|
You guys keep talking about this list of "rules". Is there any place where these are all written/explained well like some sort of a photography wiki? I know a few of them like rule of thirds, but I feel like I don't know them all. It'd be nice if they were all listed in a single place.
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2009 18:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 17:59 |
|
|
Ah, I saw that and bookmarked it for a boring day. I didn't know if he listed all the rules in a bullet list or something like that. Maybe I'll take notes and type'em up when I read it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2009 02:39
|
|
|
So I've been reading this thread the last couple of days and it's inspired me to do some portraits. Actual portraits instead of just "Really good Snap shots" I want to do put some thought into them and make some real nice shots. Anyway, I ghetto rigged a studio using a flood-light and a bed-sheet, I've got an Alienbee on order and nicer flash coming too. I think the light turned out okay, but it looks like the focus wasn't great (especially off in the hair) and I'm not 100% on the post. I'm not too terribly thrilled on her expressions either.      I'd appreciate any critiques, also advice on getting good-sharp focus through the whole shot, it seems like the lens I was using misses on the hair a lot. (28-135mm 3.5-5.6 USM (The 7D kit lens). Lastly, What's the best way to use a reflector? I see a lot of talk on it, but no real advice on using one. AtomicManiac fucked around with this message at 20:43 on May 30, 2010 |
|
#
¿
May 30, 2010 20:39
|
|
|
Thanks for the advice, I'm gonna keep that magazine tip in mind. I do have some questions though: 1)Do you mean "Hard Light" makes skin Oily? If I diffuse the light with an umbrella or softbox will it fix this, or is this just a "Lights make you look oily, wear make-up" issue? Pre-post her face looks 10x more oily, is there a way to fix this using soft light or is natural light the only light that doesn't suffer from this? 2)I just did a quick mock-up in photo-shop and the black does look quite a bit better. We choose white because she was wearing a black shirt, in situations like this, do you compose for the clothes, or compose for the facial features? Or a happy medium and do a dark gray? 3) Any critique on my post?
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2010 03:57
|
|
|
Does anyone have a copy of the posing guide? http://jzportraits.home.att.net/chapter-01.html It appears to be offline.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2010 07:10
|
|
|
pwn posted:You can download it here. The PDF is formatted kinda goofily but all the info is there. Thanks! Someone should edit this into the OP.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2010 08:05
|
|
|
Can someone tell me why that shot is any better than the HDR shots in the "Post terrible photos" thread? To me it looks like someone got the exposure way wrong and then used photoshop to "save" it. I think it could have been a cool shot, but if I had taken that it definitely wouldn't have survived the first round of cuts.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2010 00:25
|
|
|
So this month I'm going on a "Shooting Spree". 30 days, 30 shoots. I hope it'll improve my work a lot, and help put my name out there, and hopefully I'll have some great shots to show for it. I'm 3 days in and I've already got some amazing shots, and an offer to buy a print, so it's going great so far. Here's some portrait efforts that I'd love critique on, especially after my horrendous attempt in a make-shift studio:   This one is for Reichstag:   All of them were shot with available light. I just got my 430exii in the mail, so I'm excited to see what kind of shots I get tonight.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2010 21:45
|
|
|
Thanks for the advice, the second one isn't cropped, yet, I'll have to play with it. How do you suggest cleaning up the skin fold? On the first one I used the liquify filter to tuck her tummy a bit because she holds it weird in some shots and it makes it look a lot bigger than it is, but I'm not super good at it and touching up shots like that always makes me hate them because all I can see are the major surgery in the shots.fronkpies posted:gently caress, the amount of work and effort you put in puts me to shame, I need to get myself motivated to do something like this. For this month I started by keeping tabs on all the concerts I wanted to shoot, after that I looked to my friends in the street racing/car scene for weekly car shows, turns out there's almost one every day. Add in a weekly meeting with friends to play hockey and I had half the month booked. With the remaining time I'm gonna try for TFP shoots with some models on Model Mayhem and I might try to get cute friends to let me shoot them as well. Any open days after that will get filled with practicing random photography, specifically Macro, Landscapes, Food and Architecture.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2010 22:42
|
|
|
Whitezombi posted:I have a couple of questions guys. Toss a NWS tag and link them as opposed to posting them.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2010 18:47
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:I do like the tighter crop you guys are suggesting. I think that's rule number 1 of portraits: Fill the Frame.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2010 22:13
|
|
|
Interrupting Moss posted:Arnold Newman says 'gently caress you' I would argue that in this shot that frame is pretty filled.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2010 01:37
|
|
|
pwn posted:My friend wanted to play dress-up and I needed off-camera lighting practice. The first three were right before dawn, going for a walking-home-after-a-party-under-moonlight look. What was the lighting set-up on the second and third? I think those turned out well light wise. I think the poses could be a bit more interesting, or maybe a prop could come in handy. Something like a rock or a fence might be nice to have the model interact with.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2010 07:32
|
|
STROBES
|
pwn posted:Thanks. She did bring a weird wooden stonehenge-looking bust, I will need to get more creative in the posing department. The lighting was an unmodified SB-600 camera-left slightly behind her on the second. The first and third are camera-right slightly in front. The exposures were around 1/5 to let enough ambient in on her right and the scenery. Very nice. I'm looking to maybe do something like this, and that light looked perfect, good to know I can probably get away with it on my 430exii. To add, I went back to some earlier shots and worked a bit more post on them, and took suggestions from the Dorkroom to fix them. They're my quickest viewed shots ever:  
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2010 09:13
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Is it me or are those highlights completely blown? (forehead, arms, nails, boobs, all on the light's side) No they're pretty blown out. I don't have any idea how to fix it though. I ran levels and it looked better, than I tried the Highlight/shadows thing and it made it look worse, so I stuck with this.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2010 23:15
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:haha, that was great. I use clone/heal to take out any blemishes, dodge the eyes a bit then run levels and curves. I like my work to look some-what realistic since I'm not shooting commercial or fashion work. I'd rather the person think they looked really good then think I was really good at photoshopping them.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2010 22:24
|
|
|
This is my first "shoot" with my Alienbee. After spending the night, my friend/"assistant" made me pancakes. So I threw up my light and took a few shots. Strobist: Alienbee B-800 through a 30" shoot-through umbrella at 1/32 power. I feel like her face is a little blown out, but it might just be because she's so incredibly pale. It's not as bad on the shots in color, though she's a step back: 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2010 01:44
|
|
|
a foolish pianist posted:What kind of lighting setup did you use? It looks to me like it was a single strobe fired from behind. On an unrelated note, What kind of poses give people the slimmest look? I tried putting them side-ways but it came out weird. I also feel weird yelling "Suck in your gut fatty!". Any tips for that? I've learned that I need to go over basics of posing with people, especially musicians who aren't going to have any knowledge of how to look best for the camera, though truth be told I only know a few tips to pass along. AtomicManiac fucked around with this message at 04:15 on Jul 18, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2010 03:04
|
|
|
Gazmachine posted:Might be too late for this, but have you spoken to her about her leg / about what she wants from the shoot in general? Is she with you on wanting to hide the fact? If you have the means to, adding in a hair light would be good, even if it's just a hot-light on an over-head lamp. The guys on the F-Stoppers(?) blog showed this in their "Only using an Iphone to shoot" video. Actually, that whole video has a good deal of good info on lighting.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2010 05:54
|
|
|
 Dasha by Ben Semisch, on Flickr  Dasha by Ben Semisch, on Flickr Am I getting better at this whole photography thing? Paragon8 posted:Model Mayhem is terrible but it's the best option of the terrible sites. I'd love to get more into shooting tests for agencies but I'm not quite there yet - I have assisted on a few though, and it's really different. I'm having way better luck just asking cute friends. Once you get a few semi-competent shots to show, most girls jump at the chance, and it's not like most of the Models on MM are super experienced and you're missing out on anything amazing. Also, cute girls usually have cute friends, and before you know it you'll have people you don't know wanting to be your friend on facebook, which is girl code for "Please ask me to be a model". AtomicManiac fucked around with this message at 11:04 on Aug 11, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2010 10:58
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:That's all well and good except when you have to deal with insecure jealous boyfriends. The key is to invite the boyfriend along, and all of a sudden you've got someone to hold the reflector/light stand. Another good trick is to involve the boyfriend in the shoot, just kind of play dumb and let him suggest a few poses, then work off that. There's been more than one time where the "escort" has suggested a shot that ended up being one of my favorites from a shoot.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2010 11:22
|
|
|
TsarAleksi posted:You're not blending the lighting with the natural light well. It looks very unnatural to have an obviously outdoors shoot where there is that much pure black in the frame. For some strange reason my local camera store doesn't sell gels for lights. I was rather upset at that discovery.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2010 20:04
|
|
|
TsarAleksi posted:This hasn't got anything to do with gels. Hmm, how can I make it better without gels? According to the Lighting DVDs I've been watching (The Strobist One and The One Light Workshop) I did everything by the book, save for adding in some gels and a kicker(?) light to make her "pop" (which I need to find an online supplier). Any advice?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2010 21:36
|
|
|
How can I fix that? Reposition the light back further to give a more even spread?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2010 22:05
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:I like them as straight up portraits, but as portraits for a hair stylist, I'm not sure there's enough emphasis on the hair. I agree with this. They'll probably make okay portfolio shots for a MUA, but next time I'd probably shoot outside in daylight, or use the 530 as a hair/rim light instead.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2010 01:02
|
|
|
Haggins posted:Yeah I thought the same thing too. I figured before I got there I'd be doing straight up headshots, but the guy insisted on full lengths. I told him I'm not really set up to do full lengths and the best I can do is 3/4s and headshots so we agreed on that. It seemed like he just wanted to have fun dressing up the models and wanted me to shoot the results. He wanted to pull out swords, guitars, angel wings, masks, and I even some nudes (you can see a few more on my http://www.flickr.com/1-tamm ). To be honest I didn't think the hair was really anything special except the one asian chick I shot and this girl I posted. I just had fun and went with the flow. So this guy is a hair/make-up guy or did he dress the girls too? I guess I could see it if he's going for a whole "Triple Threat Stylist" type package with Hair, MU and clothing all with one guy. If he even had some basic level of skill I'd probably keep his number handy for things.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2010 01:33
|
|
|
Gazmachine posted:Don't know if you want my tuppence worth or not, but I would say, depending on space you have, bring the model a bit further away from the curtain. This might just be me but I don't like it when I can see the background curtain in an image, unless it's specifically tied to the theme of the shot (like some kind of cabaret / stage performance themed image, for example). I disagree with this, I think the curtain makes for an interesting background, if he was shooting on seamless he'd have to shoot the light through something to get a nice effect (that he already achieved)instead of a blah background. I think a color on seamless might be better than just darkness, but it's not as good as what he has.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2010 10:51
|
|
|
I think it's just a matter of not giving up. With my camera shy female friends it was just a matter of shooting them constantly and giving them a level of editorial control. You'll start to hear things like "I kinda like that one" and "That ones not so bad" then you just keep pushing those angles and ideas until you get to know what they like.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2010 13:39
|
|
|
What's the way to clean that up in post? Dodge and smudge?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2010 09:18
|
|
|
Gazmachine posted:To add to this - for eye bags, I like to use a clone stamp set to lighten with about 20-30% opacity. You need to be careful with it, though, and use a little trial and error. Zero bag detail under the eyes can look mighty weird, so just work non-destructively and have a practice. It works a charm, though. I usually run noise ninja and it does a pretty decent job evening out the skin tones without destroying too much detail anywhere else, but I'd love to hear what you've got.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2010 00:57
|
|
|
Glass Knuckles posted:Got to do a shoot with a sort of childhood friend this past weekend. I wasn't prepared, and I didn't even have my lighting equipment with me. All I had to work with was my Speedlite, dumb trigger, and that stupid little mini stand that comes with the flash. So I made the best with what I had. This is my favorite shot that I got of her. I don't like how the hair is kind of blurred on the bottom right. Try cranking up the aperture and you should get a sharper image. Sometimes when you use a low aperture like 1.8 the focus can miss, and when you're just shooting against a solid colored wall there's really no reason to use such a low F/stop anyway, since the low DoF doesn't really add anything to the image and you can use your speed light to still get a good exposure.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2010 00:18
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:I actually like the shallow DOF in that shot. I think it would be pretty boring if it was all sharp, in fact. What are you thoughts on the hair? That always drives me up the wall when I shoot with a really shallow DOF and the hair is blurred on an otherwise perfect shot.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2010 04:42
|
|
|
TheLastManStanding posted:Well if the hair wasn't blurred it wouldn't be a shallow depth of field now would it. Go look at photos by Chuck Close. He did a lot of portraits with extremely shallow dof where even a portion of his subjects faces were out of focus (I suspect he used large format movements to help out). Interesting idea. On shots like that I almost always toss them. I just don't really like the way it looks on that shot, I'm sure I've seen it on other shallow DoF shots and never thought twice about it, but on that shot in particular it just stood out. I think it might have to do with the background being simple enough that it still makes sense in my eye, compared to say a shot with a busy background that's thrown out of focus. In the second type of shot, a little bit of blur seems to go un-noticed, but on that shot it sticks out for me.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2010 05:33
|
|
|
nonanone posted:Here were some makeup tests (not thrilled with the mua): I've never worked with a MUA, what makes them Good/bad, and what do you look for? quote:Freelensing
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2010 22:31
|
|
|
Santa is strapped posted:Haha yea. I like the shallow dof it creates (0 aperture after all) as well as the fact that you can make pseudo tilt shift effects too. That is totally awesome, I am so trying that tonight. Edit: Holy gently caress that is hard. How do you focus? Just move back and forth until you get something good? Every time I tried to manually focus the lens I just made things worse. AtomicManiac fucked around with this message at 14:14 on Sep 10, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2010 23:29
|
|
|
nonanone posted:Well, first of all, there's the obvious skill-level. Are they able to fix any skin problems, draw attention away from problem areas, do they have a good grasp of different color palettes (especially important to me, are they good with other skin ethnicities other than white) Hmm, How did you go about learning Make-up stuff? I've thought about it, at least learning the basics but I have no idea where to start.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2010 14:22
|
|
|
Penpal posted:Yeah, I get what you're saying. I read your lighting blog a bunch, too! I usually click on it every couple of days but you don't update very often. I think one of the reasons why I feel that way is because I'm very saturated with photographers my age who are doing the "million strobes" thing to make a photo more dynamic, when you can achieve dynamism other ways. I'm thinking of band photos, portraits, that sort of thing... sometimes with HDR or high-pass cranked way up. With rim lights so hot it's like there are three suns pointed at the person, whether or not they're in a car park, in a forest, or any other setting. Check the strobist blog. He does a lot of stuff with 2 lights that looks pretty natural, though I do agree that often times it's harder to get something natural looking with 2+ lights. I think people love to use a multitude of lights because it sets them apart from amateur photogs that exclusively use available light or worse- pop-up flash. AtomicManiac fucked around with this message at 07:54 on Sep 17, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2010 07:52
|
|
|
Yea, I didn't mean the available light thing as an insult. There's a pretty big difference between the people that just take pictures with whatever light is around without thinking about it and the people that know about lighting and position their models and/or scout spots that use the available light to their advantage.
AtomicManiac fucked around with this message at 21:53 on Sep 17, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2010 20:17
|
|
|
Gazmachine posted:More from me. A wrestler with a "posh brat" sort of gimmick. Two in gimmick, one as herself. In both of the shots the cigarette isn't lit and that bothers me a whole lot for some dumb reason. Other than that they look pretty sweet.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2010 20:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 17:59 |
|
|
I had a TFP shoot with a model off MM last week, so I could test out my new triggers. The shoot went really awkward, the model was crazy shy and didn't really open up despite our best efforts (I shoot with a friend for fun). I kind of feel like that effected a lot of the pictures, plus it was crazy cold and for some reason I decided it would be okay to shoot after sun-set (Which has never worked for me). On top of that, I discovered my Vagabond has decided to poo poo itself out, so rather than finally getting to try out two lights, I was stuck using just a 430exii.  Anyway, here's the only two shots I actually liked from the shoot, but I still feel like I could have done them better:  
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2011 03:05
|
|