|
iSheep posted:Shooting wide open is fun at first, but looking back on all my shots where I did that, I missed focus a LOT. You know what really helped me with improving at focusing (and general camera handling technique) is macro photography. Nothing trains a steady hand and accurate focusing more effectively, in my experience. EDIT: It's also funny how a lot of macro lenses make excellent portrait lenses. Shoot macro for better portraits! Jimlad fucked around with this message at 01:42 on Mar 18, 2015 |
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 05:47 |
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Ok considering we're all posting pretty badly can we ideally just move on and never speak of this again? No. Subyng posted:Are you purposely being obtuse for the sake of sarcasm or do you not understand that some measure of objectivity is needed if you want to be able to give and receive any sort of meaningful criticism? 1. Objectivity cannot exist (certainly not within a subject) 2. All lived experience is context
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 01:58
|
|
|
I generally pick one of the mid-corner focus points and try to line someone's eye up to that, I miss focus a lot less often shooting wide open. edit: oh are we still complaining about ansel autisms or the guy complaining about ansel autisms? I don't get the appeal of this argument. 1st AD fucked around with this message at 02:15 on Mar 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 02:12
|
|
|
Mrenda posted:This recent thread has made me realise I quite like my some of my photos and critique would be nice. And by this I mean I'm the best.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
eat poo poo 365 Nog Hogger posted:1. Objectivity cannot exist (certainly not within a subject) ok actually those are very valid points
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
1st AD posted:edit: oh are we still complaining about ansel autisms or the guy complaining about ansel autisms? I don't get the appeal of this argument. Neither.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 03:05
|
|
|
 
Breadnought fucked around with this message at 06:02 on Mar 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 05:40
|
|
|
This is a good discussion as long as people don't take it personally...
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 06:07
|
|
|
deaders posted:This is a good discussion as long as people don't take it personally... gently caress you  I like the first one, except it feels a little tight on the bottom. Maybe next time include a tiny bot more of the should/neck to give it a more gentle roll off onto the edge of the frame. 8th-snype fucked around with this message at 09:21 on Mar 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 09:18
|
|
|
Mrenda posted:This recent thread has made me realise I quite like my some of my photos and critique would be nice. Post some pictures then.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 13:00
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:All three of those missed focus on the eyes and got the nose. iSheep posted:Shooting wide open is fun at first, but looking back on all my shots where I did that, I missed focus a LOT. Yeah so I realized a little later that I wasn't paying enough attention to the exact focal point because I was asking random people if I could take their photo and just going too quickly. Thanks a bunch I appreciate the feedback! So I guess it would be a matter of maybe not going so shallow on DoF (or if I do using the rocking back and forth) and actually paying attention to eye focus? (hah) Buddha. fucked around with this message at 17:51 on Mar 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
Buddha. posted:Yeah so I realized a little later that I wasn't paying enough attention to the exact focal point because I was asking random people if I could take their photo and just going too quickly. Thanks a bunch I appreciate the feedback! You can try using servo too, so that if you're moving a little bit when your DOF is that shallow it will keep up with you and adjust.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
Buddha. posted:So I guess it would be a matter of maybe not going so shallow on DoF (or if I do using the rocking back and forth) and actually paying attention to eye focus? (hah) Not sure what you shot that at since imgur strips exif, but I'm guessing 1.8? Shoot at like 2.2. It'll be sharper, you won't notice much of a difference in DOF and you'll miss focus a little less.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:You can try using servo too, so that if you're moving a little bit when your DOF is that shallow it will keep up with you and adjust. even better, is to use manual focus when shooting that wide open.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
Pukestain Pal posted:Not sure what you shot that at since imgur strips exif, but I'm guessing 1.8? Shoot at like 2.2. It'll be sharper, you won't notice much of a difference in DOF and you'll miss focus a little less. Yeah I think 1.8 is pretty aggressive for what I was doing. It was definitely a combination of shooting really open and not paying enough attention to my focal point (kind of important). Pukestain Pal posted:even better, is to use manual focus when shooting that wide open. I'll have to try that too. I suppose I just need to take more shots of the same subject while varying to focus tiny amounts to get a few actual good shots. It's hard to discern the closer details on the LCD on my Rebel T2i so what looks like a pretty solid shot ends up being focused on the wrong spot. All of that obviously will change with more practice. Thanks again guys
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
Manual focus would be hard in a T2i viewfinder.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
1st AD posted:Manual focus would be hard in a T2i viewfinder. Yeah it's pretty small. I'll figure out some way to make it work or at least attempt it
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
You can try installing Magic Lantern and use focus peaking in live view. However its kind of hit or miss in its accuracy, in my personal experience. Honestly I would do what pukestain recommended and just stop down to something like 2.2-2.8
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
iSheep posted:You can try installing Magic Lantern and use focus peaking in live view. However its kind of hit or miss in its accuracy, in my personal experience. Yeah I'm definitely gonna do that because I just don't have the skill/whatever at the moment to use such wide aperture. I feel like I have a solid grasp of exposure and I am really starting to get the itch to go out and explore so I can shoot shoot shoot and learn from mistakes
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
 IMG_3063 by cnlmyou, on Flickr IMG_3071 by cnlmyou, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 08:21
|
|
|
You can't see his eyes at all and I don't think that's doing the content any favors. Eyes are important... if you're going to hide them, make it dramatic and give it purpose.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 09:12
|
|
|
His hands look freakishly large in the 2nd one
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
Looks like he's gonna start talking to me about the red pill any second
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
Has a real "Men's rights activist that doesn't want to disclose his identity" feel
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
The lighting is way under compared to what that lamp is and I hate it
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
Well I guessed my first time in a studio wouldn't end up amazing.  The perspective with the hands is weird in the second one, is that just a bad pose for such a wide angle shot? The lighting was intentional, though. I wanted the scene to look dark but still sharp, and the yellow light to be a focus without actually turning the whole scene yellow. How do you make it not like like a reddit-goon is the model? Have him pop his collar and grow a beard?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:How do you make it not like like a reddit-goon is the model? Have him pop his collar and grow a beard? by not taking photos of a reddit-goon
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:The lighting was intentional, though. I wanted the scene to look dark but still sharp, and the yellow light to be a focus without actually turning the whole scene yellow. 1)it's too dark and you can barely make out a face (perhaps a net positive given the goony vibe of the model) 2)the only way the whole scene turns yellow is if you light it in such a way that it becomes yellow
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
He looks a lot like the "this is what a patriarch looks like" guy from somewhere on the internet. I wonder if the pointed finger in the second picture plays a bit in the hand problem.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
The suit is adding to the goony vibe. Avoid a black shirt and red tie. He's also sporting about 6" of shirt cuff. e: honestly the whole thing is just too on the nose. The skull, the booze etc. Thoogsby fucked around with this message at 22:43 on Mar 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:The perspective with the hands is weird in the second one, is that just a bad pose for such a wide angle shot? You need to think about why you even used a wide angle lens in the first place. There's very little context in the scene/location that is served by distorting him against it with a wide angle lens. So all you've essentially done is distort his proportions without adding any additional visual cues. You could have framed the exact same scene with a short telephoto and saved his proportions from becoming so out of whack.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 00:28
|
|
|
Add a dim rim (warm orange sounds nice) to the dark side to define his whole shape. Possibly also a small light on the floor behind him to open up the background ever so slightly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 03:02
|
|
|
Are those self portraits? plz be honest
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
rear end is my canvas posted:Add a dim rim (warm orange sounds nice) to the dark side to define his whole shape. Possibly also a small light on the floor behind him to open up the background ever so slightly. Yeah there's not enough separation so the subject gets lost in the whole scene which is already super dark, AND he's wearing a black suit. My friend did something that has kind of the same vibe, but the lighting strategy is drastically different:  There's more stuff in the scene, there's a practical light source in the shot but it isn't blown out, and while it is dark and moody there's clear separation between the subject and the background. Also it's not shot on a wide angle.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 03:32
|
|
|
Using gelled light sources light that is a great way to give a larger apparent difference in the light levels. We see the blue fill and it reads like soft moonlight in our heads even though it's probably pretty bright in reality.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 08:49
|
|
|
Buddha. posted:Yeah I think 1.8 is pretty aggressive for what I was doing. It was definitely a combination of shooting really open and not paying enough attention to my focal point (kind of important). Might be obvious, but make sure that you're manually choosing your focus point and sticking that directly on the eye. If you're using a large area focus, you'll probably lock focus on whatever is closest or has the greatest contrast. If you're doing still work, choose your focus point and, if this is a setting on the Rebels, turn off any focus point switching or assistance. When you're shooting action, it's nice to have your focus system look at a wider area and recruit surrounding points to help it focus on something that's moving fast and hard to keep a focus point on, but when you're shooting still you need to be able to tell your camera exactly what to focus on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
dakana posted:Might be obvious, but make sure that you're manually choosing your focus point and sticking that directly on the eye. If you're using a large area focus, you'll probably lock focus on whatever is closest or has the greatest contrast. If you're doing still work, choose your focus point and, if this is a setting on the Rebels, turn off any focus point switching or assistance. When you're shooting action, it's nice to have your focus system look at a wider area and recruit surrounding points to help it focus on something that's moving fast and hard to keep a focus point on, but when you're shooting still you need to be able to tell your camera exactly what to focus on. Well I had no idea I could turn off the variable focus point assistance thing haha. Thanks! EDIT: Wow that is so much better! Buddha. fucked around with this message at 19:00 on Mar 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
Buddha. posted:Well I had no idea I could turn off the variable focus point assistance thing haha. Thanks! hahaha holy poo poo, that would definitely screw you. I just assumed you were picking your focus point. the other advice is still good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
Pukestain Pal posted:hahaha holy poo poo, that would definitely screw you. I just assumed you were picking your focus point. the other advice is still good. Hahah, no I was literally fighting the full range of auto-focus or trying manual focus on the face/eyes (kinda tough with this viewfinder) and just choosing photos that had the best results. That one tip just made my life so much easier. The moment I read it I realized that I was being dumb  Now I wish I could go back and take those portraits again, oh well!
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 05:47 |
|
|
Buddha. posted:Now I wish I could go back and take those portraits again, oh well! who cares, just take more.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 19:40
|
|