|
The grain looks good, imo
|
# ? Jan 25, 2016 22:26 |
|
|
# ? May 19, 2024 15:08 |
|
Addison by Steve V, on Flickr
|
# ? Jan 26, 2016 03:48 |
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:
Love this.
|
# ? Jan 26, 2016 05:49 |
|
|
# ? Jan 26, 2016 06:08 |
|
grandma by Kyle Sonnenberg, on Flickr
|
# ? Jan 26, 2016 07:43 |
|
McLarenF1 posted:Love this. Thank you.
|
# ? Jan 27, 2016 01:10 |
|
I don't know why, exactly, but every time you post a picture immediately after someone else's, I hate to stop for a moment, trying to figure out if you're mocking it or not. It's an interesting game.
|
# ? Jan 27, 2016 03:17 |
|
I need to get better at my banter, and getting people to relax more. Some people it happens pretty easily with, like my last engagement shoot, but some personalities are just harder for me to read & get them to open up. Lucas and I were working 1-on-1, so it was even harder for me. I mean, I'm feeling confident in the shooting part of it; I just need to get more confident with my people skills when I'm alone with a subject. Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr
|
# ? Jan 31, 2016 23:47 |
|
dakana posted:I need to get better at my banter, and getting people to relax more. Some people it happens pretty easily with, like my last engagement shoot, but some personalities are just harder for me to read & get them to open up. Lucas and I were working 1-on-1, so it was even harder for me. I mean, I'm feeling confident in the shooting part of it; I just need to get more confident with my people skills when I'm alone with a subject. Your rim light is a little too intense -- it's distracting.
|
# ? Feb 1, 2016 03:01 |
|
voodoorootbeer posted:Your rim light is a little too intense -- it's distracting. on that second one? word. I agree. I liked this light better, but the facial expression was pretty much identical to the one with the straight-behind rim Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr
|
# ? Feb 1, 2016 03:12 |
|
dakana posted:on that second one? word. I agree. I liked this light better, but the facial expression was pretty much identical to the one with the straight-behind rim On all of the studio headshots. In the first one it looks like some kind of bad photoshop artifact around where you cut his head out and comped in a background. Like you originally shot it on white.
|
# ? Feb 1, 2016 03:17 |
|
Hm. I didn't think about it that way. It was a gridded strobe at head level about 3 feet behind him, and I was aiming for that whole-head glow. Maybe the only reason I didn't perceive it as a distracting element is because I was aware of what it was supposed to be. That's why I post in here though, so I'm not doing stuff in a vacuum.
|
# ? Feb 1, 2016 03:52 |
|
dakana posted:Hm. I didn't think about it that way. It was a gridded strobe at head level about 3 feet behind him, and I was aiming for that whole-head glow. Maybe the only reason I didn't perceive it as a distracting element is because I was aware of what it was supposed to be. That's why I post in here though, so I'm not doing stuff in a vacuum. Rim lights don't need to be crazy bright to be effective. You can get away with -1.5 off the key light, my first impression of the first picture is that it looked like poor job cutting the subject off a white background and dropped him onto a gray background, especially in the thumbnail. Then I realized it was a super bright rim light.
|
# ? Feb 1, 2016 04:06 |
|
red19fire posted:Rim lights don't need to be crazy bright to be effective. You can get away with -1.5 off the key light, my first impression of the first picture is that it looked like poor job cutting the subject off a white background and dropped him onto a gray background, especially in the thumbnail. Then I realized it was a super bright rim light. I had the same impression. And I think the second shot could use the side lights a bit more towards the front, or at least one of them. Even lights on both sides kind of leaves the face blank and uninteresting. The outdoor shots are OK but I think some need a longer lens. The wide angle and distance starts losing the subject.
|
# ? Feb 1, 2016 04:36 |
|
red19fire posted:Rim lights don't need to be crazy bright to be effective. You can get away with -1.5 off the key light, my first impression of the first picture is that it looked like poor job cutting the subject off a white background and dropped him onto a gray background, especially in the thumbnail. Then I realized it was a super bright rim light. I think bright rim can work well, and this one wasn't that far off the key, but I think having it gridded and straight behind the head gave it the glow that puts people off. Judge Schnoopy posted:I had the same impression. And I think the second shot could use the side lights a bit more towards the front, or at least one of them. Even lights on both sides kind of leaves the face blank and uninteresting. This I'll fall on my sword for, though. I think for the double rim, this was the best placement. Any closer to the front and it's gonna start looking wonky. To give it more depth I should've been using a harder source like a dish. This was still the softlighter and reflector under. quote:
Here's one www.kneerphoto.com by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr
|
# ? Feb 1, 2016 22:48 |
|
dakana posted:But this I'll own to for this subset. I have some more where the subject fills more of the frame, but I think I was still gunshy about his expressions. Yeah, going to agree with what Judge Schnoopy said - this one in particular stood out to me instantly as "he's way too close to the subject". The perspective looks distorted, and in combination with the choice of fairly cramped pose creates an odd effect that makes his anatomy look out of proportion. I'd suggest stepping back, using a longer lens (to maintain the framing) and changing up the pose so he's less hunched and isn't showing off one leg while hiding the other.
|
# ? Feb 2, 2016 00:19 |
|
I call it "Commentary On The Male Gaze." MrBlandAverage fucked around with this message at 00:51 on Feb 2, 2016 |
# ? Feb 2, 2016 00:46 |
|
MrBlandAverage posted:
|
# ? Feb 2, 2016 00:57 |
|
MrBlandAverage posted:
This is a quality poo poo post.
|
# ? Feb 2, 2016 01:09 |
|
MrBlandAverage posted:
loving lol
|
# ? Feb 2, 2016 01:10 |
|
MrBlandAverage posted:
why didn't you post this on flickr? i'd like to fave it
|
# ? Feb 2, 2016 01:43 |
|
MrBlandAverage posted:
Is it available on Amazon subscribe and save?
|
# ? Feb 2, 2016 02:06 |
|
MrBlandAverage posted:
|
# ? Feb 2, 2016 02:33 |
|
MrBlandAverage posted:
Holy moly
|
# ? Feb 2, 2016 03:27 |
|
MrBlandAverage posted:
This One Photograph Left Triumph, The Insult Comedy Dog Speechless!
|
# ? Feb 2, 2016 03:27 |
|
MrBlandAverage posted:
dear god
|
# ? Feb 2, 2016 08:57 |
|
thetzar posted:How stoned was he? owns
|
# ? Feb 2, 2016 15:05 |
|
MrBlandAverage posted:
:+1:
|
# ? Feb 2, 2016 15:06 |
|
|
# ? Feb 2, 2016 19:47 |
|
Daytona Beach, FL by Kyle Sonnenberg, on Flickr
|
# ? Feb 4, 2016 10:55 |
|
MrBlandAverage posted:
lmbo
|
# ? Feb 6, 2016 02:22 |
|
2 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr
|
# ? Feb 14, 2016 04:09 |
|
Some cheesecake shots for a friend Anastasia 18 by Iain Compton, on Flickr Anastasia 17 by Iain Compton, on Flickr A lot of the photos I took in that session came out very soft and I didn't notice it in the previews until I started processing them. I must have disengaged the autofocus at some point without noticing.
|
# ? Feb 17, 2016 13:17 |
|
Helen Highwater posted:Some cheesecake shots for a friend Looking at the EXIF it looks like you shot them with fully open aperture (2.8) at fairly slow shutter speed (1/15). Did you use a tripod, otherwise the softness might be a combination of shooting the lens fully open and camera shake? VVV Well that could explain it then. Wide open lens with slow shutter speed while in strange positions is a good recipe for softness, at least for me (although I often drink a lot of coffee which makes me a bit shaky as well). MadlabsRobot fucked around with this message at 14:35 on Feb 17, 2016 |
# ? Feb 17, 2016 13:26 |
|
MadlabsRobot posted:Looking at the EXIF it looks like you shot them with fully open aperture (2.8) at fairly slow shutter speed (1/15). Did you use a tripod, otherwise the softness it might be a combination of shooting the lens fully open and camera shake? No it was all handheld as I was scrambling around on my knees getting angles while she posed. There wasn't a lot of time for the shoot so I set the lights up and we just ran through some locations in my apartment.
|
# ? Feb 17, 2016 13:29 |
|
Helen Highwater posted:No it was all handheld as I was scrambling around on my knees getting angles while she posed. There wasn't a lot of time for the shoot so I set the lights up and we just ran through some locations in my apartment. To get anything like you had at 1/15 is pretty amazing. If I have to drop below 1/60 I deem the lighting unacceptable and won't shoot until it's fixed, because I know 1/40 will soften up over half my shots and I'll be pissed in post.
|
# ? Feb 17, 2016 14:43 |
|
I have pretty steady hands, I can shoot unsupported up to about 1/2s normally without problems. I was shooting at +2EV which meant that the previews were very bright, which is why I didn't notice the softness from a quick look at the back screen during the shoot. I should probably have knocked it down to 0 or +1 and a faster aperture.
|
# ? Feb 17, 2016 14:51 |
|
Helen Highwater posted:I have pretty steady hands, I can shoot unsupported up to about 1/2s normally without problems. I was shooting at +2EV which meant that the previews were very bright, which is why I didn't notice the softness from a quick look at the back screen during the shoot. I should probably have knocked it down to 0 or +1 and a faster aperture. Dude, stop shooting at low ISOs and slow shutter speeds if you aren't going to use a tripod. You're using a modern camera, the sensor can handle it. I promise missing a single shot due to blurriness caused by hand-holding a slow shot is going to be worse than all the extra noise from using higher ISOs added together.
|
# ? Feb 17, 2016 18:51 |
|
Yeah you won't notice anything at ISO 400 and even 800 will be hard to tell. I never shot with a 70D but I bet even 1600 will be barely noticeable. I had a 50D and I was always fine going up to 1600. At least do that until you can get off camera lighting.
|
# ? Feb 17, 2016 20:11 |
|
|
# ? May 19, 2024 15:08 |
|
Helen Highwater posted:I have pretty steady hands, I can shoot unsupported up to about 1/2s normally without problems. I was shooting at +2EV which meant that the previews were very bright, which is why I didn't notice the softness from a quick look at the back screen during the shoot. I should probably have knocked it down to 0 or +1 and a faster aperture. You are steady but your model may not be. My last cheesecake shoot I had to emphasize how still she needed to be when I took shots: ISO 800 1/50th F5.6 Shooting on a tripod helped immensely. Allowed for a bit more depth with my aperture and decreased the odds of the shot being blurry. ISO 800 gave me a bit faster shutter speed, and there is no noise reduction done on the image. Slow down and take your time. Discussing with your model beforehand the look they want will help with you not having to scramble for haphazard posing and shots. When both of you have a vision, and consider composition while shooting, it'll show in your final product. EDIT: Ignore my warped verticals on the left
|
# ? Feb 17, 2016 21:11 |