|
Yeah, the Dell logo is being removed along with some other polishing work this afternoon. We originally had a nice meeting room reserved, but because Renzi was running about an hour late we couldn't use the location. Then most of the athletes had to leave, due to it getting late. We went to the office next door and asked if they had a space we could use; there was a warehouse that was better than anything else available on short notice. We cleaned out the back of it, moved a desk and a monitor back there, and shot the athletes without Renzi. When he showed up we shot him without the athletes, then put it together in post. It all worked out, but the original idea was so much better conceived. Alas. I at least talked the editor out of having Renzi wear an old basketball jersey. e: a few more  
JAY ZERO SUM GAME fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Nov 10, 2009 |
#
?
Nov 10, 2009 17:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 16:20 |
|
|
I dunno if a lighting setup that dramatic really serves the subject. I mean it'd work deliciously on a palpatine kind of character, but an HR consultant?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2009 21:35
|
|
|
Sports magazine, former basketball forward for local university, and the feel wanted by the editor was the reasoning. e: and that depends on your perception of HR guys...
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2009 21:39
|
|
|
Interrupting Moss posted:e: and that depends on your perception of HR guys...  And about the light, if you're happy and your PE's happy...
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2009 21:51
|
|
|
DJExile posted:I like everyone in the background, but coach's face seems... off somehow. Is the girl on the left holding a cell phone? I'd love to hear the story about this. The shot has a lot of potential. He's not the coach, he's a former basketball player for OU. I guess I should explain this a bit more. Renzi played for OU in the late nineties. He was known in the area very well and wasn't going to have a pro career, just like most high school and NCAA athletes. The feature was to focus on his success as a former athlete and we wanted to portray him as a strong executive whose on the court presence and leadership were working for his career. That's why the lighting is so strong on him and he is posed in a powerful manner. We wanted to then show the athletes as watching what he was doing, with different attitudes of interest, surprise, concentration, whatever. A couple of them are holding their phones, one is holding the basketball preview issue of the magazine, one is holding a basketball. High school athletes are difficult to work with. They're often extremely rigid and reluctant to show much emotion, except the girls who will often only smile and giggle. Their posing and emotions aren't quite what we wanted, but given the limited time and constraints we were happy. Renzi was really into what we were after and enjoyed it. He has had plenty of bright and proper executive photos and really enjoyed the shoot and the images, which I was also happy with because he is now interested in having me do work for his HR firm. The magazine itself is decidedly positive: they do not publish any negative stories or even marginally negative stories about any school or athlete. Also, most of the images are often shot with on camera flash or available light by not-so professional photographers, so when I shoot they always stress that they want more moody, powerful, and contrast-ridden images. Hence the "dramatic" dial turned to 11. Unfortunately, we're not always able to just turn out portrait-style photos. We have to portray as many schools and athletes as possible to push as many people to pick up the magazine. Vype very much focuses on branding, of course, and it's brought up constantly. I do my best to control it when they go overboard, such as the desired shot with Renzi wearing an Oklahoma jersey and piling up a poo poo ton of old magazine around him and even hanging a "Vype" banner in the background. The cover shot has been edited a bit, but will likely see more after it leaves my hands and before printing. e: For those of you that haven't done it a lot, some editors/marketing staff know what they want and by God they're going to get it, no matter how awful it looks. I shot a Chevrolet dealership ad featuring a football dteam a couple weeks ago and there was a GMC truck among all the Chevrolets. This was a HUGE PROBLEM; it didn't occur to me or any of the other dealership staff onsite that it would be an issue. We couldn't reshoot, so there was a of fun post work to turn the front of that GMC into a Chevrolet. There was also and issue to a guy's expression, he "looked bored and like he didn't want to be there." That was the marketing man's perception: any fan or parent or whomever would know he was trying to look cool or whatever, but to the marketer it was more dangerous that a local talent would look disinterested in his product, so it was a must fix. It's a strange world sometimes. e2: just so you know I'm not crazy, here's a nice safe fluffy shot 
JAY ZERO SUM GAME fucked around with this message at 23:03 on Nov 10, 2009 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2009 22:03
|
|
|
Interrupting Moss posted:e2: just so you know I'm not crazy, here's a nice safe fluffy shot He's got a Bruce Campbell look going on here and I love it. I can imagine that high school students/athletes are a bitch to work with. It's an awkward time for them and nobody thinks they look good because nobody DOES look good in their high school years. Lord knows I didn't anyways.  Back to portrait/people shooting, I'm looking at a few primes (various f/2.0, 1.8 and 1.4 lenses) that I might do some portrait shots with. I had heard that f/1.8 is about the borderline on shooting people, and 1.4 is probably overkill. Can anyone set me straight on this?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2009 16:24
|
|
|
Technically, it depends on focal length. Aesthetically, strong DOF has its place. I'm reminded of this photo of Ray Lewis by Walter Iooss.  That image is also a great example of how different a print is from an image on your monitor. I've stared at that photo for god knows how long in print. It is powerful.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2009 16:37
|
|
|
DJExile posted:I had heard that f/1.8 is about the borderline on shooting people, and 1.4 is probably overkill. Can anyone set me straight on this?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2009 17:02
|
|
|
Interrupting Moss posted:Technically, it depends on focal length. Noooooo, you're supposed to help narrow my choices you jerk   Nah, we coolI'm down to the Oly 50mm f/2.0 Macro, the Sigma 30mm f/1.8, and Sigma 50mm f/1.4 as my 3 options for shooting people. I'm sure any of them will work fine but I'm also sure I'm forgetting something between them that I should be aware of. EDIT: evil_bunnY posted:DoF is distance-dependent. Play with a DoF calculator. You're looking at 85mm yes? And there it is! What's this now?  I'm completely new to it. All I know is that I'm dealing with a 2x crop factor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2009 17:14
|
|
|
Then, by the numbers, the 50mm f/1.4 is the best bet. You don't have to use the largest aperture, you know. I'd want to see images from a 2x crop sensor with that lens first, though, were I you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2009 17:18
|
|
|
Interrupting Moss posted:Then, by the numbers, the 50mm f/1.4 is the best bet. You don't have to use the largest aperture, you know. This is a fair thought as well, and I'm basically down to it or the macro, and trying to figure out whether I'll be using a crazy large aperture more than I'll be taking pictures of bugs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2009 17:42
|
|
|
DJExile posted:I'll be using a crazy large aperture more than I'll be taking pictures of bugs. That would be ideal, frankly I prefer photos taken in dimly lit circumstances, low depth of field portraiture and natural vignetting over flower and insect close-ups.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2009 19:49
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:DoF is distance-dependent. DoF is magnification dependent. The same subject magnified to the same size on the focal plane will be at the same DoF across all focal lengths. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2009 21:57
|
|
|
DJExile posted:
On your E-410, the f/1.4 would be fine. DOF is deeper on the f/1.4 on the 410 than an f/1.8 would be on a full frame camera.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2009 23:36
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:DoF is magnification dependent. The same subject magnified to the same size on the focal plane will be at the same DoF across all focal lengths.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2009 01:23
|
|
|
I'm set to shoot a musician for my paper to use in an article about him. This is my first time shooting someone formally in such a capacity, and I'm nervous because I don't want to make him/the photos generic. This would be a shoot with him and his guitar, though my editor said I pretty much could do whatever I wanted as long as it's interesting. I need some general advice, obviously I have to conceive it myself though. I'll be meeting him Monday afternoon and the photos are due by Wednesday preferably.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2009 14:00
|
|
|
pwn posted:I'm set to shoot a musician for my paper to use in an article about him. This is my first time shooting someone formally in such a capacity, and I'm nervous because I don't want to make him/the photos generic. This would be a shoot with him and his guitar, though my editor said I pretty much could do whatever I wanted as long as it's interesting. I need some general advice, obviously I have to conceive it myself though. I'll be meeting him Monday afternoon and the photos are due by Wednesday preferably. Let the photo fit the genre of music and the personality of the musician. If they're wild and crazy, use a wide or ultra-wide lens to get that exaggeration of perspective. If it's a quiet singer-songwriter type, use a telephoto to get more of a "proper" portrait. You also have to decide whether you want to portray the musician or the musician's on-stage persona, which can be two totally different things. Pick a location that can inspire spontaneity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2009 19:17
|
|
|
Need some advice in wardrobe. I have some opportunities to do Christmas card photos. Family A wants to do the full family in front of a fireplace. Family B wants just the kids having fun at the beach in wintery outfits building a snowman out of the sand. Do you guys tell people what they should wear, like matching colors? Will it look like poo poo if they dont match? For family B, are matched clothes going to kill the more relaxed look of candids, or will it make the photo stronger overall? I cant really think it all the way through. Thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2009 22:03
|
|
|
Holy crap, I'm trying out the whole "time for prints" modeling world thing and it is so frustrating. I wish I could afford to hire professionals. Apparently in exchange for her services one model wants between 10-20 edited pictures AND all unedited pictures ... or 50 fully edited pictures. AIIAZNSK8ER posted:Thoughts? Instead of matching clothes maybe go for a "they all shop at The Gap/whatever" theme. Have the outfits be similar but not identical.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2009 22:13
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Apparently in exchange for her services one model wants between 10-20 edited pictures AND all unedited pictures ... or 50 fully edited pictures. Screw that. Tell her to go fly a kite. There are plenty of perfectly competent if not downright excellent models who will shoot TFP and trust the photographer to make the right editing choices when it comes to making cuts. I've worked with at least 50 different models through TFP arrangements and only one of them ever asked for the unedited shots. I told her that was absolutely out of the question and it wouldn't be negotiated. Funny enough, she claimed to have like, 20 years of experience and said that it was standard in "the industry" to provide that. I don't care how good or bad or inexperienced I am, I'm the ONLY one who has control of what material bearing my name goes out into the world. Sign up for Model Mayhem and start by posting 4 of your best shots. I guarantee you you're better than other people out there. Models want to improve their port, and they'll work with someone who can do that. Don't give in to that prima donna bullshit because you're having a tough time finding models. Your photos are yours, and truly professional models understand this. As a reference, here's my MM page: http://www.modelmayhem.com/mcmadcow You have to be logged in to see the  stuff. There's a bio, including how I want to work, as well as a listing of credits and their respective MM profiles. If you're at all competent and not creepy (ok, even creepy guys get shoots, but try not to be), you'll find good people to work with. I've turned down models who have made inappropriate demands, and you should too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2009 22:30
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:Screw that. Tell her to go fly a kite. There are plenty of perfectly competent if not downright excellent models who will shoot TFP and trust the photographer to make the right editing choices when it comes to making cuts. I'm on MM, I'll just friend you if you don't mind. I think the scene in London isn't terribly good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2009 22:55
|
|
|
Yes, like McMadCow said, you should basically tell her to deal with what you choose to give or gently caress off. The truth is there are plenty of models who won't be picky, and if they're looking for portfolio pictures, YOU are providing a service that is worth money. So don't let them jerk you around. There is one girl who contacted me last year, she wanted me to shoot some pics for her. I set it up and she flaked. She's contacted me 4 times since, and also wanted to work with some other photographers in the area; I told them she was flaky. One of them gave her a chance and she flaked out on that too. The dumb part is she still tries to contact me, I just ignore her because it's so not worth the trouble. You couldn't pay me a million dollars to work with someone who wants to run on their own time/lead people on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2009 23:27
|
|
|
nonanone posted:Yes, like McMadCow said, you should basically tell her to deal with what you choose to give or gently caress off. The truth is there are plenty of models who won't be picky, and if they're looking for portfolio pictures, YOU are providing a service that is worth money. So don't let them jerk you around. Yeah, I'm pretty sure I'm going to tell this girl to take a hike. I've tried to explain nicely that I would have thrown some unedited pictures on a temporary gallery for her to pick what gets edited, but she wants "sceer size" resolution. It isn't all bad for me - just mostly bad. I just visited a pretty awesome (and cheap) studio I'm going to hire for a couple of hours. I've had pretty great communication with a MUA, and decent communication with a model. So, hopefully it'll all come together on the weekend. If not I'm dragging a friend along who wants to assist and if no-one shows up she's modeling or else. Experiencing other parts of the internet makes me appreciate how reasonable SA can actually be.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2009 23:37
|
|
|
HPL posted:Let the photo fit the genre of music and the personality of the musician. If they're wild and crazy, use a wide or ultra-wide lens to get that exaggeration of perspective. If it's a quiet singer-songwriter type, use a telephoto to get more of a "proper" portrait. You also have to decide whether you want to portray the musician or the musician's on-stage persona, which can be two totally different things. Pick a location that can inspire spontaneity.  I wish I had lit him on the subject-left side to add a bit of definition. I also would choose to pay attention to the strap and put the right collar over, rather than under, it. Make it look more like "Oh I'm a wandering musician, just passing through" casual. It was more difficult than I anticipated to previsualize what I wanted in the end. I've started taking notes, and hopefully next time I shoot a new person I can at least meet them once before the shoot. Is that reasonable to expect out of editorial stuff like this, or is it always going to be this way?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2009 09:19
|
|
|
pwn posted:It was more difficult than I anticipated to previsualize what I wanted in the end. I've started taking notes, and hopefully next time I shoot a new person I can at least meet them once before the shoot. Is that reasonable to expect out of editorial stuff like this, or is it always going to be this way? If you're shooting for a paper you shouldn't expect much more. If you want to do more ambitious shoots with musicians, you should be doing their press photos before an album release or tour or be shooting for a magazine/more photo-centric publication with a budget and facilities for that sort of thing (and a potential for exposure that is worth the subject's time). edit: Also, please avoid "dude/dudes in an alley against a brick wall" for music press photos, it's a really over-used trope... dunno fucked around with this message at 11:00 on Nov 19, 2009 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2009 10:50
|
|
|
Not bad, especially for a paper. Will you be erasing the 'sanitary blah blah" though? It's killing me, that's the only thing I'm really staring at.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2009 16:41
|
|
|
nonanone posted:Not bad, especially for a paper. Will you be erasing the 'sanitary blah blah" though? It's killing me, that's the only thing I'm really staring at. Hopefully not, if it is indeed for a newspaper, as distracting as it may be.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2009 16:47
|
|
|
Oh, that didn't even occur to me. I guess you shouldn't then...(*is used to fashion where entire face and body shapes are changed*)
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2009 18:51
|
|
|
nonanone posted:Oh, that didn't even occur to me. I guess you shouldn't then...(*is used to fashion where entire face and body shapes are changed*) Yeah I come from a journalism background, so that's definitely where my head is most of the time. I've been doing some PR work for a university the past few months, and the differences in ethics are really weird to get used to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2009 19:27
|
|
|
My editor told me to go nuts, they treat it as a photo illustration. Though I love that sign and made sure it was in the picture. :/ I turned it in Wednesday, they were happy with them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2009 08:07
|
|
|
woah, you guys are really good at this. so I just started experimenting with RAWs and other portrait techniques and I got this:  Feedback? DESTROY ALL GOATS fucked around with this message at 13:52 on Nov 20, 2009 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2009 13:50
|
|
|
Need a link or two (or if anyone feels like just writing out some tips, feel free!) on basic portrait shooting if anybody's got any. Body positioning, hand placement, lighting - basic stuff, because I don't really know anything. I'm figuring to use my 100/2.8 and a 50/1.4 (and I'll have a 17-50 if I need it), and I've got two flashes and one cactus trigger. A friend is one of four finalists in a writing contest; the winner gets published and presumably the photo (if he wins) will be used for publicity and/or on the back cover somewhere. I don't really have high hopes of him winning (the last time I read one of his novels it sucked pretty hard), this is more a learning exercise than anything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2009 18:31
|
|
|
pwn posted:It was more difficult than I anticipated to previsualize what I wanted in the end. I've started taking notes, and hopefully next time I shoot a new person I can at least meet them once before the shoot. Is that reasonable to expect out of editorial stuff like this, or is it always going to be this way? That's why it's good to have someone along to help you out, be it a friend or an actual photographer's assistant. They'll see things the little things to adjust or think of things you didn't because you were busy with technical stuff. Also, if you're trying to pitch a photo idea to the subject, a second opinion can help sway things big time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2009 18:45
|
|
|
jackpot posted:Need a link or two (or if anyone feels like just writing out some tips, feel free!) on basic portrait shooting if anybody's got any. Body positioning, hand placement, lighting - basic stuff, because I don't really know anything. I'm figuring to use my 100/2.8 and a 50/1.4 (and I'll have a 17-50 if I need it), and I've got two flashes and one cactus trigger. http://jzportraits.home.att.net/chapter-01.html This might help too: http://www.prophotolife.com/2008/09/01/video-episode-27-outdoor-portraits-3/ psylent fucked around with this message at 10:36 on Nov 21, 2009 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2009 10:02
|
|
|
Some test shots using available natural light and the back of my car (Dodge Magnum) as a portable studio.   
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2009 05:16
|
|
|
 jumped inside of a giant christmas tree type decoration thing for this shot. 50 1.4 wide open, focused on the eyes. Disappointed with the lack of chin/neck separation (they kind of blend a bit) but I'm really pleased with it, besides the splurge splurge bokeh bokeh bokeh. All available light, lately I have been on a tangent and have stopped using my flash in night shots.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2009 07:50
|
|
|
HPL posted:That's why it's good to have someone along to help you out, be it a friend or an actual photographer's assistant. They'll see things the little things to adjust or think of things you didn't because you were busy with technical stuff. Also, if you're trying to pitch a photo idea to the subject, a second opinion can help sway things big time. Here's the published article by the way: http://volumeone.org/magazine/articles/979/LISTEN_Greg_Gilbertson.html Penpal posted:
 I love the gently caress out of this. I too have been on a flash-in-the-dark strike of sorts lately. Also I find it hard to believe that you like this "besides the splurge splurge bokeh bokeh bokeh" when it's such a prominent element in the photo. You wanna clean up those ridiculously hard edges around her shoulders etc though. I assume that happened during post processing?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2009 08:03
|
|
|
Yeah I saw that last night and was all fuuuuuuck and was too tired to fix it... I think I'll just take the blur brush in ps and go over it? I wouldn't know how to fix it besides undoing my edits which, well, I don't want. And I say "besides" the bokeh because it's just.. I don't know, I feel like too many people put too much emphasis on it, you know? Like for some people it's just fuckin' bokeh bokeh bokeh and that's boring after a while.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2009 15:25
|
|
|
pwn posted:You wanna clean up those ridiculously hard edges around her shoulders etc though. I assume that happened during post processing? LED lights can do crazy poo poo like that, assuming those are LED Christmas lights. I've seen it happen enough times in my concert photos.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2009 18:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 16:20 |
|
|
Why is it I'm somewhat abelivient about every portrait I go out of my way to take, but fall in love with the pictures I just snap on the spur of the moment?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2009 18:24
|
|