|
So last night was new years. We went to a party, there were people dressed up. I had my camera with me and other than the equipment in my camera bag (Camera, lenses, Flash, remote) I thought it might be an idea to see what I could do with regards to composition with the minimal equipment I had.   I tried to get lighting as best as I could with what i had available. Using a Christmas tree to add a little texture to the background. I suppose the question here, is whether these are an improvement over the pictures from before? These are again the unmodified photos, I suspect that I will mess around with Lightroom a little more once I can get the basic composition better.
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2024 13:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 20:48 |
|
|
They are very underexposed. the tree in the background isn't abstract enough to provide random glowy bokeh, but also isn't defined enough to be easily readable. It's a distraction and I'd fix it by just editing it out. Depending on what latitide you have from the ISO you shot at, you might be able to bring them up to be reasonably bright but it's going to be tricky to do that to your subject without bringing the backgroud up as well. The bottom one is the stronger composition I think. I'd be tempted to crop it to a 5x7ish aspect ratio so that it cuts off between the lower hand and the waistband. That would get rid of the random glowy bits at the bottom of the frame (you can spot out any that are still in the crop). Bring your highlights and shadows up on the subject and use some gradient filters from the top corners to kill the shadows and blacks around the subjects head.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2024 15:00
|
|
|
Thank you for all of that. Exposure amount is definitely something I'm also working on. I'm never sure exactly how much is the right amount. Every new picture I take, a bit more information is found. You mentioned about whether upping the exposure may help, it looks like the camera did get a lot of information. I would like to know what works well. If I were to provide the RAW file, would someone be able to show me a good example of exposure levels?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2024 19:59
|
|
|
I'll do it, but it shouldn't be hard to get there yourself. Are you using Lightroom? If so, increase exposure by 1 stop and see how that is. If it's too much, dial back the highlights slider a but. Then use the auto mask feature to select the background and drop its exposure by 2.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2024 20:08
|
|
|
Let me give that a go based on what you have just said. I've been trying to view instructional videos for lightroom, trying to get the best advice I can. I find so often when it comes to things like exposure you get them saying "I like to increase the exposure to about 15" or similar but not really explaining why they are doing it out how it changes the feeling of the image. So I guess another question would be, are there good tutorials out there that give good explanations of the various things that can be altered, what they fundamentally do and why?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2024 20:16
|
|
|
A couple studio shot things to consider. Expose for the ambient light with no flash, then add flash on top of that to paint light where you want more light. Separate your subject from the background. If you have a longer lens, or a zoom, put more distance between subject and background, AND move your camera further from the subject and use the longer lens to compress the subject and background together. More distance between subject and background will increase the size of the bokeh balls on the tree and the longer focal length will keep that tree from appearing further away. Don't be afraid to light the tree a bit with another light, unless you're just wanting the tree lights as the background.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2024 20:35
|
|
|
Viginti Septem posted:A couple studio shot things to consider. This part really depends. If you are using the flash as fill only, or you want to just have an eye light or a rim light then yes. Typically if you're working with lower powered lights or only one light, that's what you'd do. If you are working with a bigger light setup (strobes or multiple speedlights), then you'll be getting all of your light from the strobes and using modifiers to manage how the light falls on and around your subject. In that case, you'll be exposed for the lit scene, and you'll get a pure black image if you just shoot using ambient light. It's possible to do that on a budget, I've shot using 3 cheap speedlights on no-name lightstands with low-end softboxes. Total cost of that setup was about $100. It's not great for big scenes, everything is going to be in close to the model, but it works within those limits.  IMG_1595-Edit.jpg by Iain Compton, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 12:16
|
|
|
That’s not a shot that needs 3 strobes and soft boxes though. Your background exposure is competing with your subject on the left side there. I think you’d be better off with a single source for that same look, as it looks like an off angle single source. The framing is off just enough to be really bothersome too, with the radio being just barely cut off, the dresser not being level, the subject being just off center, and the awkward placement of that painting completely drawing your eye off the subjects head. Bottom Liner fucked around with this message at 14:45 on Jan 2, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 14:39
|
|
|
It's lit with two speedlights, one either side of the model at different intensities.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 15:02
|
|
|
Everything I said still applies. Everything I said about lighting still applies too \/ Bottom Liner fucked around with this message at 23:18 on Jan 2, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 15:03
|
|
|
I'm not talking about the framing. Just pointing out that you can do a lot of lighting for indoor portraiture with not a lot of gear.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 19:10
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:They are very underexposed. the tree in the background isn't abstract enough to provide random glowy bokeh, but also isn't defined enough to be easily readable. It's a distraction and I'd fix it by just editing it out. I did another quick edit based on what you said above.  Is this closer to what you are thinking? I have put the RAW file here if anyone is willing to show me how they would edit the photo. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SOY7EvYjMtAW1cU_gSIklpJXc0doRK2f/view?usp=sharing Once again this is me being an utter utter beginner so please forgive me if these are all fairly basic questions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 12:07
|
|
|
Your raw is actually much brighter than I was expecting. Simply as an alternative to what was posted here already, you could accentuate the tree and background instead of killing them off. Some hyper critical things that stood out to me as I was editing: composition, your subject is slightly out of frame with their elbow, the tree is slightly off center from the subject, hard to find a balance point for a solid composition. Necklace is off center Without masking, you could go for a brighter image such as this: 
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 14:47
|
|
|
Tsietisin posted:I did another quick edit based on what you said above. Yep, much better
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 15:04
|
|
|
Viginti Septem posted:Your raw is actually much brighter than I was expecting. Simply as an alternative to what was posted here already, you could accentuate the tree and background instead of killing them off. Thank you for the comments. When it came to lighting, I knew I was going to struggle as the room I was in was not in any way suited for this kind of thing. This was very much a spur of the moment, this is what I have on me, type photo. Much as you mentioned I was also surprised by how much the camera picked up and how much the image could be brightened. It certainly gives me a lot of leeway for alterations. Composition wise, its an odd one. We played a LARP at new year and this was one of their characters. Their character was a bit off kilter, a bit disjointed which is why I was going for the things not looking quite right and off balance. It's an interesting trade off to decent framing while trying to get the spirit of the character. I have another question, but I think it is better placed in the other thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 18:16
|
|
|
Tsietisin posted:Composition wise, its an odd one. We played a LARP at new year and this was one of their characters. Their character was a bit off kilter, a bit disjointed which is why I was going for the things not looking quite right and off balance. It's an interesting trade off to decent framing while trying to get the spirit of the character. If it fits the character, roll with it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 19:18
|
|
|
     Loving the 50 still, so versatile. Bottom Liner fucked around with this message at 08:08 on Jan 5, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 07:36
|
|
|
^ that last photo is killer
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 20:56
|
|
|
grilledcheese posted:^ that last photo is killer yeah it sure is good poo poo bottom liner
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2024 04:30
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2024 05:20
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2024 21:35
|
|
|
 fun comparison between these two: one was shot on a canon 5D classic with an EF 50 1.8, one was shot with an R6 and RF 50 1.2. About 18 years difference in the tech.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2024 02:56
|
|
|
When it comes to GAS I feel portrait is one of the harder genres of photography to justify it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2024 12:35
|
|
|
Mega Comrade posted:When it comes to GAS I feel portrait is one of the harder genres of photography to justify it. Only if you don't get into lighting
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2024 21:34
|
|
|
Megabound posted:Only if you don't get into lighting don't get into lighting
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2024 03:03
|
|
|
Mega Comrade posted:When it comes to GAS I feel portrait is one of the harder genres of photography to justify it. I got a few lenses recently but they all still pale in comparison to my main squeeze the 85mm has a place now. the 35mm? need to sell that poo poo
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2024 03:04
|
|
|
For portraiture, I tend to really love longer focal lengths if you have the space for it. The compression is so flattering and the depth of field can get dreamy. Back when I was shooting weddings, I loved shooting with my 70-200 2.8 as the couple was walking away or towards me from 20-30+ feet away. You just get incredible separation from the background. It can be tricky to stay stable at those focal lengths if you don't have enough light without a tripod but when it works it's great. The last portraits I shot for work, I used a Sony g 135 1.8 and it was fantastic. My boss, not the biggest photo guy, was curious about my rental lens selection (telephotos) when we set up our last branding shoot. I did a few test shots with each lens to see how we were feeling and I immediately chose the shots from the 135. When he saw the comparison he got it immediately.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2024 13:05
|
|
|
Verman posted:chose the shots from the 135 yeah I love the poo poo out of mine, Sigma f/1.8 it’s all those things you described, but it also really brings a vibe that make it look “professional” or whatever word you want to use, not because of the high quality (coz these lenses tend to be fuckin animals in the sharpness department), but because they just don’t look like phone photos at all. idk if non-photographers could put their finger on it but can probably tell something makes it stand out. I’ve been playing with an 85 and that’s also quite good, it’s a good walk around lens, took it to xmas party and it’s a good mix of getting a nice compression but fitting more in. but I doubt I’ll pull it out for portrait my biggest gripe with 135 is that I don’t like full body length shots with it. you’re too far away and don’t like the vibe. I’ve ended up getting people to sit or whatever to squeeze their whole body into less vertical space. seems to work well anyway. for content here’s a wee picture of someone I took recently and of course with 135 
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2024 20:46
|
|
|
I had an opportunity to try some more portrait photos. I'm mostly trying out studio type photos at the moment. I think this is looking better than previous attempts. I am intrigued to get your thoughts. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2024 15:24
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 00:43
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 02:19
|
|
|
I only shoot weddings with a canon 500mm f4 Here's an idea: you have your second shooter in close with a wide angle, interacting with and posing people, while you hide in the neighboring property, taking photos with silky smooth backgrounds
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2024 11:24
|
|
|
it’s good here’s a recent photo. what’s the story I am trying to tell? there is someone and there is also some flowers 
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 00:42
|
|
|
 grandcanyon (1 of 1)-2 by david childers, on Flickr
Bottom Liner fucked around with this message at 05:04 on Mar 10, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 04:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 20:48 |
|
|
Thats badass. For a modern photo to be taken, you have to really investigate the clues that tell you it was taken in the last 50 years. I hear a spaghetti western soundtrack in my head.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2024 18:38
|
|