|
Wooten posted:The light is balanced, there are no blown highlights and the background is the same exposure. I can't take a 8 foot octobox on a walking shoot, not sure how I'm supposed to light this with a single flash any differently. It seems like the advice has turned into "just go back to your studio". It's balanced, but it's hard. If you're doing walking around portraits, I'd look into a large umbrella (as they're easy to transport since they're collapsible), a big collapsible reflector (usually come in 3-in-1 or 5-in-1 varieties but really all you need is white and translucent), and try choosing locations with better natural available light. You're right that you were limited in that particular shot by what you had -- even a big umbrella probably wouldn't have helped significantly since it's still one light -- but I think the argument is that in that instance perhaps that wasn't the best location if you're limited in that way. Find somewhere where the background isn't as bright and you can use more available light for their faces so you aren't counting on your kit to provide flattering light when it can't.
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 16:34 |
|
|
If only there was a middle ground, like "Hey, we read your rider and saw that thing about needing xyz electrical things for your lights. That's taken care of. We also saw that you wanted us to spend hours sorting candy, and we're not going to do that because that's insane."
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2014 01:21
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:cfl is absolute garbage unless you have a super good reason for needing continuous light, and if you do have a super good reason needing continuous light, go back and check and make sure it makes sense and isn't dumb anyways. a while back, i went to my now ex girlfriend's sister's wedding. I'd done three or so weddings at that point, but she wanted me as an usher so I'd "enjoy" it more. Alrighty. I get there and it's some family friend of the groom's mom. They've got a painted scenic muslin set up in a side room with CFL umbrellas at knee-level providing the "light". They take formals in there with, I poo poo you not, a painted styrofoam greek column. D60s or 70s or something with kit lenses and Metz flashes pointed straight up. They don't swivel, so when they shoot portrait, they shoot off the wall. When it comes time to do the group shots in the church afterward, there's a hold up. The main photographer is saying she can't get the "lighting" right -- which makes sense to me as the flash she's got on her camera is doing nothing in the vaulted ceilings of the sanctuary. After clearing it with my then-girlfriend and her sister, I ask the photographers if they'd like me to grab the monolight, stand, and umbrella I've got sitting in my trunk. They said sure, so I grab it and set it up. Getting ready to set the power, I ask "what ISO and aperture are you at?" I get a blank stare back. I ask again -- "what's your ISO speed and what f-stop are you using?" Another blank stare. Then, she hands me her camera and says "we use auto."
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
the hodag posted:A couple of couples: First one has really nice light, though they aren't very expressive. Second one looks like they're about to murder or be murdered. Or sacrifice their baby to Satan or something.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
To be fair I haven't ever really seen someone honestly explaining the context and style these photos fit in to people that post that they don't get it. Usually they get flippant answers and the person is left outside the "circle", still confused but now frustrated. I get it that it isn't your job to give them an art education but a little less clique behavior'd probably do the forum some good. edit: and I also get it that when people attack and don't ask sincerely that the ridicule is well deserved, so it might not apply in this specific context, but still, I feel the point needs to be made.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
Buddha. posted:Yeah I think 1.8 is pretty aggressive for what I was doing. It was definitely a combination of shooting really open and not paying enough attention to my focal point (kind of important). Might be obvious, but make sure that you're manually choosing your focus point and sticking that directly on the eye. If you're using a large area focus, you'll probably lock focus on whatever is closest or has the greatest contrast. If you're doing still work, choose your focus point and, if this is a setting on the Rebels, turn off any focus point switching or assistance. When you're shooting action, it's nice to have your focus system look at a wider area and recruit surrounding points to help it focus on something that's moving fast and hard to keep a focus point on, but when you're shooting still you need to be able to tell your camera exactly what to focus on.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
I wish the towel pile was flipped horizontally on her head. That'd have owned.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 03:17
|
|
|
Jesus. What do they look like SOOC?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2015 03:48
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:
digging the sense of movement you've got going here, and I like that I can't see her face. Engagement session today. Wish we would've started earlier or waited until late afternoon. 10am was too late, light wise.  NKPH8528 by nick.kneer, on Flickr NKPH9017 by nick.kneer, on Flickr NKPH8680 by nick.kneer, on Flickr
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
Pukestain Pal posted:I feel like these are some pretty iffy focus. I don't think so. Might be Flickr's nonsense or something. 100% crops:  
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2015 04:48
|
|
|
somnambulist posted:
I dig the posing, how comfortable they seem to be, and your light and background in general. That said, the side lighting is throwing some shadows and catch lights at times in the eyes that end up making them look cross-eyed or like they have strabismus.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 14:45
|
|
|
Thoogsby posted:light on her face in the first looks wonky Looks like a golden reflector underneath. People lit from underneath look odd, and the gold reflector is that weird warmth.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
Pukestain Pal posted:your tags have ilford, kodak and tmax. Which is it? Also, did you create a fake border with a film frame? Kodak makes Tmax, and Ilford makes paper. And nah, that's just what a normal wet print border looks like. dakana fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Jul 12, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
That wouldn't be super hard to photoshop out, I don't think. It's a nice even background to replace it with. Also dig the border of door frame and flooring. Looks really nice.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2015 12:32
|
|
|
 NKPH5823 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr IMG_5468 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr NKPH5687 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickrtrying to break more into the senior photo market
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2015 03:24
|
|
|
365 Nog Hogger posted:I think you're gonna do just fine with it. With any luck! Gotta learn how to market and price myself better, too. TheAngryDrunk posted:LOVE the first one. Like the third one. Second one? Meh. Thanks! Means a lot. I agree with your ranking, too. thetzar posted:Is this one all natural light? Did you use a reflector? Yeah, the light in and around the barn was just fantastic. Lateish afternoon sun was behind the barn she's leaning against, and there was an overhang above her giving good shade so that the direction was diffuse coming in.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
coldplay chiptunes posted:I'm an OCD type person and I force closed the window. I legitimately have OCD and his glasses don't bother me.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
 NKPH6579 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
It's a v good photo, though! more of these senior photo things  NKPH4022 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr NKPH3740 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr P8290190 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr NKPH3040 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr NKPH2934 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
I deal with that by not dealing with it. SPCC4470 by Nicholas Kneer, on FlickrNatural light via windows directly behind and to the left, but I've also lit similarly by using a big softbox literally on the ground, with the strobe propped up on something. I don't light the background separately; I instead try to get diffuse light all over the place to keep things even. I also don't go for pure white or high-key with the light wrapping. If you do want that high-key, I'd stick the light on the ground, or else reeeeal low.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
Been photographing a lot of kids & families this fall www.kneerphoto.com by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr www.kneerphoto.com by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr www.kneerphoto.com by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr www.kneerphoto.com by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2015 04:00
|
|
|
Judge Schnoopy posted:What kind of processing do you do for the eyes? This shot has some great colors, and anybody that can hit that kind of depth of field on a moving kid is always impressive Thanks! I didn't do anything special on this photo for her eyes - I think it's mostly down to the light. It was a fall day, partly cloudy, and we were shooting in the shade with her facing out towards the sky, looking slightly up, so it was even light on her face but with interesting catch lights. The focus was pretty fortunate. She was chasing me, because she was trying to put a leaf in my lens hood and it was cracking her up. Sometimes I'll do an adjustment brush and usually boost the highlights, contrast maybe a little saturation and/or vibrance, and a touch of clarity if the eyes aren't as bright as I want. It's very easy to overdo, though. Definitely agree on the too-shallow last photo. We were shooting straight on, and then she turned her head and I kept shooting it without adjusting. I liked her expression, but having only one eye in focus does bother me.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 07:21
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
 2 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2016 04:09
|
|
|
 jim by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr IMG_7425 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr
dakana fucked around with this message at 01:45 on Mar 14, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
This makes me think of a bizarro Wizard of Oz and I like that about it.  2016-03-20_Lilly-Maternity_0045 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr 2016-03-20_Lilly-Maternity_0011 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr 2016-03-20_Lilly-Maternity_0082 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
just because it was intentional doesn't make it a good idea
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2016 00:30
|
|
|
Sneeze Party posted:Dang, I really appreciate all of the work you put into this. I guess I was really going for either a 'cool' color in the one version, or a 'warm' color in the other, but in that process, I sort of lost control over her skin tone, which you've brought back, and I like the look you came up with. On my screen, and on my phone, they colors are exaggerated... but not that much. She showed me photos that she wanted to emulate (high contrast, instagrammy) so I just kind of went with it. Clearly, however, I have a lot to learn, and the photos could have turned out better. thank you for taking some initially snarky criticism and rolling with it instead of closing up or getting defensive also thank you, 8th-samurai, for following up with real feedback. That had the possibility of being really lovely and tiring but instead we all learned something. good on you both. I'll throw my own senior portraits from this fall/winter into the mix. As I was going through and picking out some of my favorites, I think it's clear I need to work on getting some better laughs & truly genuine smiles, working some more fun into the mix. A lot of times it just depends on the kid's personality, I guess.  _KPH3261 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr _KPH0266 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr _KPH1805 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr _KPH2000-Edit by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr _KPH0050 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr _KPH1892 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:A couple of those high school shots aren't really aesthetically appealing to me but overall I think they're technically quite good with the exception of maybe the blown highlights on the b&w shot. I'm not an adept portrait shooter but given the framing of the shots I can't think of too many ways I'd want the light different etc. Word. I definitely get what you're saying here and it's exactly what I'm looking to do better -- get those safe, technically good shots taken care of for the sake of having the solid client deliverable that they're paying me for, but also move forward as an ~*~artist~*~, by working outside the box a little more, trying to push things a bit. I will defend MY HIGHLIGHTS in the B&W shot, though. They're a bit hotter than typical skin tone but they're not blown. thetzar posted:These are nice senior portraits. Are they all one-light setups? thank you! My goal was to take photos I wouldn't immediately make fun of if I saw them. I want to get to a point where they're a bit more inspiring than that :V Most of 'em are 1 light, with some using 2. I've been using my octabox a lot, mostly because it's easy to set up and holds up pretty well in the wind. From top to bottom: 1. Single octabox, highish, camera right 2. Single bare flash directly behind him 3.Pretty sure this was all ambient 4. 2 flashes: 1 in octabox, high camera right, and 1 behind him on a stand with a blue gel pointing at the back window 3. 1 bare flash, might've been gridded, camera left 4. This one was actually taken after sunset, so it's 2 lights: the octabox camera left, and then a gridded flash with a full CTO gel behind the tree pointing at the back of his head Also, a photo I meant to post as well but forgot to.  _KPH3294 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:That foreground isn't doing you any favors very fair point. how about this one  _KPH3293-Edit by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:It's better but it still seems like a portrait-in-picture. Beyond her looking to the side it's like you have a pretty decent modern full-length portrait that you're distracting away with weird thirdsing and blurry backgrounds. This makes sense. I did use that same location for some direct photos with her dominating more of the frame, too, but wasn't as happy with the expressions. Dren posted:Did you apply a tilt shift effect to this? The way the focus is makes it look kinda like she's a miniature figure. Same thing is true for the b&w stairs shot. This one was just 85mm at 1.8, close to the ground/water, but the b&w on the stairs was done with a 45mm tilt-shift I had on loan.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:with all the time I spend removing snot and crumbs from pictures of my kids, I often wonder if I'm being inauthentic in doing so. By all means keep the dirty copies for laughing at later. I remember a wedding portrait I shot that was a pretty close face shot and the bride had just opened her mouth in a great laughing smile but there was this thin but noticeable string of saliva connecting her lips. Yeah, cloned that out.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
i am in love with the way angrydrunk's photos get people so heated
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2017 15:16
|
|
|
I think editing works best when it isn't obvious., and the processing in especially the first and third become the defining features of the photos, and not in a good way. The first and third are so contrasty, with the highlights and blacks taken so far, that at first glance it's all I really think about. The clarity sculpting out all of the model's imperfections and veins on her face and throwing shadows, and then the super-strong highlights on the model's face in the third one -- they immediately make me think "oh, they went aggressive on the editing and unintentionally hosed up the skin and face."
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2018 14:11
|
|
|
afroserty posted:
So, conventional wisdom would be to avoid dead-center framing and chopping off hands like that, but I really dig that you did both. You've got this close shot, awkward crop of hands, looking away just slightly, and dead-center, and it honestly works really well and is super interesting.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2018 02:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 16:34 |
|
|
You can buy: Godox V860IIS flash - $179 X1T-S trigger - $46 S-type flash bracket - $17.90 a light stand - $32.95 umbrella - $30.40 for under $350.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2018 04:39
|
|