|
 Arts & Life writer did a column about smoking, quitting, and general struggles with the habit. We wanted to do something other than a traditional columnist headshot. dakana fucked around with this message at 20:06 on Sep 26, 2009 |
#
?
Sep 26, 2009 20:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 09:12 |
|
|
It's difficult as hell to manual focus with the d40's crappy little viewfinder, and it doesn't help that my 50mm 1.8 ai-s doesn't meter with it. Can't wait for my d300.  
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2009 20:02
|
|
|
dakana posted:That will look good next to the article, will it print in color? I imagine it might not look so good grey scaled. Do you have any more where the cigarette is longer? I think it would look better if there were just more of a cigarette between his fingers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2009 18:58
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2009 03:19
|
|
|
did a bunch of portrait shots of my sister. I used a light box I created which was too her left, and a snooted flash at 1/16th behind her for the hair light. It's easy to work with someone when you're related and already have a decent relationship    
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2009 21:36
|
|
|
Penpal posted:did a bunch of portrait shots of my sister. I used a light box I created which was too her left, and a snooted flash at 1/16th behind her for the hair light. It's easy to work with someone when you're related and already have a decent relationship Counterpoint this girl on my facebook put up some sexy glamour photographs that it turned out her brother took. I was a little skeeved out by that. Not saying the pictures you took are in that vein, they're some great portraits and she is comfortable and at ease in them. My best portraits have come from girls I've known very well. I've decided to try and hunt down some casual acquaintances on facebook which I think would work better than just straight up strangers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2009 23:29
|
|
|
I find that, too. I've added some girls on facebook that I kind of know, and I'm going to contact them and ask if they want to do any shoots. I don't think they'll say no, because i'm a pretty aloof and easy-to-get-along with funny kind of guy. Usually it's kind of like hanging out but i'll ask them to stop every now and then, pose, and I'll snap or quickly set up some lights. I've done it a couple of times before, barely knowing the subject, but building the rapport was the first thing I did. I feel like i'm getting better at it, and sometimes I'll tell an extremely lame pun (oh god ironic puns, oh yeah) and junk and I get my smile, or say something like "Look into the camera" and not take a picture, and then tell them I just wanted to make them feel awkward. That one gets a laugh, too. PORTRAITS
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2009 03:18
|
|
|
Penpal: I like the portraits you did, the lighting really complements the mood of the expression and the subject. The fourth one is my favorite because I think it is the best angle. here are two I did over the weekend.  
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2009 03:43
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:here are two I did over the weekend. There is something about these photos that makes them look like a composite and I think that is what distracts me from looking at the subject. There is a lot going on in the background and it feels too busy. Is that a reflection in the window behind their right shoulder? The light feels a little harsh as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2009 10:46
|
|
|
Penpal posted:did a bunch of portrait shots of my sister.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2009 14:34
|
|
|
Penpal posted:did a bunch of portrait shots of my sister. I used a light box I created which was too her left, and a snooted flash at 1/16th behind her for the hair light. It's easy to work with someone when you're related and already have a decent relationship OK, maybe it's just me, but the hair light seems way way too bright. There's a blown out spot in each of the shots that is distracting. I think you needed to aim a bit higher to keep the light off her shoulder. Otherwise I like them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2009 14:56
|
|
|
dunos posted:There is something about these photos that makes them look like a composite and I think that is what distracts me from looking at the subject. There is a lot going on in the background and it feels too busy. Is that a reflection in the window behind their right shoulder? The light feels a little harsh as well. I had them sit on a window ledge in one of my office's big conference room. Because of that weird kind of angle, it does look like a composite a bit. I wanted to highlight the building as well though because its a local landmark, kinda. Its the tallest building in VA that was just completed a few years ago. I had a hard time balancing flash on the subject and the background, and agree that it is a bit harsh. There is a reflection on both, and I couldn't figure out how to clone them out.I wish I could have backed up further, but a large immovable conference table was in my way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2009 16:03
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:I had them sit on a window ledge in one of my office's big conference room. Because of that weird kind of angle, it does look like a composite a bit. I wanted to highlight the building as well though because its a local landmark, kinda. Its the tallest building in VA that was just completed a few years ago. I had a hard time balancing flash on the subject and the background, and agree that it is a bit harsh. There is a reflection on both, and I couldn't figure out how to clone them out.I wish I could have backed up further, but a large immovable conference table was in my way. How might one go about focusing both the background and the person?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2009 00:28
|
|
|
Munkaboo posted:How might one go about focusing both the background and the person? Small apertures and more distance from the subject...
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2009 00:41
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:I had them sit on a window ledge in one of my office's big conference room. Because of that weird kind of angle, it does look like a composite a bit. I wanted to highlight the building as well though because its a local landmark, kinda. Its the tallest building in VA that was just completed a few years ago. I had a hard time balancing flash on the subject and the background, and agree that it is a bit harsh. There is a reflection on both, and I couldn't figure out how to clone them out.I wish I could have backed up further, but a large immovable conference table was in my way. The extreme separation of the background and the person is what kills it for me, plus the harsh look of the flash. Add to that, there's no frame of reference, so it makes it looks like they were composited in. I think that if you had included a reference (window edge or ground or something to anchor them) this would help that feeling immensely.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2009 00:50
|
|
|
I took these of my wife ages ago, forgot about them and then found them just now. Afternoon sun streaming in through a window and bouncing off a big white wall.  
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2009 10:16
|
|
|
psylent posted:I took these of my wife ages ago, forgot about them and then found them just now. Afternoon sun streaming in through a window and bouncing off a big white wall. The first smile seems like a camera smile. Middle is more natural, but I like the third the best, but it seems a bit underlit compared to the others. When I find older photos, the first thing I think about is how I would have done it differently. Did you go thru that?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2009 13:06
|
|
|
Unnatural expressions work against 1 (cheese) and 3 (sad panda). You're losing quite a bit of face detail on 2, but I like it otherwise. Might have been your intention, but you may want to pay attention to your level relative to the subject, and to what you're cropping.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2009 13:35
|
|
|
Penpal posted:did a bunch of portrait shots of my sister. I used a light box I created which was too her left, and a snooted flash at 1/16th behind her for the hair light. It's easy to work with someone when you're related and already have a decent relationship The fourth is by far the best here. If you're capable, use photoshop to close her mouth fully, the slight gap doesn't really add for it. Other than that, nice capture.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2009 21:24
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Unnatural expressions work against 1 (cheese) and 3 (sad panda). You're losing quite a bit of face detail on 2, but I like it otherwise. torgeaux posted:The first smile seems like a camera smile. Middle is more natural, but I like the third the best, but it seems a bit underlit compared to the others. When I find older photos, the first thing I think about is how I would have done it differently. Did you go thru that?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2009 01:53
|
|
|
Did some family portraits this weekend... not all that happy with the result. The weather seemed to turn to total poo poo the moment the family stepped out of their car, the wind really picked up, it started to snow and it became bitterly cold. Noone was dressed for the weather. As a result I think the photos suffered, everyone was really tense, my hands were numb and to top it off, my remote triggers weren't working (turns out due to a problem with the sync cord of all things)... Anyway, here's probably the best picture to result... I could use some feedback on posing / composition / processing... I told the family I would be happy to reshoot this coming weekend since the weather will likely cooperate a little better. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2009 04:02
|
|
|
One thing I find works out better is if it's cold again, try to keep a super positive attitude and make jokes about how they should pretend it's a beautiful summer day, etc etc. It really makes a difference, and helps them relax, despite the lovely weather. Maybe have some hot cocoa available. Another thing that strikes me as really weird is how they're wearing all black, and every single shade of black is different.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2009 04:05
|
|
|
Luk3 posted:Did some family portraits this weekend... not all that happy with the result. The weather seemed to turn to total poo poo the moment the family stepped out of their car, the wind really picked up, it started to snow and it became bitterly cold. Noone was dressed for the weather. You cut off a toe a wee bit. Might have rotated what I assume is your sister a little bit so she's not square-on with the camera. Clone out some of the snowflakes flying in front of the people. Should have had everyone wipe their feet before taking the photo as well. Considering the conditions, you got them to look remarkably comfortable. And I knew you were in Alberta as soon as you mentioned the weather.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2009 04:47
|
|
|
HPL posted:You cut off a toe a wee bit. Might have rotated what I assume is your sister a little bit so she's not square-on with the camera. Clone out some of the snowflakes flying in front of the people. Should have had everyone wipe their feet before taking the photo as well. Not my sister, these aren't relatives. I can bring the toe back in, there's a bit of room to work since it's a 8x10 crop. I agree about the feet thing, I didn't notice the snow on the shoes until afterwards... If I get to do a reshoot on Saturday its supposed to be about 20 degrees (C) warmer, so that will be a positive. I'm happy you mentioned they look comfortable because that was my biggest concern.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2009 12:52
|
|
|
Luk3 posted:Did some family portraits this weekend... not all that happy with the result. The weather seemed to turn to total poo poo the moment the family stepped out of their car, the wind really picked up, it started to snow and it became bitterly cold. Noone was dressed for the weather. The girl definitely shouldn't face the camera directly. It's extremely unflattering for her build. Dad, far right, needs to angle in more also, as he looks uncomfortably posed. The lighting seems a bit flat to me, also.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2009 13:29
|
|
|
Luk3 posted:Not my sister, these aren't relatives. I can bring the toe back in, there's a bit of room to work since it's a 8x10 crop. I agree about the feet thing, I didn't notice the snow on the shoes until afterwards... To be honest, my criticisms aren't anything super major and any family should be happy to have a photo like that. Just some minor things that get missed in the heat of the moment. I think the snow on the shoe is the biggest thing. It looks messy, especially since they're dressed nicely. What you also might want to try is bringing the father forward a tad so the group is more like a semi-circle around that rock in the front. But yeah, you did a good job of making them not have that "Oh god I'm loving freezing" look on their faces.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2009 15:49
|
|
|
sneak preview, newest shoot: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2009 17:27
|
|
|
Did my first proper portrait shoot today, it was 3 hours away and had no location or theme planned. My shots feel very mediocre and I have no idea how to go about processing them.   
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2009 17:11
|
|
|
fenner posted:Did my first proper portrait shoot today, it was 3 hours away and had no location or theme planned. My shots feel very mediocre and I have no idea how to go about processing them. They aren't a house on fire, but they're solid. If anything, the photos seem a bit languid. I take it she wasn't the most expressive person in the world?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2009 17:20
|
|
|
I was about to post this in snapshots, but I might as well here; it's really funny (and makes sense) that you shoot your portraits like landscapes. When you're working with people, it's really important that the person isn't "lost" in the compositional elements. For example, your second shot, the frame of the arch dominates the shot, and is the on the main plane of focus, and the person isn't the attention. Another thing is to pay attention the body (earlier there was posted a really good posing guide), the poses you chose aren't very flattering. Little things like in the first one, her arms will look kinda fat that way, and having her head down shortens her neck. In the second and third, her posture isn't very good, so you get some crumpling of her belly, also making her look bigger. Obviously you have all the technical stuff down, so I think something that would help immensely is thinking about what you want each picture to say about the person. Mostly it will be that you want them to look pretty and thoughtful, etc, but sometimes adding in an element/prop that adds something else to their "story" really helps; ie a balloon to make them look cute, contrast to make them look strong, a pet, dancing, motion, and so on. This will also help you find a direction for processing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2009 17:22
|
|
|
HPL posted:They aren't a house on fire, but they're solid. She isnt a model or anything, and i didnt give many directions for expressions. Heres a fun one though:  You're right nonanone, I was looking for decent landscape compositions that would work with a model within them, guess you need a completely different thought process for portraits. Thanks for the crit, I think they definitely need more exciting postures/expressions, this one above is probably my favourite from the set even though its really simple, just because it has fun expression.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2009 17:49
|
|
|
The different thought processes is also probably why I suck so bad at landscapes  I have a very hard time composing for them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2009 17:56
|
|
|
nonanone posted:The different thought processes is also probably why I suck so bad at landscapes Oh well. Conversely, I have more of a portrait mentality so my landscapes suck.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2009 18:55
|
|
|
I've been working on a portraiture series and putting a few of them in the PAD thread. Might as well post them here as examples of location portraits in natural lighting.      http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k110/mcmadcow/Mabel1.jpg Unrelated to the portrait series... Location portrait with artificial and natural light:  Studio Portraits:  
McMadCow fucked around with this message at 01:07 on Oct 24, 2009 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2009 01:02
|
|
|
I've been wondering how to effectively do portraits where the subject isn't looking directly into the camera, McMadCow does a really good job of this. I've started noticing that the portraits I like best online, have the subject looking away. Whenever I try it, the photo becomes boring and theres no longer a connection to the viewer. Any reasoning or tips to make your subjects appear more natural while gazing off camera?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2009 16:18
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:McMadCow posted:
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2009 18:25
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:I've been wondering how to effectively do portraits where the subject isn't looking directly into the camera, McMadCow does a really good job of this. I've started noticing that the portraits I like best online, have the subject looking away. Whenever I try it, the photo becomes boring and theres no longer a connection to the viewer. Any reasoning or tips to make your subjects appear more natural while gazing off camera? A trick I've learned is to have the model follow your finger with their eyes while you watch in the viewfinder. Snap the shot at the moment of some good dynamic tension. For instance, if the model is facing left but looking right with their eyes, it draws opposing lines in the frame. Same thing with head postition vs body position. The disclaimer to that is that I'll get 2 or 3 (maybe) good shots per roll and a bunch of near misses. Still though, even posed shots have moments of spontaniety that you can catch if you're lucky.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2009 18:34
|
|
|
jackpot posted:I remember when you first posted this, and it remains one of my favorite SA photos. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2009 19:51
|
|
|
[quote="McMadCow"] I've been working on a portraiture series and putting a few of them in the PAD thread. Might as well post them here as examples of location portraits in natural lighting. [b&ws with yummy borders] I'm reminded of Poopinmymouth's post on page 1: "On this note, pay attention to how much of the eye shows. As a general rule, you should have a bit of white on either side of the pupil. If it's a 3/4, don't let them be so far turned you lose sight of the inner white because the nose cuts it off. Also don't let the farthest eye actually be along the silhouette. [more].." If you intuitively chose 1 and 3 of McMadCows photos as the strongest (I know I did) you'll see that they followed this *general* rule.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2009 19:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 09:12 |
|
|
mcmadcow what's your flickr name?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2009 00:28
|
|