|
Note to self: pay attention to the background. Epic photo bomb...
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2012 03:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 22:37 |
|
|
1. Model confirmed for tomorrow. 2. Themes nailed down with suggested wardrobe. 3. No makeup/hair - we'll deal with that. 4. Locations scouted, chosen, locked. 5. Weather good. All is a go! Looking forward it. Plus she's really pretty, versatile, and has a lot of experience. I have faith this will work out well. And if for some reason it doesn't, I'll lean from that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2012 03:50
|
|
|
Some photos from today. It was my first photo shoot, kind of an impromptu thing with a friend. We were walking around campus so for lighting all I had was an off camera speedlite on a flash stand. I felt it definitely helped make the photos 'pop' vs. just using ambient lighting. ML1 by The original David L, on Flickr  ML2 by The original David L, on Flickr  ML3 by The original David L, on Flickr  ML4 by The original David L, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2012 03:57
|
|
|
Went into a pizza sub shop tonight because I had the munchies, came out with this and some cheese fries. Untitled by AIIAZNSK8ER, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2012 04:26
|
|
|
Was walking around with my camera when I saw this guy standing at his post so I decided to do an environmental portrait of him. Nice guy to chat with as well. Valet by alkanphel, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2012 05:15
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:Went into a pizza sub shop tonight because I had the munchies, came out with this and some cheese fries. Is he allergic to the red ink or something? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2012 12:28
|
|
|
 Portrait of my father.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2012 19:46
|
|
|
 IMG_3432 by avoyer, on Flickr Practicing with male models lately.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2012 20:39
|
|
|
Nice to see you're not sexist in your hair chopping.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2012 22:47
|
|
|
HC4L (Hair choppin' 4 lyfe)
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2012 23:06
|
|
|
Jiblet posted:Nice to see you're not sexist in your hair chopping. ;-) sw1gger posted:HC4L (Hair choppin' 4 lyfe) Clean! I like it  HC4L ! Edit: the 2 neck lines did you play with them? They look off (or too smoothed out?)
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2012 23:18
|
|
|
AH. Relief. It's over. But it was great! I had so much fun this morning. My model was wonderful and we really connected. There was good chemistry between all of us, and I think she totally understood my concept. (Well, more or less.) We made it work, though. I'm just thrilled I got to take some good pictures in my favorite parts of Manhattan with a great model, and I really look forward to seeing the results. Now I just have to send off the film and wait for the lab to develop and scan. When I got home this afternoon she had already emailed and sent me a thank you message and really enjoyed the shoot. The one scary thing, the one variable to this whole equation, is that I'm using a new Sekonic meter for my Hasselblad, and I haven't seen the results of my prior shots with it (a major no-no, I know), so I hope to hell the metering was a success. (Every light meter requires a bit of getting used to, to understand its kinks and how best to use it). And... with the other camera I brought (which is new to me), the Pentax 67II which has a built-in matrix meter, I haven't seen any of those photos yet either, (no-no number two). I assume all will generally be well but there's a slight slither of a percentage where I metered the Sekonic wrong and/or the meter in the Pentax is faulty, or who knows. So I'm a little nervous. Obviously I am taking some risk, but otherwise I am hopeful. I think we veered a little off from my theme. I actually gave her three themes to choose from for which to base her wardrobe. She showed off in a great outfit but I don't think I asked her to change it up enough. Some of the time I resorted back to my standard street portraits where I just had her pose and look pretty. But we pushed through with the theme more or less, and we'll see how it goes. It was a good learning experience from me and, either way, I know she will be very happy with the pictures. I wish we could have kept going, but she had an audition to go to and had to get ready for that. Nevertheless we spent about 3 hours shooting in 3 locations and we had a lot of fun. The atmosphere was very relaxed and we tried out many ideas, and at the end of the day I think we will have some good photos! She did her own hair and makeup. The makeup was natural looking, but the hair was great. I was really impressed, and she was very professional. I'd like to work with her again if possible. So I'm hoping on the film end there are no serious issues, otherwise I think this will be pretty good! Mannequin fucked around with this message at 01:03 on Apr 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 00:33
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:AH. Relief. It's over. But it was great! I had so much fun this morning. My model was wonderful and we really connected. There was good chemistry between all of us, and I think she totally understood my concept. (Well, more or less.) We made it work, though. I'm just thrilled I got to take some good pictures in my favorite parts of Manhattan with a great model, and I really look forward to seeing the results. Now I just have to send off the film and wait for the lab to develop and scan. When I got home this afternoon she had already emailed and sent me a thank you message for a great shoot. Was it your first time guiding a model? That's pretty cool Mannequin! I can't wait to see how it turns out!
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 00:42
|
|
|
xenilk posted:Was it your first time guiding a model? That's pretty cool Mannequin! I can't wait to see how it turns out! Yes. First time working with a real model based on a theme, wardrobe and location. It was my own vision coming to life. I gave direction and basically ran the whole show. (Patting myself on the back here since I've never done this before). But she was very easy to work with and was quick to offer some posing ideas when I ran out of them, so it made it a little easier for me. My sister, who was my assistant, even had some great ideas also. We spent a little over an hour on Mercer Street and the surrounding streets a little bit, and then we took a cab up to Washington Square Park where we stayed for not too long, and then finished up in Union Square. We took a few shots along the way. University Place is one of my favorite places to shoot and I took a couple along there. I went through 5 rolls of film, 4 with the Pentax and 1 with the Hasselblad. (52 pictures). It was great. I think for my own critique I would say I should have a better, and more formulated plan for the next time. I should know pretty much exactly what I want and be specific about it and not try a dozen things to see if they will work, but do one thing very well, with hair, makeup and wardrobe people on set to really help dress it up. But when I asked her how I compared to other photographers she told me I was very organized and knew exactly what I wanted, so I think it was a success. One other critique: film has its disadvantages. Sometimes I would forget to cock the film advance lever on the Pentax and miss a shot, and had to ask her to go back and do it again. With digital I could have just kept her in focus the whole time and held the shutter button down and gotten 10 pictures out of it, all in focus. There was a bit of tracking her while maintaining manual focus at the same time, which presents some challenges. But we will have to see how all of that turns out. Mannequin fucked around with this message at 01:06 on Apr 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 00:59
|
|
|
Trying a few different colour casts..   
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 01:20
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:One other critique: film has its disadvantages. Sometimes I would forget to cock the film advance lever on the Pentax and miss a shot, and had to ask her to go back and do it again. With digital I could have just kept her in focus the whole time and held the shutter button down and gotten 10 pictures out of it, all in focus. There was a bit of tracking her while maintaining manual focus at the same time, which presents some challenges. But we will have to see how all of that turns out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 02:11
|
|
|
Cyberbob posted:Trying a few different colour casts.. Love the first two ones for the tone and expressions. Last one is pretty slick too for the posture. Third one is too candid, but that's just me :P Here's what I've been up to...  IMG_1872 by avoyer, on Flickr  IMG_1817 by avoyer, on Flickr  IMG_1822 by avoyer, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 03:06
|
|
|
Very nice, but in 1872 her eyelashes are trying to escape!
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 03:19
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:The one scary thing, the one variable to this whole equation, is that I'm using a new Sekonic meter for my Hasselblad, and I haven't seen the results of my prior shots with it (a major no-no, I know), so I hope to hell the metering was a success. (Every light meter requires a bit of getting used to, to understand its kinks and how best to use it). And... with the other camera I brought (which is new to me), the Pentax 67II which has a built-in matrix meter, I haven't seen any of those photos yet either, (no-no number two). I assume all will generally be well but there's a slight slither of a percentage where I metered the Sekonic wrong and/or the meter in the Pentax is faulty, or who knows. So I'm a little nervous. Obviously I am taking some risk, but otherwise I am hopeful. You really should invest in a polaroid back for at least one of your cameras. They don't cost that much and for the peace of mind you get they are more than worth it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 03:24
|
|
|
Too late for any of that now. The film's gone and off to the lab. We'll see what happens. And if it's ruined, if something went terribly wrong and nothing came out right or it was all underexposed, it will be a wonderful learning lesson because I'll never forgive myself and will remember this mistake forever. You have to look at the silver lining in these things.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 03:47
|
|
|
baccaruda posted:Very nice, but in 1872 her eyelashes are trying to escape! Thank you  AND LOL! Didn't notice, oops
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 03:51
|
|
|
xenilk posted:Love the first two ones for the tone and expressions. Last one is pretty slick too for the posture. Third one is too candid, but that's just me :P I feel like you've really got a distinctive style now: I could pick out your shots from a selection without being told which ones they were. Nice images. Also, well done on coping being in the same room as this woman. She's so amazing looking, I would probably just sit on the floor and cry / blush, never mind direct her effectively.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 10:44
|
|
|
Her dreadlocks had their 12th birthday recently. No extensions here, ladies. Ayr Lox'ide #1 by Rick0r McZany, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 12:04
|
|
|
Cyberbob posted:Her dreadlocks had their 12th birthday recently. No extensions here, ladies. Ew. Cool photo though. Cyberbob - very awesome stuff. My favorite is the first one and the last one. I wish you would fix the smoke in the last one (on the upper right side), it's pretty distracting. Is it safe to assume you shot with continuous lights or were you strobin' it up? Fire and strobes - haven't tried it yet. I've heard it's a bit tricky, though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 19:17
|
|
|
Strobes all the way It's very tricky to do fire + strobe. It's essentially balancing ambient with strobe, kinda like an outdoor location shoot with a sunset, etc. You need to relax your shutter speed slightly to get a good flame out of it, then blast the subject with strobes. I found somewhere between 1/50 and 1/160 was fine for the kind of flames I was working with. I've shot flames at sunset before, which was next to impossible. Trying to balance two different sources of ambient? Ya right. Shutter too quick - miss out on sunset. Shutter too slow - flames get too bright and white out the shot. Flames too bright - they put too much light on the body, which is a real pain if it's a moving body. You'll get all sorts of blurry limbs, etc, even with strobes capturing the rest of the shot in an instant.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 23:36
|
|
|
Cyberbob posted:Strobes all the way Holy crap I didn't think about that. Forget that I'll never take flames + sunset + strobe LOL
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2012 03:12
|
|
|
Gazmachine posted:I feel like you've really got a distinctive style now: I could pick out your shots from a selection without being told which ones they were. Nice images. Also, well done on coping being in the same room as this woman. She's so amazing looking, I would probably just sit on the floor and cry / blush, never mind direct her effectively. She was awesome to work with, and yeah very pretty. I don't really think about it when I shoot because if I go with that mindset I'll just not thing about the pictures and I'll look dumb as hell. But yeah when I look at the pictures afterwards I appreciate her beauty Thanks for the compliment I tried something a little bit different today with a tattooed girl.  IMG_3758 by avoyer, on Flickr  IMG_3777 by avoyer, on Flickr  IMG_3836 by avoyer, on Flickr You can't really see from those pictures but she had a weaker eye that was squinting a lot... I feel bad because I didn't manage a way it look less obvious on most of my shots 
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2012 04:10
|
|
|
I got to try out a new lens on a new model today. Here's Abbey and the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 02:16
|
|
|
bisticles posted:I got to try out a new lens on a new model today. Here's Abbey and the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 Pretty neat lens! I would suggest not having the model always have her hand over her hear, it indicate closeness in non-verbal sheenagan I usually don't like shot angles like the second one but I think it works great on that one since there's definition of her jawline.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 03:25
|
|
|
Here's a couple randoms, one old, one newer: Untitled by Myotomy, on Flickr  Untitled by Myotomy, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 03:38
|
|
|
bisticles posted:I got to try out a new lens on a new model today. Here's Abbey and the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 In the first one, her face is a little overexposed. Those highlights on her cheek and forehead are really bright. Nice natural smile, and nice colours. How's the lens?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 03:44
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:You have to look at the silver lining in these things. Very little silver is used for film these days. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver#Photography_and_electronics
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 04:08
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:Here's a couple randoms, one old, one newer: The first shot is awesome except for the flash and boom that are in the frame You should put a new sky in the second.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 04:17
|
|
|
xenilk posted:Pretty neat lens! I would suggest not having the model always have her hand over her hear, it indicate closeness in non-verbal sheenagan CarrotFlowers posted:In the first one, her face is a little overexposed. Those highlights on her cheek and forehead are really bright. Nice natural smile, and nice colours. How's the lens? Thank you both! I didn't think I'd really like an upside-down shot either, but it made me literally stop and saw "Wow" when flipping through my images from the shoot later in the day. I'm definitely going to grab her later on for a studio session. This was her first time in front of the lens, so I let a few modeling no-no's go in favor of having her look natural. It felt good to be shooting again, though. The Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 is a loving fantastic lens. The AF is a bit wonky, and can go crazy trying to find a focus spot sometimes, but once it's in the general area, it's all good. Honestly, the AF not being USM is about all I have to complain about it, it's just a magic piece of gear. Too bad you have to be about 10 feet away to shoot a shoulder-up shot on a crop-body but oh well. I'm too busy enjoying the images I'm getting and the $800+ I saved on this thing to worry about how much better they could have looked with the Canon L equivalent.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 04:30
|
|
|
TheLastManStanding posted:The first shot is awesome except for the flash and boom that are in the frame Haha yeah, I laughed when I noticed I forgot to edit that out, at least people don't have to ask how it's lit. I'll reedit my computer file but I always hate reediting flickr shots since it breaks the link.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 04:30
|
|
|
A few favorites from a shoot I did over the weekend. IMG_3697 by avoyer, on Flickr  IMG_3577 by avoyer, on Flickr  IMG_3483 by avoyer, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 04:43
|
|
|
xenilk posted:A few favorites from a shoot I did over the weekend. Just a few minor quick bits because I'm in a bind somewhere deep in Morocco. #1 I like the pose a lot, but the left shoulder seems a bit crumpled, and the cloth is distracting from the profile of the face. Background is good, there's enough breathing space around the model. #3 I think the top of the head and the fingers being cut off in this case is distracting, could've used some more room. More annoying is the huge tree in the background. Because it flows so strongly through the frame, it is very distracting, especially since we see so little of the model.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 08:42
|
|
|
DanTheFryingPan posted:Just a few minor quick bits because I'm in a bind somewhere deep in Morocco. I agree what you're saying, I've been tight cropping lately. Don't know why but I seem to fall into it. I'll take that in consideration
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 14:41
|
|
|
Any tips on getting focus right on potraits? I seem to be having trouble getting good focus with my MF Minolta 50mm f1.7. (On my Sony NEX-3). I'm a total newbie and am shooting at f1.7 so the DOF is very narrow, should I try going down a few stops to increase DOF? Or shoot multiple shots while slightly adjusting the focus? I could use the MF assist's digital zoom to check my focus but that's slow and cumbersome.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 04:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 22:37 |
|
|
DoktorLoken posted:Any tips on getting focus right on potraits? I seem to be having trouble getting good focus with my MF Minolta 50mm f1.7. (On my Sony NEX-3). I'm a total newbie and am shooting at f1.7 so the DOF is very narrow, should I try going down a few stops to increase DOF? Or shoot multiple shots while slightly adjusting the focus? Are you focusing and then recomposing the shot? This could be causing the issue if you are close to your subject. If you can change the focus point, try composing the shot how you want, and then selecting the focus point nearest the eyes and see if that works better.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 05:00
|
|
