# Is this appropriate, or am I just taking the easy way out?



## tirediron (Oct 5, 2012)

Background:  A couple of times a year I do a free (or almost) free shoot for a local dance group's performance nights.  This is nothing fancy, just PJ types of captures to record the event in whatever venue they have for that night.  The backgrounds are usually total crap, lighting... interesting, and my set-up is a simple on-camera bounced speedlight.  The amount of movement the performers do negates using a large aperture and shallow DoF.  Every now and then I get a capture that one of them really likes, and I try and improve it a little.  Again, it's fairly simple ($25 for a single digital file cropped to whatever size they ask for) thing.  

So, my question is:  is my end product reasonable in your opinion, or is there something I could or should be doing better or differently.

This is the image SOOC:






This is what I planned on turning over:





Thoughts, suggestions and comments all gratefully accepted, as always.

~John


----------



## SCraig (Oct 5, 2012)

Given the original you had to work with your edit looks far better.  It does, however, appear to have a slight magenta skin hue compared to the original to me.


----------



## Light Guru (Oct 5, 2012)

It looks way to fake for my taste. 



tirediron said:


> Background:  The amount of movement the performers do negates using a large aperture and shallow DoF.



I would still try and blur the background. 

You could try doing a focus trap. Talk to the dancer before the event and find out where they might make a interesting pose, or if they are pro forming more then once pay close attention to where things happen. They may even let you mark the floor with tape. Before the event have someone stand on the mark and you focus on the and then turn off auto focus. Don't use the widest aperture this will give you a little breathing room in your focus point but do it enough to blur the background. 

Sure you will have less opera unites for shots but the few shots you do get will look a million times better then the ones you did not take. 

Also that flash causing really bad shadows i would say crank up the ISO if your camera allows it and loose the flash.


----------



## tirediron (Oct 5, 2012)

SCraig said:


> Given the original you had to work with your edit looks far better. It does, however, appear to have a slight magenta skin hue compared to the original to me.


Yeah, my WB got a little hosed and I was eyeballing it. Gotta fix that.



Light Guru said:


> It looks way to fake for my taste.


No denying that!



Light Guru said:


> I would still try and blur the background.


Do you mean at the time of shooting, or in post?



Light Guru said:


> You could try doing a focus trap. Talk to the dancer before the event and find out where they might make a interesting pose, or if they are pro forming more then once pay close attention to where things happen. They may even let you mark the floor with tape. Before the event have someone stand on the mark and you focus on the and then turn off auto focus. Don't use the widest aperture this will give you a little breathing room in your focus point but do it enough to blur the background.


Oh that I could.  There are no repeat performances, and many are unchoreographed (off the cuff).



Light Guru said:


> Also that flash causing really bad shadows i would say crank up the ISO if your camera allows it and loose the flash.


 That's their spotlight...  annoying isn't it?


----------



## manaheim (Oct 5, 2012)

I'm betting that us photographers will notice the issues where most of your patrons would not... I imagine they love them.  I also suspect that you're putting more than $25 worth of labor into each one of those, so you're being more than fair, IMO.


----------



## pic_chick (Oct 5, 2012)

ok I would maybe ask each lady to give you a good pose with a good background and better lighting then maybe a group shot what you have above is nice but with a bit of planning it could be great also I would get into the dressing rooms maybe a few shot of them fixing hair and makeup would be nice 

but the above photo I would try adding a blur to your edit maybe that would soften it a bit


----------



## Light Guru (Oct 5, 2012)

tirediron said:


> Do you mean at the time of shooting, or in post?



While shooting! 



pic_chick said:


> ok I would maybe ask each lady to give you a good pose with a good background and better lighting



Probably the best idea ask if you can have sometime before the show and set up a good background and decent lighting.


----------



## tirediron (Oct 5, 2012)

manaheim said:


> I'm betting that us photographers will notice the issues where most of your patrons would not... I imagine they love them. I also suspect that you're putting more than $25 worth of labor into each one of those, so you're being more than fair, IMO.


I thought so, but there's that 'cut & paste' look that bothers me slightly.



pic_chick said:


> ok I would maybe ask each lady to give you a good pose with a good background and better lighting then maybe a group shot what you have above is nice but with a bit of planning it could be great also I would get into the dressing rooms maybe a few shot of them fixing hair and makeup would be nice but the above photo I would try adding a blur to your edit maybe that would soften it a bit


How/where do you suggest adding the blur.  Unfortunately, posed shots aren't an option, and the "dressing room" in this case was behind a screen in the hallway.  My primary task is just to record the event, for the event coordinators, and there's no time or place for posed shots.


----------



## pic_chick (Oct 5, 2012)

you know having reread your post i think for the price it looks nice as to the blur in PS you can add a lens blur that looks very near the real thing on simple backdrops I would try adding it to the just background on a new layer and see if it helps the cut and paste look


----------



## pic_chick (Oct 5, 2012)

Shame about the dressing rooming the hallway


----------



## TonysTouch (Oct 5, 2012)

In your edit, you might be better off shooting a black backdrop and using PS to replace the background with that instead. The added texture in the back could help get rid of the Cut and Paste look.


----------



## TonysTouch (Oct 5, 2012)

If you shoot a backdrop that isn't flat, it should also help give it some depth.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Oct 5, 2012)

manaheim said:


> I'm betting that *us photographers will notice the issues* where *most of your patrons would not*... I imagin*e they love them.*  I also suspect that *you're putting more than $25 worth of labor into each one* of those, so you're being more than fair, IMO.



A sentence packed with facts right there.  My first thought was "looks like she's floating" in the paste, then this gentleman brought me back to reality


----------



## bratkinson (Oct 6, 2012)

I think I'd try something somewhat different.  If you could find out in advance what the theme of the night was, perhaps you (or they) could locate some free-to-use public domain photos that would suggest the theme...such as an appropriate background for this dancer.  Turkey? Iran?  Wherever.  Then Photoshop her into the background.  You could even blur the background as needed to highlight the dancer making it appear to be a shallow DOF.  The only downside that I can see is the time spent trying to locate freely downloadable 'backgrounds'.


----------



## manaheim (Oct 6, 2012)

Someone called me a gentleman.  Mark it on your calendars. 

BTW, tired... I do also think you're taking the easy way out, btw.  It's not that you couldn't put some more effort and do what pic_chick was suggesting, but... that would be more work too.


----------



## tirediron (Oct 6, 2012)

manaheim said:


> Someone called me a gentleman.  Mark it on your calendars.
> 
> BTW, tired... I do also think you're taking the easy way out, btw.  It's not that you couldn't put some more effort and do what pic_chick was suggesting, but... that would be more work too.


Yeah... I guess the question really was, "Is the product appropriate given the price & circumstances?"  I'll play around a bit with some of the suggestions and see if I can  come up with anything better that I can pump out quickly.


----------



## jake337 (Oct 6, 2012)

I thinking working on the floor might help a bit.  She seems to be levitating to me.  Not sure how to work that out so I'm no help in that regards.  Who knows she might love the fact that she looks to be levitating!


----------



## tirediron (Oct 7, 2012)

jake337 said:
			
		

> I thinking working on the floor might help a bit.  She seems to be levitating to me.  Not sure how to work that out so I'm no help in that regards.  Who knows she might love the fact that she looks to be levitating!



I agree, but she is on the floor. That's the original scene, position and flirt, just blacked out the background and added a gradient to the floor. I think it's an illusion caused by my processing and her skirts, but it really adds to the cut and paste look and I dont like it.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 7, 2012)

tirediron said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > I'm betting that us photographers will notice the issues where most of your patrons would not... I imagine they love them. I also suspect that you're putting more than $25 worth of labor into each one of those, so you're being more than fair, IMO.
> ...



It looks blurred without using Photoshop


----------



## TonysTouch (Oct 7, 2012)

I took about 5 minutes to dupe in a shot of one of my backgrounds. I also added a bit of blur to the bottom edge of the backdrop to help it "sit" on the ground.



If this was one of my photos, I would have spent more time on where the backdrop meets the ground. Also, I did no PP on the image except for adding the backdrop. I hope you enjoy.


----------



## TonysTouch (Oct 7, 2012)

I think the real deal breaker in this photo is that she is out of focus. A lot of things can be fixed in PP, but focus issues is not one of them. I personally would not pay for a photo that is out of focus.


----------



## bianni (Oct 7, 2012)

Maybe try to soften and darken the bg and try some reflections.


----------



## tirediron (Oct 12, 2012)

TonysTouch said:


> I think the real deal breaker in this photo is that she is out of focus. A lot of things can be fixed in PP, but focus issues is not one of them. I personally would not pay for a photo that is out of focus.


Fair comment, HOWEVER, not relevant to the situation.  This was a 'capture of opportunity' snapped at the end of a dance, while I was actually setting up for the next performance.  I am under no illusions as to the quality of the image, however the dancer liked it, and printed at 11x14 and viewed from 4-6' it's acceptable.


----------



## tirediron (Oct 12, 2012)

TonysTouch said:


> I took about 5 minutes to dupe in a shot of one of my backgrounds. I also added a bit of blur to the bottom edge of the backdrop to help it "sit" on the ground.
> View attachment 22177
> 
> If this was one of my photos, I would have spent more time on where the backdrop meets the ground. Also, I did no PP on the image except for adding the backdrop. I hope you enjoy.


Excellent!  Thanks - that works much better.


----------



## DiskoJoe (Oct 12, 2012)

SCraig said:


> Given the original you had to work with your edit looks far better.  It does, however, appear to have a slight magenta skin hue compared to the original to me.



Yeah, this.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Oct 12, 2012)

John, I know for the fee that you are asking and the work involved it is very fair.


----------



## tirediron (Oct 12, 2012)

imagemaker46 said:


> John, I know for the fee that you are asking and the work involved it is very fair.


Thanks!


----------



## TonysTouch (Oct 13, 2012)

In order to answer if the price was fair, ask yourself one question. Do you feel like $25 dollars was worth the amount of time you put into it?

I honestly don't calculate costs per photo. I calculate by taking the time of the entire project, then come up with my cost that way.


----------

