*OFFICIAL* Snapshot of the Day (one image per post please) #1

[M_Six]

Hmm, think I'd clone out that dark spot on the ground between her legs.

[oneintheory]

Originally Posted by M_Six

Hmm, think I'd clone out that dark spot on the ground between her legs.

Originally Posted by oneintheory

i don't clone things like that. when i go out and do UE style shoots with a model, i treat everything as if it were a UE shoot of the surroundings themselves. everything stays exactly as it was when i got there.

[M_Six]

Ok. But she looks like my cats when they're beaming with pride after a productive trip to the litter box.

[M_Six]

Seriously, Josh, the photo is technically well done. But I'm missing the point here. What are you trying to convey?

Please don't take this the wrong way and this is my own personal opinion and as such should be taken with a very big grain of salt, but I can't get the connection between the models and their surroundings. I'm not into "edgy," being an old fart and all, so maybe it's all just beyond me.

[UdubBadger]

Originally Posted by gary88

because racecar

[rodi]

take out the background - are you happy with the model?
take out the model - are you happy with the background?

light your scene and frame your scene before you throw in the model. then light your model separately, without the light on the scene.

then put the two together.

[UdubBadger]

Originally Posted by oneintheory

Untitled by jsophoto, on Flickr

[UdubBadger]

Originally Posted by rodi

take out the background - are you happy with the model?
take out the model - are you happy with the background?

light your scene and frame your scene before you throw in the model. then light your model separately, without the light on the scene.

then put the two together.

good advice

[adrean8j]

Originally Posted by rodi

take out the background - are you happy with the model?
take out the model - are you happy with the background?

light your scene and frame your scene before you throw in the model. then light your model separately, without the light on the scene.

then put the two together.

That is very well put Ryan! I think I will use that as a mantra when/if I ever get to really shoot a "model" shoot.

[rodi]

[oneintheory]

Originally Posted by M_Six

Seriously, Josh, the photo is technically well done. But I'm missing the point here. What are you trying to convey?

Please don't take this the wrong way and this is my own personal opinion and as such should be taken with a very big grain of salt, but I can't get the connection between the models and their surroundings. I'm not into "edgy," being an old fart and all, so maybe it's all just beyond me.

after looking at it a little more, i don't like it as much either. but it all comes down to taste, i think. there isn't a good connection here, admittedly, but i'm a fan of edgy...

Originally Posted by rodi

take out the background - are you happy with the model? no
take out the model - are you happy with the background? yes

light your scene and frame your scene before you throw in the model. then light your model separately, without the light on the scene.
lit the background first, it was a bitch to get. one of my 3 battery packs died. didn't light the model separately. the pose isn't fantastic either.
then put the two together. no perfect harmony.

i like this one better. it's a bit more dramatic...but i actually adjusted the lights down for the aperture. only thing i don't really care for are the plants in the foreground.


Untitled by jsophoto, on Flickr

Originally Posted by UdubBadger

i bet you would.

[adrean8j]

Josh,

I think the model looks fine in the photo, the plants/weeds have to go though. There are just too distracting from your subject (her of course). Maybe a little tighter on the model to cut back on how much the plants interfere with the shot?

[oneintheory]

if i cut in tighter on her, then i lose more of the backdrop. i have a couple shots that are tighter. the only plants i think are distracting are the defocused ones in the foreground, and i for whatever reason felt it would be a good idea to crouch there that night. the rest of them sort of add to the ambiance.

[adrean8j]

Originally Posted by oneintheory

if i cut in tighter on her, then i lose more of the backdrop.

With a wider angle 20mm and lower? Wouldn't that keep the backdrop and allow you walk in a bit tighter? BTW I am just guessing here as I have never done an official shoot before. Just learning stuff from your experience and others

[Activ]

Don't think I have posted this yet... Lulz

Git sum :: EuroSunday Treffen :: Granite Bay by Trevor Thompson, on Flickr

[gary88]

Originally Posted by M_Six

^^^^^^Rain or washing the car, Gary?

Hose with the nozzle off

Originally Posted by UdubBadger

because racecar

[oneintheory]

Originally Posted by adrean8j

With a wider angle 20mm and lower? Wouldn't that keep the backdrop and allow you walk in a bit tighter? BTW I am just guessing here as I have never done an official shoot before. Just learning stuff from your experience and others

shooting models with a 20mm or lower lens close up on a full frame is a HUGE no...for me, at least. lens distortion does really unflattering things to faces, etc. i try not to go wider than 35mm. I'm sure dave will come in here and tout dxo optics pro as a good fix for that, but i've never really found correction software to be as effective on human subjects. i'd rather just do it correctly on scene.

[adrean8j]

Originally Posted by oneintheory

shooting models with a 20mm or lower lens close up on a full frame is a HUGE no...for me, at least. lens distortion does really unflattering things to faces, etc. i try not to go wider than 35mm. I'm sure dave will come in here and tout dxo optics pro as a good fix for that, but i've never really found correction software to be as effective on human subjects. i'd rather just do it correctly on scene.

I took a look at your set over on Flickr and there are a few shots you made between 17mm-19mm of the model that do not look distorted? The still have the background (but you still managed to keep one weed between her and your lens). Her pose in those shots is not as "compelling" but shooting between 17-20mm doesn't seem to be a problem...at least with the lens you were using. A dedicated wide angle (11-16 or the like) might be a different story I am speculating. What do you think?

[Chewy734]

most (nearly all published ones) portraits are done with focal lengths 35mm or longer. Almost every pro photographer will tell you the same thing as what Josh told us. That being said, I've also taken some portraits with a wider-angle lens without any noticeable issues. But, most pro photographer will use a 50mm, 85mm, or even 135mm length (although that's pushing it).

There is a caveat though, I'm generally talking about head shots, or even shoulder shots. Full-body shots can utilize wider-angle lenses as long as they don't distort a ton (like a 11-16mm Tokina). Sometimes group shots even require wider lenses, and even distortions may make for a more edgy photo.

[oneintheory]

Originally Posted by adrean8j

I took a look at your set over on Flickr and there are a few shots you made between 17mm-19mm of the model that do not look distorted? The still have the background (but you still managed to keep one weed between her and your lens). Her pose in those shots is not as "compelling" but shooting between 17-20mm doesn't seem to be a problem...at least with the lens you were using. A dedicated wide angle (11-16 or the like) might be a different story I am speculating. What do you think?

i use a 17-40, but i use default correction profiles in LR3. i can notice a huge difference between 17 and 35mm in terms of distortion. however, when you put the subject in the middle of the frame and they only take up a small part of it, distortion is mitigated. what you're suggesting, though (wider angle, move closer) would make the subject closer to the lens and would push her more to the edges of the frame where distortion occurs.

[dcstep]

Everybody using wide zooms should be automatically correcting for vignetting, geometric distortion, CA, etc. in RAW coversion. DxO, LR, ACR and others provide this and it's pretty darn amazing. If you want purposeful distortion, you can turn it off, but in most cases you'll want it. It brings zoom lenses into competition with the very best primes (which can also be corrected).

Long-gone are the days when you had to get it right in the camera and primes were all most self-respecting pros would use.

Too few seem aware of the capability of the latest conversion softwares. DxO corrects for every aperture at every focal length of the lenses included in their database. It's amazing.

Dave

[- Paul -]

I use DXO also - great software for batch conversion aswell.