|
rockcity posted:Every so often, I'll give them a peak and how it looks. Same here, I never show them every frame but if we ever stop for a break or if I take something that looks particularly good, I will shoot a few more frames until the "moment" is clearly over then give them a peak. Ive learned to never show them test shots or bad shots, people like when they see themselves looking good and get more confidence in you and themselves, the first sign of them looking bad is going to bring them down like lead weights so pick and choose what frames you show them. 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.
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2009 18:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 06:08 |
|
|
These were in the PAD thread but now that we have a portrait specific thread I figured this might be a better place. It might be my monitor here at work but overall I feel like it might be a bit too dark/underexposed.  I was attempting to take a few test shots to get the exposure correctly. I am one of those people who love taking pictures but hate being in them. So this is quite a gem that I was actually smiling and eyes open without looking drunk, severly retarded, or strung out.  I wish I had more time with my step sister and her fam for better positioning/angles because in hindsight, I would have swapped positions of him and her due to their skin color differences and done something so that the baby was closer to them as not to appear like he has a massive marshmallow head. Babies are really hard to photograph. Theres a lot of shaking, noise making, and baby talk required to make them look like they arent making GBS threads themselves into next tuesday. 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2009 20:51
|
|
|
benisntfunny posted:stuff Yeah its definatley a matter in which you have to pick and choose depending on the shot/model because I know there are people that if they see a bad photo of themselves you are not going to see a shred of confidence out of them the rest of the shoot. Then there are those that you can say "this is what I need you to change...and they change it so that definately comes with how you perceive your model to be. One of my first shoots was for an engagement and they asked to see some of what I was taking and they saw one really bad shot, where the girl started to talk and looked "special" and the guy had an equally as weird of a look and I didnt see them happy/confident the remainder of the time. Another time I showed a doctor his portrait and how everything was coming out the same...as you mentioned and it helped so it is definitely a delicate thing to contemplate. Typically if Im not getting anywhere then yes I will show bad ones in order to change something up but if I am getting good usable photos from them then I dont bother.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2009 19:01
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:You can't really do that on people with glasses. This is when you manual focus or ask him to lift his glasses to get a focus point.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2009 22:39
|
|
|
sw1gger posted:
How did you have this set up? I was trying to deconstruct the scene by the reflection in her eyes but its only getting me so far. It looks to me like soft boxes on both sides of her face, and then a strobe on the background? I really love this photo and the lighting, everything about it is very clean and direct.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2011 07:31
|
|
|
XTimmy posted:He said kenos which are photographic grade fluro lights for the front two but they look pretty much the same as a softbox. Really would love a set of them actually. Wow, no idea how I missed that, thanks!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2011 17:30
|
|
|
Jiblet posted:I fear interrupting, but I shan't let that stop me. What do you have to start with? Any light stands or any support? You can use 2 light stands if you have them, attach a broom stick or PVC pipe across the two. If you don't have either, use ladders and a broom stick for an ultra ghetto method. Buy a fabric shower curtain, or just a large piece of fabric. I know some people like to use large rolls of paper, but I can't imagine they are very cheap. Separate your subjects from the backdrop enough so that the depth of field blurs out the background enough so that it doesn't really matter. If you need white, just use a sheet, shine light at it and blow out the background, it will become white.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2011 21:49
|
|
|
Oprah Haza posted:
This owns so much.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2011 17:52
|
|
|
MrOpus posted:I got chance to shoot another friend. I did use Christmas lights again, as she saw the last shoot and liked them. I don't want to show you those photos, though. I want to show you these photos. SB600 speedlight through an umbrella, with some continuous fluorescent lights for fill as needed. Am I improving? I think these are an improvement over the last ones you posted, although I would like to see some definition in the eyes on the first shot. It seems like her eyes are set in pretty far and in shadow. I like the direction you're going though. The second shot turned out pretty well and really sharp. I know its just my taste by my eye gravitated towards the barbell in her ear and the tattoo on her arm. The background is leaps and bounds above the last time you posted. Even in the third, the background is quite nice for what I'm assuming is either a shower curtain/bed sheet/curtain. The orange lighting throws me off a little bit because its mixed with what looks like daylight flash. Also, its a weird crop, I feel like if she is going to be looking over her shoulder, there should be more room behind her so that shes not looking down into the corner of the photo. Overall I see improvement, nice work.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2011 02:04
|
|
|
Mathturbator posted:What size softbox is perfect for headshots? Got a 22" and I kinda feel it's too small. I have 2 - 24x36's and I feel like they are a good size.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2012 21:58
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:I had a great time, and frankly liked my "out takes" shots more than the "they posed correctly" shots. I feel like when trying to photograph children, its all about what you can get albeit through "proper" posed pictures or through the out takes. Most of the out takes end up looking better because it allows the kids personality to show through. There was a post in here a few pages back (cant remember who shot it) but it was a kid being lit very nicely and he was sticking his tongue out that worked so well.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2012 17:01
|
|
|
CarrotFlowers posted:
It's 90% there but I think that the 2nd photo would benefit greatly from moving the light source a little lower, slightly more frontal, and consider bouncing some light back into his face. His left eye is nearly all a big blob of shadow in the first photo and better in the 2nd. Overall I think the shadows are too dark and as mentioned previously, my monitor displays his jacket, 3/4 of his hair and some of his eyes as a big black blob. Your highlights look good and nothing seems to be blown out but if you lighten those shadows a bit everything else will feel a little less harsh.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2012 17:30
|
|
|
CarrotFlowers posted:These any better? I'm going to try to reshoot this weekend, but figured I'd give it a shot in post. Much better, my taste personally would be to still bring in just a touch more detail to the jacket but you can see the lapels on his jacket now so thats already big improvement over last time. His eyes also seemed to gain a little bit of color (which is good). Looks good.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2012 19:00
|
|
|
Gazmachine posted:I've been checking in here a lot but just not had a chance to make a proper post. That situation has not changed Thats one handsome set of eyeballs.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2012 22:14
|
|
it's full days in the studio then full evenings of being a dad / post processing. 
|
LargeHadron posted:
3rd photo: Remove the blue recycle bin in back of her arm. Also, it looks like a plastic bag is in the far right frame. Other than that I think this is a nice photo. 4th photo: looks better, the only thing I would say is that the hand placement looks a little awkward but posture and smiles look good. Practiced a few office shots in preparation of photographing everyone in our agency in the coming month. I was a little frustrated with the first shots but as I got rolling I started liking it more as I got comfortable with the lights and directing my co-worker. I feel comfortable with where these landed and I thought she did a great job considering she had no idea she was getting into. I realized that these were taking a darker approach to corporate head shots but my partners were pleased with the results. A few things: 1 - I realize I was shooting with a pretty slow shutter speed, around 1/50th, usually around the same as my focal length. I'm still not certain if the softness is me missing focus or if I have a soft copy of my Tammy 17-50. I am going to try to look into this but the office said I can rent lenses if I want. I also realize I was wide open so it probably isnt as sharp as it could be. 2 - I'm only using 150 w/s lights but its really difficult to balance them with ambient light because they are so bright. These were only shot with one light and a 24/36 softbox, I was sort of hoping I had used my beauty dish instead to leave a better catch light in her eyes. 3- Shooting 45 people in my office in multiple locations like this is going to be a logistical nightmare.  IMG_9474 by derick.adame, on Flickr  IMG_9476 by derick.adame, on Flickr  IMG_9478 by derick.adame, on Flickr Verman fucked around with this message at 23:16 on Apr 27, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2012 15:36
|
|
|
Lamb of Gun posted:Maybe I'm nuts but the white balance seems off. I feel like there's a strong blue hue in all the shadows. The white balance was set for my flash so it was probably my fault for trying a slight split tone in post. I was staring at them for a while that day picking between photos for keepers and making edits. When I come back to it, I definitely see what you mean. Considering these were test shots for our corporate head shots that the partners wanted very "editorial" style, should I be limiting how I change the tone in post? Verman fucked around with this message at 19:40 on May 1, 2012 |
|
#
¿
May 1, 2012 19:32
|
|
|
Lamb of Gun posted:I don't think so. I would say that a heavily processed, stylized photo would be inappropriate. A tiny bit of tone correction on these wouldn't hurt at all. Ok, I reviewed with the partners yesterday and they liked the initial direction, but I think I'm going to go a little easier on altering the tone. On a side note, they approved for me to rent some lenses. I was shooting with the Tamron 17-50 on my 50D so I was thinking about the 24-70L for a little more reach than 50mm and the 35 1.4L for a wider aperture.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2012 16:06
|
|
|
bisticles posted:Did some shots for a friend's band yesterday. I'm not *thrilled* with them, but the guys are, which is cool. It was hot as balls, so getting everyone to focus for even a few seconds was a real struggle. All I see in the second one is a bunch of blown out white shirts against a blown out white background. It was nice to put them in the shade, but the white shirts just blend in too much. I wonder why male musicians always insist on making the same faces no matter what music style they play. They look like they are 95% there its just a few small details that keep them from being 100% for me personally. Good work.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2012 20:54
|
|
|
XTimmy posted:I remember when I shot my first music video a tutor hounded me on not shooting girls from a low angle (looking up the nose). I feel this could be applied to the first two images. I've had this burned into my brain. Very few women are flattered by shooting low, unless of course they are Victoria Secret models.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2012 15:55
|
|
|
David Pratt posted:What's the lighting setup on this? Im going to guess a beauty dish head on, a ring light would have left more of a visible ring shape in the eye, and possibly either a reflector or a second light to the left because that side of her face is brighter than the right.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2012 23:48
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:This is a quick picture I took of my brother and I'm wondering what people's advice would be on it. I shot on a 50mm 1.8 but with the crop of a 600D. I'm looking to do more portrait work, should I get a wider lens like a 28 or a 20? Thanks! The expression is ok, but it really bugs me that the eyes are so dark and you can't see any definition in his eyes at all. I think the light could come down a little bit, and either toss it a little further to the left or straight on to create a butterfly pattern. The big thing is more light in the most important feature, the eyes.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2012 22:25
|
|
|
Had a friend of mine request some help with photography for this side project hes working on (some sort of simple online clothing line) and asked me if I would be interested in shooting it. He wanted something sort of sexy girl next door, don't ask me about the creative, I was just going with what he wanted and ended up with this. I gave him the raw files and it looks like he posted everything without any sort of eding/touchups. Some of the shots look a lot more blown out after he saved them for web. Eh, it was fun. http://shaneermitano.com/holden/shoots/072112/index.html
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2012 23:07
|
|
|
Thanks for the input, I will keep my eye tuned to the details a bit more. I really struggled because it was such a tight place that my 50 1.8 was too long on my 50d so I had to use the 17-50 2.8 most of the time. It makes me really want the 30 1.4 now. But I will keep an eye out for the details, I should have added another layer of diffusion in the window because it was such a great source, just too bright. I tried balancing the flash and using it to fill but I had a hard time making it look natural which is why it only appears in the bedroom shots and it was bounced off the ceiling at an angle at about 1/32 power. I brought my monolights and modifiers but they never made it out of the bin. Just too much flash for the natural look he wanted. Most shots were camera and reflector only. He's one of my best friends, its his venture and we've worked together a lot in the past so I'm comfortable with what he wants to do with the photos, but it sounds like he wants to leave them mostly as is since this will just be spec work for his site. If this were anyone else they would have been more refined in post and definitely not raw. Also, he had me in my place in mind for stylistic inspiration. "I want something cute and sexy, but not trashy like American Apparel. Think of a girlfriend in your favorite tee." And the model was also a real photographer but never told me what to do thankfully. She was so great, knew how to pose and was super comfortable and helpful. She even instructed my friend on how to aim the reflector. I was thankful she let me do my thing and we talked after about how wierd it can be with two photographers in the room.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2012 00:37
|
|
|
A little translucent powder goes a long way. If you still get shine, use the clone stamp set to darken and 20% opacity to soften the shine.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2012 03:26
|
|
|
somnambulist posted:Is there any good way to fake an underwater portrait? Maybe get a trampoline? Something that can give you the effect of weight lessness? That's a tough one
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2013 22:52
|
|
|
thetzar posted:One more. I nearly jumped out of my chair. I thought this was my ex.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2013 05:06
|
|
|
thetzar posted:Well. I mean... she might be. No. My ex isn't as cute and got all butch after going super fixie hipster chick.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2013 05:35
|
|
|
A lot of cameras (especially non dslr) don't have the option for a wireless remote ... but nearly every camera has a self timer. Its incredible how many people never use it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2013 22:42
|
|
|
CarrotFlowers posted:I think she missed her lips with the lipstick... She must have just been drinking a lot of Kool-Aid
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
I like the overall look, the sharpness is a tad overdone for my taste but not by much. His tie should also be longer. It should hit your belt buckle.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
Subyng posted:Ugh, I shuttered at that one. I SO TIRED OF ALL DEES JOKES
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
I don't even think that most bands understand the point of putting eccentric poo poo into riders other than dick waving their celebrity status.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
Spedman posted:I remember hearing the really huge bands do it as a way of making sure everything gets done properly at their gigs, like so they don't get killed by a falling light rig or whatever. Yeah that's what I was referring to as well like if you see a bowl of yellow m&ms you know that they actually read the thing versus skimming it and missing something important like electrical bullshit. Not actually about diva poo poo at all Was it a "this american life" story and wasn't the band van Halen?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:Shot this last weekend at the paint studio I work at. I'll turn it into a thumbnail if it's too pointy for SA. At a first quick glance I was all "oh hey that looks like mcmadcow but it's color ... oh wait"
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 06:12
|
|
|
somnambulist posted:This is rad, how did you make the gold stick to her? Someone's clearly never been to a strip club ... that stuff sticks to everything. For real though I do like the photo and editing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:When I was very small, my aunt went on a backpacking trip in Europe and brought my mom back a pair of leiderhosen from Austria for me. So my whole life, there's been a portrait of me hanging over the fireplace at my moms wearing the leiderhosen - I caught a whole lot of crap for it in high school obviously. My wife's friend from Munich sent us this dirndl for my daughter 2 years ago and it finally fits her - I wanted this to have the "early 80's sears portrait studio" feel to it so it could hang next to my picture at grandma's house. My wife didn't want to cut her hair with bangs, so we had to pass on that bit of authenticity. Yeah I would love to see both. I know it's been all over the internet with the "me as a child and me as an adult recreating the photo later in life" theme but this is a different take and the back story really makes it
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2015 06:02
|
|
|
Thoogsby posted:Skin tones look really saturated and orange to me. Same here, I was going to say yellow but that might be taken the wrong way. But yes, very orangey/yellow on my end.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
Judge Schnoopy posted:Pretty generic maternity shoot, but I'm new to this so I didn't want to get out of my comfort zone (being what I had looked up online for maternity photos). Personally I really like this direction of maternity stuff. It's a nice portrait of a pregnant woman, not some cheesy exposed belly/nude couple/caricature that I personally can't stand. I find most maternity stuff on the same level as Russian wedding photography with the miniature groom photoshopped into weird scenes.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
Her face looks really shiny and gold tinted and not in a greasy way but an over abundance of gold shimmery makeup way. Her face looks out of place color/shine/tone wise from the rest of her body if that makes sense Also in the one of her laying down, theres some odd skin textures going on around her stomach.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 06:08 |
|
|
thetzar posted:I couldn't decide on an orientation/crop. It's funny because I like the first one as more of a traditional portrait but from my graphic design/art direction background Im drawn to the wide one for its usability (header images, backgrounds, blog images etc) as it would give me a place for a headline or body of text. On first instinct I just like the overall lighting and color of them. My biggest critique is maybe seeing more of the models actual face? They're pleasant photos.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2017 07:04
|
|
