|
ConfusedUs posted:I have no problem lumping fashion photography in here--it's basically just portrait photography with an added emphasis on the clothing. More or less. I actually prefer working with normal people who claim they aren't photogenic and don't think they're attractive. I think models perform too much, and they bring forth their same attitude/look for every shoot. They also tend to have "samey" features. I normally talk to my subjects the whole time, and I make sure I'm confident, because that bleeds over. Do whatever you can beforehand to ease your own comfort level. Scout the location, do a practice shoot with another friend to get your settings down, etc. The less you worry about, the more you can focus, and the more the subject will see that you're in charge. When you get a good shot, tell them, be happy and excited, it will also bleed over into the subject.    I work more on full body portraits that incorporate the environment. This makes body language a lot more important, and you have to focus on wardrobe, background, and lighting, to really tie the scene together. I find it really rewarding, but I think it's the kind of thing you have to go all into to really figure out. People used to doing studio portraits rarely seem able to jump out into the field and work the same magic in an underground garage. I run a lighting blog that often covers dealing with the subjects here: http://mr-chompers.blogspot.com/ Here is a particular post where I go into my workflow: http://mr-chompers.blogspot.com/2009/02/helgio.html My general workflow goes: 1. Observe constantly during my daily errands and travels. If I find someplace that looks promising, I plan a research trip. 2. Do the research trip. Guess at what time the light will work well with the location (lots of lights and reflective surfaces = night, open side areas with lots of soft light from the sky = daytime on a cloudy day, lots of interesting shadows and bounce surfaces = direct sunlight, etc) 3. Explore with an eye toward eventual photos. Let my mind chew through what I'm seeing and imagine what kind of subject I'd want, how they should be dressed, colors, lighting, etc. If any of my ideas prompt some further exploration while there, the more the better. I take only my camera and lenses on this trip, no lighting equipment. This is to be a bit more mobile, but also because I am just exploring the location and seeing what's possible with ambient. 4. Edit images at home. I try to bring out the "feel" that I want from them, the same way I would if the subject were there. I tone shadows, white balance, recover highlights, fill shadows, the whole shebang. I want to know if there are any shooting conditions I should be aware of. In some cases I want to let things blow out, and in other cases I want to be careful of the highlights. If I find that I need as much dynamic range as possible because the contrast is so high, that will let me know to keep my ISO as low as possible (cameras lose dynamic range as you bump up ISO) 5. Show images to the subject, and get their feedback. Mostly this is to get them excited about the shoot, but also so they can be thinking about it. It might give them pose ideas, or get them in the right mental state. Mostly I think it helps them pick out their outfits. I normally give a general guide (all black, mostly white, something bright and warm colored, etc) but let them pick outfits they think they look best in. If it's a really involving shoot, I'll do a wardrobe planning session with them at their house. 6. Try to figure out lighting scenarios. I first try to figure out where I wan to place my subject in the frame from what I've picked out. Then I envision how the existing light will light them, and if it needs modifying or amplifying. Lighting normally falls into 3 categories, * no lighting required, just the ambient plus possibly reflectors or subtractors. * using the existing light sources and angles, but either boosting the level by placing a flash in the same place, or by complimenting the existing light with another flash filling in the shadows * providing the lighting completely with the flashes.
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2009 10:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 13:15 |
|
|
Verman posted:Another thing I realized is asking people what they think their strengths are and reenforcing their opinion, then playing off that they get comfortable and confident pretty quickly. If you start with their most comfortable and confident areas they will warm up to you a little easier, as the photographer you are going to know their features as soon as you see them and decide whats best, but by asking them it makes the model think that they are a bit more part of the process and builds their confidence. Obviously you dont want to butter them up so much that they dont do anything different or make it sound insencere but when taking peoples photos they really do get a lot more insecure with themselves and any slight move can make them go positive or negative. On that note: When I'm "done" I ask the subject, "Do you have any way you'd like to be photographed that we haven't done?" And I almost always get one or two more shots I enjoy. Sometimes I've even gotten my favorite shot that way. While Verman uses it to warm up the model, which is a great idea, by doing it at the end, you already have a warmed up model, and they might be willing to try an idea they wouldn't have been confident enough to ask for at the beginning. ConfusedUs posted:Important Elements within a Portrait 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. There should be a bit of skin to "hold in" the eye. There is basically a dead area from 3/4 to full profile you should never photograph unless you have a very good reason to. Either show all of the far eye while including the skin on the far edge to hold it in, or none of the far eye and let the bridge of the nose be the edge of the silhouette. Also make sure your eyes are lit evenly. Don't let one eye be much darker, and don't let the catchlights missmatch. Make sure your light strikes both evenly and you get the specular hotspot on both. Again, GENERAL RULE. If you're being artsy fartsy and know what you're doing, you can break this, but for 90% of generic portraits, it's tried and tested for a reason. poopinmymouth fucked around with this message at 09:29 on Jul 17, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2009 09:25
|
|
|
brad industry posted:I mean this in the nicest way possible, but it would be amazing to me if anyone could keep all these rules and guidelines straight in their head during a shoot. Jesus. If I typed out all the rules of exposing correctly, it would also seem like a lot to remember. A good portrait photographer doesn't keep this bullet point list in their mind and go through it before every shot, they just know. When starting out though, it's good to read about the rules and try to keep even a couple in mind on the next shoot. Every time I post an explanation, you complain and suggest people just go out and shoot. Do you think that nothing can be learned through knowledge exchange? Everything must be learned from hours of trial and error? How long would it take a person shooting before they notice that cutting off the white's of the eye tends to look bad vs being told that? When explaining simple concepts of a 3d reality based thing, sometimes it takes a wall of text. But since this is an internet forum based partially on textual exchange of ideas, I figure it's ok to try to explain concepts textually, since doing a right/wrong example photo of every thing I want to show would be exhausting and I'd rather spend that time doing a real shoot.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2009 14:56
|
|
|
s0meb0dy0 posted:I figure it's like anything else. You use the rules to analyze your images after the fact and learn what you could have done better. Do this with enough and things will become second nature without ever being in the way of a shoot. Exactly. Plus, you can always approach things as homework. I notice sometimes a specific problem with my work, and I'll assign myself shoots just to work on that issue until it becomes second nature to me. I think Brad has it backwards. Learn the rules first (they're out there, and easy to practice with digital) then go out and make your art once you have it all down. If you go to all the trouble to arrange a subject, a location, spend time lighting, etc, why bother making simple mistakes you could have ironed out in your living room with your mother/girlfriend/dog? I did a ton of lighting exercises at my house that resulted in zero usable portfolio work, but you better believe it made my actual shoots better. I would have been completely lost in several of them, had I not done practice exercises before. How do you worry about the rules last when you've already made all the mistakes that knowing them like the back of your hand would have eliminated? I see so many of these basic rules ignored in PAD and they make the photos worse for having broken them.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2009 10:02
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Yeah but what's the difference between his, and this one of yours? Really the only thing redeeming about yours is that it has some vaguely nice colors from being shot on film. And she has perky tits. otherwise it's just as generic. I mean, I agree that both yours and his are plain, but they're good portraits. I'm just not understanding you saying they are terrible when you have some of the same quality stuff in your post.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2009 12:51
|
|
|
Pretty sure the only thing necessary to be a portrait is something sentient (or that used to be) somewhere recognizably in the photo. Be it animal, person, dead-baby, or otherwise. It's a fairly loose genre. It doesn't have to be a closeup of a smiling blond bride to be a portrait.
poopinmymouth fucked around with this message at 07:45 on Sep 15, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2009 07:33
|
|
|
pbpancho posted:Here's two from today. I've got some more to process but thought I'd throw them up for some critique. Whoah nelly. What's with the crazy lighting? This looks like two flashes, with the one coming from the right at equal power to the main (maybe even higher power). It's extremely unflattering, is causing glare all over her skin, and flattens/widens her face to the point it's ugly. The point of lighting (in this kind of portraits) is to define the volume in a flattering way. This requires some sort of ratio between the main and fill. Even if all you did is drop power by 1-4 stops on your 2nd light, it would look 10x better. poopinmymouth fucked around with this message at 07:46 on Sep 15, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2009 07:41
|
|
|
plaguedoctor posted:Well, I think that's a hot issue that comes up in these kinds of threads. Right now, I'm making some cash doing portraiture for high school students -- senior photos and all that. But, unlike the guy with the 16-year-old-whore title, I'm in a place where people DON'T want that. They want their portraits to be ultra-super-traditional. Yeah, but without being a kill-joy, commercial photography as documentaries has kind of been figured out. That's why there are franchises that can set up a portrait studio and definitely make money. Main+fill+hair+compression lens and bam, you can sit practically anyone down and have a fairly flattering portrait. Yes you have to work up people skills and getting someone to relax, but this is not the standard we want to be judging portraits by. The ratio of pivotal, ground breaking portraits taken at Olen Mills or Picture People is probably 1:1,000,000,000. I'd say the ratio of people going out and trying to push boundaries and do something for their own personal artistic motivation is a bit higher. It'd be like someone changing oil at Jiffy-Lube lecturing a car-tinkerer that he could be more efficient and get his car to run fine much more easily. It's kind of missing the point. There is representing the person's face to friends and family members in an interesting way (boring) and there is portraits as art (possibly still boring, but with the potential to be engaging).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2009 07:59
|
|
|
plaguedoctor posted:I guess that's what I'm saying. If you are a part of whatever high-school-portrait thing, then, hey, more love to you. But if you just want to be negative, then you have to supply something else. You can't just say "this sucks". Of course it sucks, but at the the same time, that's what the plebians want. If you want to provide something better or something more, you have to give them a reason to want that. um, no? Photography can be an art form. You don't need to provide pleasure to your subject in any way. In fact some of my favorite portraits, the subject absolutely hates how I portrayed them.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2009 09:12
|
|
|
brad industry posted:I've heard some people who shoot landscapes claim their work is really portraiture because they make images that are about people even though they don't actually contain any. Really I think portraiture, kind of like photography, is a broad medium and I'm OK with people calling whatever they want a portrait if they can justify their position. Right, so my ratio was correct. You meantion Newman and Avedon and..... amongst how many people have worked at these places through the years? Thousands. Tens of thousands. It might be worth it just for the very fact you'd get a lot better at connecting with people. Treating it as an exercise.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2009 10:10
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:
I like this photo on it's own, but the subject is also p hot, and I like that.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2009 00:01
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Well, if you're going for a standard holiday portrait for the christmas card deal, you've pretty much got it. I'd advise lighting it a little less, it's too bright and evenly lit for my eye. I think they would look much better if the wall wasn't lit to the same degree, I don't want to see the wall right there. Really loving this, but I can't help but think if the photographer had changed their standing height, or even position, it could have put the guys head in front of a more contrasting tone. That's my main dislike is how lost his head gets on the dark part of the horizon line. The canoe as leading line and contrast of the overall image own hard though.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2009 09:30
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Glad you like it, this is my last portrait from the coast, Ektar for portraits: eh. It looks like she has a furry piece of luggage rather than an actual dog.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2009 12:55
|
|
|
PlasticSun posted:I took a few shots of my boss today for some corporate headshots. Overall I was fairly pleased with the results but I did find out half way through the shoot that my Tamron 17-50 2.8 was front focusing. First one is best, but wooowee, some things to change for next time. I'm assuming this is a white shoot through umbrella? Get a tungsten gel and match the white balance of the other bulbs, because right now the soft flattering main light with yellowy orange fill isn't very flattering. The background is also a bit chaotic. It's not enough visual clues to be a specific place, but too crowded and in focus to be generic background for a formal portrait. I'd either blur it more with a lower aperture, or watch how I position myself so that a more neutral background is behind. A white reflector to help fill in the yellowy shadows would have helped too. Old people faces tend not to look good when photographed from below. It emphasizes any turkey wattle that might be present on the neck.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2009 12:58
|
|
|
TeMpLaR posted:Can I have some critique on these two pictures? They are for the hoodies you get if you donate enough money for a charity event on Saturday. Why so little light? they look underexposed and a bit yellow ish. You will most likely want bright and happy to move products. I'd white balance it better and boost exposure, possibly fill light too. Contrasty shadows are only good when you engineered them to be there. Black hard edged shadows are like a ginsu knife fresh off the grinder. Great tool if you need it and know how to use it, but it will gently caress you up if you don't.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2009 14:33
|
|
|
PlasticSun posted:Thanks! I'm a bit light on equipment, this was shot with just a 550 EX camera left at 1/125 power with the rest of the room exposed about a stop dark. 550 was pointed straight up at a cream colored ceiling with a Lumiquest 80/20 on it. get a cheapo reflector. I learned from a really experienced guy you actually want your reflectors square, and as close to the camera lens as possible. I haven't gotten one yet, but I suggest one of those ones with a handle, and you can literally hold it yourself, or clip it to a light stand. The idea of having it right where you are, is that there are now no shadows that you can see, that it cannot see, whereas if you put it off to the side opposite of the main light, you can have pockets of shadow on the face you can see but neither light can. Something a bit different from me. Coworker has tons of light stuff, so I borrowed a softbox and flash plus a seamless background. It's the exact softbox I'm interested in from ebay, but it seemed to give the whole image a magenta tint. I'm guessing this is because of the cheapness of the fabric? Since my main light is expensive and daylight balanced at all power levels, and it's tiny softbox is chimera, I'm guessing my other softbox should be chimera also to keep color consistency. I was able to zero out saturation for purple and magenta on this image to fix it, but if he'd had anything purple on it would have ruined it. 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2009 20:27
|
|
|
Interrupting Moss posted:This is from a sports shoot, but this one with no basketball I like quite a bit. Nice. I like the contrast, the black and white treatment, the pose and it's just overall pleasing.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2009 12:20
|
|
|
I love having my 2nd light to control density. I keep it almost perfectly at the camera axis, similarly to how Dan Winters uses his ringlight. I need to build some screen covers to control the ratio more, this is using 2:1 (my power pack is locked at a 2:1 assymetric) 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2010 00:52
|
|
|
brad industry posted:If I have the room to do it I tend to use a large softbox/umbrella behind the camera instead of an actual ringlight. Or bounce a bare head into a V-flat behind it. Same effect, more control. Yeah this was a 60" umbrella almost directly behind the camera and up a bit. Learned about it this way from an old school portrait guy. Seems a lot of people don't use the fill on axis, which leads to shadow pockets. I do wish my power pack had more control over the asymmetric ratio.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2010 11:50
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:Good looking girls? Check 2nding, basically the best stuff about the photos are the subjects, and since it's club photography, he didn't really have much to do with that. These look like pretty formulaic flash with some kind of diffuser on a bracket, go to popular clubs with hot chicks, get well known so you can get some friendly poses, and snap away. I don't see anything laud-worthy about them.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2010 23:03
|
|
|
brad industry posted:It looks fine to me. If you don't calibrate your monitor is probably way too bright. Same here, I think it looks fine.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2010 23:55
|
|
|
My latest session. I tried a first, in that the camera was on a tripod and I had a remote shutter in hand. It was so great getting to be close and interact with the subject with no camera in front of my face. Writeup here, with a setup shot too: http://mr-chompers.blogspot.com/2010/01/firstshootwithlightpanels.html   
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2010 14:24
|
|
|
thetzar posted:This stuff is amazingly, dramatically awesome. Thanks. It's shot here in Cologne, Germany, and the model is German, but he lived in CA for a while.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2010 21:08
|
|
|
nonanone posted:Just plain people Liking all 3 of these, doesn't hurt they're all handsome.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2010 11:00
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:
What differentiates this from a random snapshot? Do you put any conceptualization into these? To me your photos always seem like a formula of random interesting friends + film colors = good photo. I don't see anything engaging, or unique in the actual shooting. What do you actually do at the time of taking the photos that would differentiate your photos from a digital shooter grabbing snapshots of their friends?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2010 13:01
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:I guess the word "seem" is pretty operative in that sentence. When you spend years learning how to take photographs by yourself you learn much more than just how to take pictures that other people like to look at. You develop a personal sense of aesthetic, you learn to understand the form and its limits, why things happen the way do and how you can manipulate things to create the image that you want. Moreover you learn from what you see and you get a sense of what people are doing and what they have done so that you can draw your own photography from that collective experience. I find that people who "get traction within weeks" generally just get that by being fed a set of rules and tutorial instructions from blogs, forums, and flickr and all they really learn is how to create one image and, because they have no personal aesthetic, they are always unsure of the "quality" of that image. It isn't impossible to develop these things after the fact but I feel that it is much easier to learn later on and that there is a generally more even ground to ones photography if they develop first by taking photos of what they want purely for the fun with no regard for what is correct or right and over time developing their personal image organically. Just want to quote this. I agree completely. I think pursuing what you personally find pleasing as an artist, is the number one key to growth, because you will practice, you will self examine, and you will try new things. poopinmymouth fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Apr 3, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2010 19:33
|
|
|
psylent posted:Is there any way to reduce the shinyness? Is it just the makeup she's using combined with the light? I've noticed that it's even more obvious under strobes. You mean when taking the photo? yes, increase the apparent size of the light. so either move the source you were using in closer, or assuming it was a bare bulb, put something in front of it like an umbrella or diffusing panel. Here, read this for more in depth explanation: http://mr-chompers.blogspot.com/2009/06/light.html
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2010 16:43
|
|
|
fronkpies posted:What would the lighting setup on shots like these be? My guess: Large source, a bit far back, the lighting is very even, and I'd bet the background lighting is also from the main illuminating the face. You see very little specularity on the skin, which points to a large source. There could be a black card just outside of camera left in order to darken those shadows, but it could also just be a largish room.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2010 17:28
|
|
|
Interrupting Moss posted:poopinmymouth: You use Elinchrom's quadra system yes? Does 400ws tend to take care of anything outdoors? The battery and heads are so small, they're very appealing. General thoughts? I have yet to do a daytime shoot, I hate bright sunlight. I have never used them at full power for a shoot yet, I wish they went lower in power actually.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2010 19:03
|
|
|
TsarAleksi posted:You should-- half the fun of powerful portable strobes is the ability to overwhelm daylight in interesting ways. Just not drawn to sunlight and how it paints a scene. I like either indoor, evening, or night portraits. That said, the quadra is 4x brighter than a 580ex II, which is the brightest flash out. I'm fairly certain you could use it against the sun in everything but a giant 7 foot octa.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2010 19:09
|
|
|
fronkpies posted:Thanks. They serve to much as a focal point. If you had a strong need for pimples, that's one thing, but leaving them as is, they distract the eye without adding anything other than, "this is a real person", and she would still read that way without them. At the very least lighten them up.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2010 22:41
|
|
|
Hop Pocket posted:I'm not very happy with this one. I took this one in some shade and I think it could have really been helped with some speedlite fill flash. I was already carrying around a significant weight with camera+lens and carrying an additional speedlite on a leisurely stroll was just out of the question. Maybe I'm not hardcore. When in open shade you have to be careful of the blue sky light altering their face colors. You need to warm up either the whole image, or just her skin tones, and if the red blotchiness remains on her skin, even that out in post, it's unflattering. In lightroom you can just desaturate reds a bit. Did a shoot this afternoon, had a ton of fun, so glad the Quadra is water resistant, it was drizzling the whole time. A vagabond and alienbee would have fried. http://mr-chompers.blogspot.com/2010/04/liljainthegreenhouse.html 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2010 00:13
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:Well since I killed this thread I'll post some more content and kill it twice. I don't think all the pure black is working, it's not really adding much and makes it overly dark. You should try having an on axis fill light really low to fill them just a little. Ring lights are popular for this, but you could also use just a white umbrella over your head, and just keep it super lower power, just enough to see into your dark shadows. It will look much more controlled, and less contrasty in a good way.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2010 11:11
|
|
|
Started a new series a month ago and finally got my photo-pc setup and procesed it. http://mr-chompers.blogspot.com/2010/05/redheadsseries.html 
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2010 13:14
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:Yeah I have been wanting to get a third flash for a while and will probably do so this summer. You can do a lot with two but I'm starting to find a lot of situations where I would like a third. You don't even need a 3rd light. Just throw your camera on a tripod and either drag the shutter till the ambient lights up the dark areas enough, OR just take a shot at the very end (being careful not to move your tripod at all) with your flash bounced and get a well lit room shot like the one you posted, that is pixel perfect the same as your money shot. Then it makes it really easy to put that as a layer above, and blend to taste so your shadows have a smidge of detail.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2010 14:52
|
|
|
a foolish pianist posted:This is not my shot: You have to look at where the light is coming from, a lot of this look is from the fact she's surrounded by snow and ice, which works as crazy bounce and fill for what looks like a bright overcast sky. To replicate this you'd need an equally white surrounding, or lots of white fill cards all over.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2010 11:09
|
|
|
AtomicManiac posted: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. Oh it's definitely awful, but I was just commenting on what the lighting was like. I think it's a hideous photo.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2010 00:33
|
|
|
Few from today with a friend who was back in town that I've been wanting to shoot for a while. http://mr-chompers.blogspot.com/2010/06/zenshoot.html  This one I think needs to be seen large. My favorite from the shoot. 
poopinmymouth fucked around with this message at 13:54 on Jun 14, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2010 22:09
|
|
|
TheLastManStanding posted:
Parts are mirrored, but that front most tree isn't, it was right where it is. I only mirrored for the green bushes, as there was a road with people walking and cars in the background of that side.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2010 22:38
|
|
Hey, i'm on to your tricks, that's a mirror image.
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 13:15 |
|
|
And a quick writeup of that shoot: http://mr-chompers.blogspot.com/2010/06/zenshoot.html
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2010 13:54
|
|