T1i (500D).
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
smooth.operator posted:I always hear this but have no clue how to do it. Is this a function of the camera or something I have to work out manually? For reference I'm shooting with a Canon T1i (500D). You meter off the background and then adjust your fill accordingly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 04:27
|
|
|
Wooten posted:You meter off the background and then adjust your fill accordingly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
smooth.operator posted:I always hear this but have no clue how to do it. Is this a function of the camera or something I have to work out manually? For reference I'm shooting with a Canon T1i (500D). This is a function of lighting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 05:23
|
|
|
In Av/Tv modes, Canon cameras expose for the background and fires TTL flashes for fill. In P and M the TTL flashes don't give a poo poo about the background.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
Really funky lighting that I'll probably never be able to balance out in post, but I don't think they'd have entertained me messing with stuff during the show. I don't get to do portraits much but eh, I thought the colours were neat.
Jimlad fucked around with this message at 02:55 on Oct 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
Jimlad posted:Really funky lighting that I'll probably never be able to balance out in post No need to, IMO. It looks cool.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
Jimlad posted:Really funky lighting that I'll probably never be able to balance out in post, but I don't think they'd have entertained me messing with stuff during the show. I don't get to do portraits much but eh, I thought the colours were neat. I like the lighting a lot, I wouldn't change it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
It could stand a tiny bit of color correction on her skin, the extreme yellow in the shadow of her hair is upsetting me. I wouldn't bother trying unless you have PS and are good enough at masking though because any curves layer that will fix that will also gently caress up that sweet background something fierce.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:It could stand a tiny bit of color correction on her skin, the extreme yellow in the shadow of her hair is upsetting me. I wouldn't bother trying unless you have PS and are good enough at masking though because any curves layer that will fix that will also gently caress up that sweet background something fierce. Yeah that's the thing, it'd take a bit of work to mask properly and people seem to like it so I guess it's not worth messing with.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
Jimlad posted:Yeah that's the thing, it'd take a bit of work to mask properly and people seem to like it so I guess it's not worth messing with. It's your photo so whatevs. I would not be able to keep myself from eliminating the yellow/green cast on her skin (at least n the shadows).
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:It's your photo so whatevs. I would not be able to keep myself from eliminating the yellow/green cast on her skin (at least n the shadows). yeah, she looks jaundiced
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
Here's a family portrait I took yesterday.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 04:18
|
|
|
Wooten posted:Here's a family portrait I took yesterday. that sweater...
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
Pukestain Pal posted:that sweater... I imagined someone saying "your aunt Susan is going to love to see you in that sweater she gave you for your birthday!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
Yall are trippin, that adolescent girl is the best dressed of them all and that sweater is dope.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 05:33
|
|
|
There's something weird about all these wide group shots, like everyone looks fatter or bigger than they should be (or maybe this is just the midwest and I'm not used to looking at average Americans). Is it the angle or focal length that's playing tricks here?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 06:04
|
|
|
1st AD posted:There's something weird about all these wide group shots, like everyone looks fatter or bigger than they should be (or maybe this is just the midwest and I'm not used to looking at average Americans). Is it the angle or focal length that's playing tricks here? Yeah but you think EVERYONE'S fat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 06:06
|
|
|
1st AD posted:There's something weird about all these wide group shots, like everyone looks fatter or bigger than they should be (or maybe this is just the midwest and I'm not used to looking at average Americans). Is it the angle or focal length that's playing tricks here? Welcome to America 
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 06:09
|
|
|
1st AD posted:There's something weird about all these wide group shots, like everyone looks fatter or bigger than they should be (or maybe this is just the midwest and I'm not used to looking at average Americans). Is it the angle or focal length that's playing tricks here? My guess is that people are using wider focal lengths than needed. Causes them to have to get closer, then makes everyone look extra fat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 06:13
|
|
|
EDIT: ^^^67mm The guy in that photo is super tall. I have to get up on a table to take his head shot. I live in New Hampshire, we're probably marginally less fat than the midwest.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 06:14
|
|
|
1) Harsh, directional light is unflattering for people with soft/round features. It can also create weird shadows that accentuate certain features(like the nose). Try a large umbrella or softbox and get it as close as possible to the subject. 2) Shooting close up with a ~35mm is generally unflattering and gives a slight fisheye effect. For close ups try stepping back and using 50mm or longer (some would argue 85-100mm minimum) 3) Naval-level shots are unflattering and makes people look large(r) waisted plus looking down creates a double chin. Try being about eye-level.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 06:43
|
|
|
Wooten posted:EDIT: ^^^67mm 67mm is still pretty short for portraits. 85-135 is a good sweet spot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 06:50
|
|
|
I appreciate the crap out of the advice in this thread but anyone who thinks you can shoot a family of four with a 70-200, a large softbox, and a step ladder while you take them on a photo walk has never tried it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 07:11
|
|
|
notlodar posted:Yall are trippin, that adolescent girl is the best dressed of them all and that sweater is dope. This is a correct opinion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 07:25
|
|
|
Crush those blacks (also who said 27mm was too wide for portraiture?!)
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 08:34
|
|
|
Wooten posted:Here's a family portrait I took yesterday. 1st AD posted:There's something weird about all these wide group shots, like everyone looks fatter or bigger than they should be (or maybe this is just the midwest and I'm not used to looking at average Americans). Is it the angle or focal length that's playing tricks here? widunder posted:Crush those blacks (also who said 27mm was too wide for portraiture?!)
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 09:12
|
|
|
Pukestain Pal posted:67mm is still pretty short for portraits. 85-135 is a good sweet spot. He's shooting four people. 67mm is fine. Edit: To add, 85-135mm is considered portrait focal lengths because it forces you to stand far enough away to avoid perspective distortion when you're shooting one person. But if you're shooting 4 people, you're standing far enough away that almost any focal length will work. 35mm would be fine for that shot. TheAngryDrunk fucked around with this message at 15:07 on Oct 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 14:55
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Again with the hard light. The light is balanced, there are no blown highlights and the background is the same exposure. I can't take a 8 foot octobox on a walking shoot, not sure how I'm supposed to light this with a single flash any differently. It seems like the advice has turned into "just go back to your studio". TheAngryDrunk posted:He's shooting four people. 67mm is fine. Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 14:58
|
|
|
Wooten posted:I appreciate the crap out of the advice in this thread but anyone who thinks you can shoot a family of four with a 70-200, a large softbox, and a step ladder while you take them on a photo walk has never tried it. Plan better 
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 15:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 20:11 |
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:He's shooting four people. 67mm is fine. 4 people makes the perspective distortion even worse.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 15:21
|
|