|
Pukestain Pal posted:4 people makes the perspective distortion even worse. I don't think you know what you're talking about. If you think you can pose and control a group of 4 people that includes small children from the distance required by 85mm, for an entire shoot, you are crazy.
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 03:45 |
|
|
Pukestain Pal posted:4 people makes the perspective distortion even worse. The perspective distortion being discussed is caused by distance to the subject(s). It is not caused by focal length. In order to get four people in the frame, he must stand far enough away such that perspective distortion is not an issue.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 15:42
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:The perspective distortion being discussed is caused by distance to the subject(s). It is not caused by focal length. In order to get four people in the frame, he must stand far enough away such that perspective distortion is not an issue. Yeah, I agree. I guess I am just assuming he is standing too close, which would be easy to do shooting that wide. While I agree that 67mm isn't *that* wide, it's still not ideal. If you have the space, go as long as you can. vxsarin fucked around with this message at 15:47 on Oct 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
Wooten posted:I don't think you know what you're talking about. If you think you can pose and control a group of 4 people that includes small children from the distance required by 85mm, for an entire shoot, you are crazy. I guess I've never had a problem doing that. If you have a 2nd shooter to help you out, that's even better.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 15:46
|
|
|
The dad in the photo is 6'5". I think that's where the confusion is coming from. I do have a second shooter they are holding the flash. If the second shooter yells the kid just looks at the flash. I lost my voice yelling across this windy field with a 24-70, with my 70-200 it would have been a disaster. Wooten fucked around with this message at 15:50 on Oct 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
Wooten posted:The dad in the photo is 6'5". I think that's where the confusion is coming from. put him in a wookie costume
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 15:49
|
|
|
Wooten posted: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". It's balanced, but it's hard. If you're doing walking around portraits, I'd look into a large umbrella (as they're easy to transport since they're collapsible), a big collapsible reflector (usually come in 3-in-1 or 5-in-1 varieties but really all you need is white and translucent), and try choosing locations with better natural available light. You're right that you were limited in that particular shot by what you had -- even a big umbrella probably wouldn't have helped significantly since it's still one light -- but I think the argument is that in that instance perhaps that wasn't the best location if you're limited in that way. Find somewhere where the background isn't as bright and you can use more available light for their faces so you aren't counting on your kit to provide flattering light when it can't.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
Pukestain Pal posted:yeah, she looks jaundiced Yeah, going to back to it you guys are right, it's way yellow. I've tried to neutralise it a bit without compromising the background colours too much. Looking at it again, I'm blinded by how yellow the original shot was which must have been making me think I was over-egging it in trying to compensate by cooling the white balance. Hopefully it's a little better now. Jimlad fucked around with this message at 02:31 on Oct 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
Why do you feel the need to use a flash on these outdoor shoots? Seems to be an american thing, it almost always looks cheap.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
deaders posted:Why do you feel the need to use a flash on these outdoor shoots? Seems to be an american thing, it almost always looks cheap. it comes down to him not metering for the background. if the background matched the people better, the flash would look more natural.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
Nothing wrong with bringing lighting to an outdoor shoot, as long as you're actually making an effort to think about the aesthetics of the shoot and have the technical skill to make it look good. My friend did this recently: And the styling is good, the subjects are lit/exposed properly for the background, and the color and overall tonality all kind of fit a theme.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 03:14
|
|
|
Pukestain Pal posted:it comes down to him not metering for the background. if the background matched the people better, the flash would look more natural. Congrats on missing the point, again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
1st AD posted:Nothing wrong with bringing lighting to an outdoor shoot, as long as you're actually making an effort to think about the aesthetics of the shoot and have the technical skill to make it look good. My friend did this recently: Of course not, I am just wondering why this guy in particular shooting family portraits feels the need to use fill flash for everything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 03:22
|
|
|
deaders posted:Of course not, I am just wondering why this guy in particular shooting family portraits feels the need to use fill flash for everything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 03:26
|
|
|
1st AD posted:Nothing wrong with bringing lighting to an outdoor shoot, as long as you're actually making an effort to think about the aesthetics of the shoot and have the technical skill to make it look good. My friend did this recently: that's fantastic
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 03:44
|
|
|
Wooten posted:I don't think you know what you're talking about. If you think you can pose and control a group of 4 people that includes small children from the distance required by 85mm, for an entire shoot, you are crazy. As someone who regularly shoots families of 4 or more, I'm either incredibly lucky with my clients or you're way over thinking it. You don't have to shoot with an 85 for the entire shoot, but mix it up a bit. At the very least, shoot them from standing up rather than crouching so they're not all looking down on you, it does no one in that family any favors.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
Pukestain Pal posted:it comes down to him not metering for the background. if the background matched the people better, the flash would look more natural. It's not the exposure; it's the color temperature. Subjects are daylight/flash balanced and the background is golden hour. Putting a 1/4 or 1/2 CTO gel on the flash would help match the color temp.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:It's not the exposure; it's the color temperature. Subjects are daylight/flash balanced and the background is golden hour. Putting a 1/4 or 1/2 CTO gel on the flash would help match the color temp. yeah, there is that too. I was more speaking to his backgrounds (in general) being underexposed by 90 stops from the subject.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 04:46
|
|
|
Pukestain Pal posted:yeah, there is that too. I was more speaking to his backgrounds (in general) being underexposed by 90 stops from the subject. You should probably calm down.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 05:52
|
|
|
I don't choose my client's clothes or the locations that they want photos taken. A lot of complaining in this thread from people who don't post much of their own work. It was one photo I liked from a shoot that included many photos. The background is actually slightly overexposed and I usually shoot in natural light and balance with flash but everyone in this thread said that sucked too. I guess I'll use gels more often. gently caress this thread, half of you haven't been on a shoot for paying clients in your life and the other half doesn't pay attention before talking out of their rear end.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 11:14
|
|
|
Wooten posted:I don't choose my client's clothes or the locations that they want photos taken. A lot of complaining in this thread from people who live and breathe shooting for the AP wire. It was one photo I liked from a shoot that included many photos. The background is actually slightly overexposed and I usually shoot in natural light and balance with flash but a literal idiot who shoots for a WIRE SERVICE said that sucked too. I guess I'll WIRE SERVICE. gently caress this thread, half of you AP WIRE AP WIRE AP WIRE.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 11:32
|
|
|
I'm sorry but the complaints always start with the clothes move to the location amd then stop on the thing I did differently because of this thread. Then you have people off on tangents that don't matter like what focal length I used.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 11:38
|
|
|
Wooten posted:I'm sorry but the complaints always start with the clothes move to the location amd then stop on the thing I did differently because of this thread. Then you have people off on tangents that don't matter like what focal length I used. Clothing choice is on the clients but location? That's 50/50 in my opinion, when I shoot a paid gig that isn't an event I pick the location and I have a bunch prescouted in my area for just this purpose. I think the last one you posted is better lightingwise, definitely invest in a CTO and 1/2CTO gel so that you can get your 56K flash a little closer to low angle sunlight. On the hardness, are you currently using any modifiers? Is the flash on a stand or the hotshoe? Because you absolutely can use a small softbox or umbrella in the field even without an assistant. Ignore Pukestain he wouldn't know fill flash if it bit him on the Sports Illustrated. Also focal length chat can gently caress off, that is some photo 101 bullshit. Anyone that thinks you need a longer focal length to take a portrait is an idiot and should not be heeded in any way. P.S. Getting mad because there are nonpros here just makes you look like a dick.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 12:31
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:Clothing choice is on the clients but location? That's 50/50 in my opinion, when I shoot a paid gig that isn't an event I pick the location and I have a bunch prescouted in my area for just this purpose. I think the last one you posted is better lightingwise, definitely invest in a CTO and 1/2CTO gel so that you can get your 56K flash a little closer to low angle sunlight. On the hardness, are you currently using any modifiers? Is the flash on a stand or the hotshoe? Because you absolutely can use a small softbox or umbrella in the field even without an assistant. Ignore Pukestain he wouldn't know fill flash if it bit him on the Sports Illustrated. Also focal length chat can gently caress off, that is some photo 101 bullshit. Anyone that thinks you need a longer focal length to take a portrait is an idiot and should not be heeded in any way. Location is the choice of the client probably 75% of the time for me, I have 4 or 5 favorite places that I recommend, but in the case of the family shoot it was a park that they often go to and they wanted the photos there. I'm mostly mad because I have a brother in law who does photography with models that he pays and his complaints about my photography are the same as this thread "ugh, what is she wearing? why would you shoot there? That person is awkward. There is only one way to photograph fat people and you did it wrong. Why didn't you shoot this with your studio set up?" and I don't think a photographer gets it until there are people off the street standing in a place they have never been. I own lots of umbrellas and softboxes that I use in the studio, I can try bringing one on my next shoot. I appreciate advice like "get some gels" but a lot of this is just nit picking. EDIT: I usually shoot with an off camera 580exII with a Fong Sphere, sometimes I bounce off a huge 5 in 1 reflector. Wooten fucked around with this message at 12:50 on Oct 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 12:47
|
|
|
A fongsphere ain't gonna do much outside. It's better than nothing but try it with a small softbox or brollie and you might like the softer light. Nitpicking is actually a sign that your photos don't suck, the only technical critique people can offer are incremental increases in technique instead of "holy poo poo read a book please". It's not like you are doing any sort of work with an active narrative, these are commercial mass market portraits so there isn't much else to critique.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 13:01
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:A fongsphere ain't gonna do much outside. It's better than nothing but try it with a small softbox or brollie and you might like the softer light. Nitpicking is actually a sign that your photos don't suck, the only technical critique people can offer are incremental increases in technique instead of "holy poo poo read a book please". It's not like you are doing any sort of work with an active narrative, these are commercial mass market portraits so there isn't much else to critique. Thanks, I appreciate that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 13:02
|
|
|
Wooten posted:I don't choose my client's clothes or the locations that they want photos taken. A lot of complaining in this thread from people who don't post much of their own work. It was one photo I liked from a shoot that included many photos. The background is actually slightly overexposed and I usually shoot in natural light and balance with flash but everyone in this thread said that sucked too. I guess I'll use gels more often. gently caress this thread, half of you haven't been on a shoot for paying clients in your life and the other half doesn't pay attention before talking out of their rear end. One thing I've learned about posting in this thread is that you're gonna get some stupid comments by people that just want to rip apart photos/people. But I do still post in here because there is also some good feedback sometimes. You just gotta ignore the first batch. Anyway, I tried to make my comments constructive/helpful. I know there's a lot of crap in here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 13:37
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:One thing I've learned about posting in this thread is that you're gonna get some stupid comments by people that just want to rip apart photos/people. But I do still post in here because there is also some good feedback sometimes. You just gotta ignore the first batch. Anyway, I tried to make my comments constructive/helpful. I know there's a lot of crap in here. My rant wasn't directed at you. Your comments have been constructive and helpful. You are completely right about the color balance on the group photo, I think I'll even mask it out and fix that for my client. I actually like having my photos ripped to shreds, that's what makes the dorkroom great. I especially appreciate it from other photographers who have consistently posted great work. The mean spirited snobby bullshit ruins this thread though. There are good portraits taken with plastic fish eye lenses found at the dump, shut up already about focal length required for a good portrait. There is no difference between 70mm and 85mm in a cropped photo of people standing at mid distance. I love my 85mm but it is awkward as gently caress for walking photo shoots that often require being able to frame multiple people in tight areas. The lesson here is not to read this thread before I've had my tea. Wooten fucked around with this message at 14:01 on Oct 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 13:56
|
|
|
Wooten posted:The mean spirited snobby bullshit ruins this thread though. Hey! It's the only reason I still read this forum 
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
Everyone can improve, and people are just trying to give suggestions on making you better, not be snobby and rip you apart. If you think you have absolutely perfect photography than why even post here for comments anyway? I don't post my own work here actively anymore but that doesn't mean I don't shoot for paying clients or have a valid opinion. But if your brother in law has the same comments as the people here do, maybe it's worth actually listening to and trying to improve. A lot of your comments are "if you think you can do it better, you just haven't had to deal with what I have to deal with" when in reality, it's your job to make all of those things work - the location doesn't have a huge impact on the outcome, but making the lighting work and making your family feel comfortable and relaxed has the biggest impact and that absolutely is your job. It's not a terrible photo and I'm sure they're very happy with it, but there are things to improve on and I think you can stand to listen to those comments to bring your photos to the next level.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
CarrotFlowers posted:Everyone can improve, and people are just trying to give suggestions on making you better, not be snobby and rip you apart. If you think you have absolutely perfect photography than why even post here for comments anyway? I don't post my own work here actively anymore but that doesn't mean I don't shoot for paying clients or have a valid opinion. But if your brother in law has the same comments as the people here do, maybe it's worth actually listening to and trying to improve. A lot of your comments are "if you think you can do it better, you just haven't had to deal with what I have to deal with" when in reality, it's your job to make all of those things work - the location doesn't have a huge impact on the outcome, but making the lighting work and making your family feel comfortable and relaxed has the biggest impact and that absolutely is your job. It's not a terrible photo and I'm sure they're very happy with it, but there are things to improve on and I think you can stand to listen to those comments to bring your photos to the next level. Wooten posted:I actually like having my photos ripped to shreds, that's what makes the dorkroom great. I especially appreciate it from other photographers who have consistently posted great work. The mean spirited snobby bullshit ruins this thread though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
People could have been a lot meaner about those photos, take some of it on board instead of whining.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
deaders posted:People could have been a lot meaner about those photos, take some of it on board instead of whining. gently caress you, you are one of the worst offenders.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
Oh well then good luck to you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
deaders posted:Oh well then good luck to you. You post nice random photos of buildings, but you calling my photo cheap and "American" because I used flash in the shade while the only portrait you have ever posted required a black and white conversion to hide the terrible lighting is hypocritical. Yeah, people who pay for photos want to be able to see their faces, it's totally cheap. I guess I'll take your advice on board and start being more European about my portraits by doing lovely black and white conversions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
Wooten posted:You post nice random photos of buildings, but you calling my photo cheap and "American" because I used flash in the shade while the only portrait you have ever posted required a black and white conversion to hide the terrible lighting is hypocritical. Yeah, people who pay for photos want to be able to see their faces, it's totally cheap. I guess I'll take your advice on board and start being more European about my portraits by doing lovely black and white conversions. Everyone gets emotionally attached to their photos. It sucks when someone says they are poo poo, but sometimes it's poo poo. Go back in a year and look back to them, you'll be embarrassed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
Wooten posted:You post nice random photos of buildings, but you calling my photo cheap and "American" because I used flash in the shade while the only portrait you have ever posted required a black and white conversion to hide the terrible lighting is hypocritical. Yeah, people who pay for photos want to be able to see their faces, it's totally cheap. I guess I'll take your advice on board and start being more European about my portraits by doing lovely black and white conversions. Have you considered burning your camera and finding a new job/hobby that you actually enjoy?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Have you considered burning your camera and finding a new job/hobby that you actually enjoy? I love my job. It is my passion in life. I think I'll stop posting about it though. Later Dorkroom.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
Wooten posted:You post nice random photos of buildings, but you calling my photo cheap and "American" because I used flash in the shade while the only portrait you have ever posted required a black and white conversion to hide the terrible lighting is hypocritical. Yeah, people who pay for photos want to be able to see their faces, it's totally cheap. I guess I'll take your advice on board and start being more European about my portraits by doing lovely black and white conversions. Are you talking about this?  By lovely black and white conversion you mean shot on b&w film that was pushed 3 stops so that it lost most of the shadow detail? The question about American preferences was genuine although a bit provocative. I am genuinely curious though, a lot of wedding and family portrait shots I see online from American photographers use a lot of fill flash so I am wondering if that is something the customers expect from you? I have only done 4 paid portrait jobs this year and second shot for a photographer friend at two weddings, but I don't post paid work on this forum (or flickr) just my random shots of buildings. None of those paid portrait gigs used fill flash and they turned out pretty nice. There is a pretty basic technique involving back lighting and learning how to expose properly that produces consistent and flattering results for most people, feel free to figure it out yourself.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 03:45 |
|
|
deaders posted:Are you talking about this?  that's a great photo
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 01:03
|
|