# Family photos I took 2 years ago vs recently



## Robin_Usagani (Nov 28, 2012)

I think I see slight improvement.  What do you think?

September 2010:

































Here are photos I took of them in October 2012
Usagani Photography - Denver Wedding Photographer, CO | Greenwood Village Family Photographer - Mastera Family


----------



## NorthbyNorthwest (Nov 29, 2012)

You improved significantly, though the parents seem to have aged slightly adversely...  Really great work on the new stuff.


----------



## John27 (Nov 29, 2012)

Wow!  What an impressive improvement!

Was there any change in equipment?  There's a lot of aberration and some funky looking bokeh in the first set, wonder if you started shooting with some better glass or you just improved your technique that much?

I started shooting at the same time you took those first pics, September 2010, man you've come a lot farther than I have!  Kudos!


----------



## janineh (Nov 29, 2012)

Well done! You've improved a lot!


----------



## MelB (Nov 29, 2012)

Wow! Can I ask what you did to get so awesome??


----------



## TATTRAT (Nov 29, 2012)

NorthbyNorthwest said:


> ...though the parents seem to have aged slightly adversely...



A testament to having kids? lol

OP, great improvement, but why not just link the pics here, like you did with the "pre" set?


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Nov 29, 2012)

TATTRAT said:


> NorthbyNorthwest said:
> 
> 
> > ...though the parents seem to have aged slightly adversely...
> ...



my blog doesnt allow right clicking. I have to go through my zenfolio and find the links if i want to direct link.  The older ones are not on the blog for good reasons lol.  I started blogging just slightly over a year ago.


----------



## kathyt (Nov 29, 2012)

Your bokeh is so dreamy! Very nice. Are you using primes?


----------



## ManualMode (Nov 29, 2012)

Wow.. super nice job on the recent pics!


----------



## paigew (Nov 29, 2012)

Very nice! What lens do you use?


----------



## jowensphoto (Nov 29, 2012)

I'm willing to bet these were mostly done with primes, if I recall correctly OP is pretty much a prime lens kinda guy.


----------



## rexbobcat (Nov 29, 2012)

jowensphoto said:


> I'm willing to bet these were mostly done with primes, if I recall correctly OP is pretty much a prime lens kinda guy.



I think the Canon 135mm f/2 is often used.


----------



## kathyt (Nov 29, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> jowensphoto said:
> 
> 
> > I'm willing to bet these were mostly done with primes, if I recall correctly OP is pretty much a prime lens kinda guy.
> ...



Of coarse! That is my favorite lens as well.


----------



## 12sndsgood (Nov 29, 2012)

You can definatly see a huge amount of improvement man. I really enjoyed that new set. some great shots in there.


----------



## ManualMode (Nov 29, 2012)

It's threads like this that give people gear lust.. stop it.. i've spent enough already!! LOL


----------



## kathyt (Nov 29, 2012)

ManualMode said:


> It's threads like this that give people gear lust.. stop it.. i've spent enough already!! LOL



Yeah, don't EVER rent the Canon 135L, or it is a done deal.


----------



## amolitor (Nov 29, 2012)

The newer ones look a little better, and a lot more "styled" than the previous ones. You've developed some clear ideas of what your work should look like, and that's a good thing.

The older ones look less professional, but mainly because there is no clear and consistent "look" to them, I think.


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Nov 29, 2012)

Trust me folks, the gear has a little thing to do with it.  I just have more clear understanding with how to use the sun and the background to my advantage plus sometimes adding off camera flash to the mix.  All of this conversation makes me really itch wanting to try shooting my kids with a rebel and 55-200 or 55-300 lens.  I dont think it matters that much.  I will try to borrow a rebel and kit lens very soon and do this experiment.


----------



## paigew (Nov 29, 2012)

Robin_Usagani said:


> Trust me folks, the gear has a little thing  to do with it.  I just have more clear understanding with how to use  the sun and the background to my advantage plus sometimes adding off  camera flash to the mix.  All of this conversation makes me really itch  wanting to try shooting my kids with a rebel and 55-200 or 55-300 lens.   I dont think it matters that much.  I will try to borrow a rebel and  kit lens very soon and do this experiment.



Idk, I disagree. Of course gear matters or you would be shooting with your rebel and 50 1.8! I agree though much of it is learning to use your locations.

ETA: Obviously the difference between these two shoots is experience and knowledge, not arguing that. But I do think gear matters once you get to a certain level of skill.


----------



## John27 (Nov 29, 2012)

paigew said:


> Robin_Usagani said:
> 
> 
> > Trust me folks, the gear has a little thing  to do with it.  I just have more clear understanding with how to use  the sun and the background to my advantage plus sometimes adding off  camera flash to the mix.  All of this conversation makes me really itch  wanting to try shooting my kids with a rebel and 55-200 or 55-300 lens.   I dont think it matters that much.  I will try to borrow a rebel and  kit lens very soon and do this experiment.
> ...



It certainly has to be a mix of both.  The first shots have tons of CA, and as I said WEIRD bokeh, and really washed out alien faces.  The pleasing bokeh in the second pictures comes from a better lens.  The CA disappears as well.  The better skin tone comes from the photographer though!


----------



## paigew (Nov 29, 2012)

John27 said:


> It certainly has to be a mix of both.  The first shots have tons of CA, and as I said WEIRD bokeh, and really washed out alien faces.  The pleasing bokeh in the second pictures comes from a better lens.  The CA disappears as well.  The better skin tone comes from the photographer though!



yes use of light, pp skills, etc. There is no denying experience plays a huge (if not the hugest) role. But to say gear doesn't matter doesn't make sense...if that was true everyone would shoot with entry level gear.


----------



## Xavieous (Nov 29, 2012)

I find that what is most striking is the use of lighting-Come to think of it, you could probably age a photographers career by how they use light.

Well done on the second set, I enjoyed the picks and they gave me an idea or two.....


----------



## Vtec44 (Nov 29, 2012)

paigew said:


> But to say gear doesn't matter doesn't make sense...if that was true everyone would shoot with entry level gear.



Well that depends on what type of photography you do.  If you're family portraits, or something similar, where you have the time to setup and manipulate the lighting then gear may not be a big role.  If you're doing wildlife or professional sports, then it's a whole different ball game.


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Nov 29, 2012)

paigew said:


> Robin_Usagani said:
> 
> 
> > Trust me folks, the gear has a little thing  to do with it.  I just have more clear understanding with how to use  the sun and the background to my advantage plus sometimes adding off  camera flash to the mix.  All of this conversation makes me really itch  wanting to try shooting my kids with a rebel and 55-200 or 55-300 lens.   I dont think it matters that much.  I will try to borrow a rebel and  kit lens very soon and do this experiment.
> ...



Well, if I was shooting ISO1600 .. sure. .thats why I upgraded to a full frame and buy fast lenses so I can shoot in low light condition such as weddings.  All I was saying is, when I was shooting with a rebel and 50 1.4 or kit lens, I did not use them to it's full potential.  Not even close!  I wish I can find the thread here but someone was shooting a high fashion studio shots with a rebel and kit lens + studio light, the results are amazing.


Here is the thing, most people that shoot with entry level DSLRs usually are beginners.  Sadly, the bad photos are usually associated with the equipment also instead of putting 100% blame on the shooter.  I am going to borrow someone's rebel and long zoom lens and try to shoot it like any other professional session I have done.  I will show you the results.


----------



## paigew (Nov 29, 2012)

Vtec44 said:


> paigew said:
> 
> 
> > But to say gear doesn't matter doesn't make sense...if that was true everyone would shoot with entry level gear.
> ...



hmmm  yeah still not buying that. I primarily shoot families/kids. When I upgraded from the 50 1.8 to the 50 1.4  I noticed a huge difference in image quality (sharpness/bokeh). I suspect when I upgrade from my rebel to the 5d mk111 I will notice another huge change.I guess it depends on how close you look at your photos.


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Nov 29, 2012)

Vtec44 said:


> paigew said:
> 
> 
> > But to say gear doesn't matter doesn't make sense...if that was true everyone would shoot with entry level gear.
> ...



Exactly!  Took everything out of my brain.


----------



## ronlane (Nov 29, 2012)

Love the location of the second set. At first I thought it was really dark but after looking again, they are awesome.


----------



## paigew (Nov 29, 2012)

Robin_Usagani said:


> Here is the thing, most people that shoot with entry level DSLRs usually are beginners.  Sadly, the bad photos are usually associated with the equipment also instead of putting 100% blame on the shooter.  I am going to borrow someone's rebel and long zoom lens and try to shoot it like any other professional session I have done.  I will show you the results.




Trust me I know it isn't gear _only_. I still shoot with a rebel and I think I get pretty darn nice results.


----------



## Vtec44 (Nov 29, 2012)

paigew said:


> hmmm  yeah still not buying that. I primarily shoot families/kids. When I upgraded from the 50 1.8 to the 50 1.4  I noticed a huge difference in image quality (sharpness/bokeh).



Pix or that didn't happen!


----------



## dhris (Nov 29, 2012)

Color balance is all over the place and the direct ambient wasn't really controlled that well for many shots of the old set (I think I even see a DOF issue in the shot with the kids on the shoulders). Huge improvement.


----------



## paigew (Nov 29, 2012)

Vtec44 said:


> paigew said:
> 
> 
> > hmmm  yeah still not buying that. I primarily shoot families/kids. When I upgraded from the 50 1.8 to the 50 1.4  I noticed a huge difference in image quality (sharpness/bokeh).
> ...



You don't need pics. Just do a thread search for '50 1.8 vs 50 1.4' .


----------



## Vtec44 (Nov 29, 2012)

"Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms."


----------



## kathyt (Nov 29, 2012)

Robin_Usagani said:


> Trust me folks, the gear has a little thing to do with it.  I just have more clear understanding with how to use the sun and the background to my advantage plus sometimes adding off camera flash to the mix.  All of this conversation makes me really itch wanting to try shooting my kids with a rebel and 55-200 or 55-300 lens.  I dont think it matters that much.  I will try to borrow a rebel and kit lens very soon and do this experiment.



I will disagree to an extent as well. Okay Robin, here is your challenge. I would like to see that same quality of an image and that same creamy, yummy bokeh with your Rebel and either the 55-200 or the 55-300 lens. I am not saying that skill is not a HUGE factor, but quality primes are very noticeable. Are you game?


----------



## paigew (Nov 29, 2012)

kathythorson said:


> I will disagree to an extent as well. Okay Robin, here is your challenge. I would like to see that same quality of an image and that same creamy, yummy bokeh with your Rebel and either the 55-200 or the 55-300 lens. I am not saying that skill is not a HUGE factor, but quality primes are very noticeable. Are you game?



You know what would really be good is a shot using a rebel + kit lens. Then the same shot using a ff camera + 'nice' lens (with same focal length). I think that would win my argument


----------



## paigew (Nov 29, 2012)

Vtec44 said:


> "Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms."



really? hmmm....

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/search.php?searchid=1904282


----------



## kathyt (Nov 29, 2012)

paigew said:


> kathythorson said:
> 
> 
> > I will disagree to an extent as well. Okay Robin, here is your challenge. I would like to see that same quality of an image and that same creamy, yummy bokeh with your Rebel and either the 55-200 or the 55-300 lens. I am not saying that skill is not a HUGE factor, but quality primes are very noticeable. Are you game?
> ...



Yep. Let's see if he is up for it. Okay Robin, get er' done!


----------



## Vtec44 (Nov 29, 2012)

kathythorson said:


> I will disagree to an extent as well. Okay Robin, here is your challenge. I would like to see that same quality of an image and that same creamy, yummy bokeh with your Rebel and either the 55-200 or the 55-300 lens. I am not saying that skill is not a HUGE factor, but quality primes are very noticeable. Are you game?



He may not be able to do wide angle bokeh, but at the end of the 200mm or 300mm and strategically placed background, it will be very difficult to tell.  However, you're talking about better bokeh which is different than better pictures.  Quality bokeh doesn't automatically make your pictures better.


----------



## paigew (Nov 29, 2012)

Vtec44 said:


> He may not be able to do wide angle bokeh, but at the end of the 200mm or 300mm and strategically placed background, it will be very difficult to tell.  However, you're talking about better bokeh which is different than better pictures.  Quality bokeh doesn't automatically make your pictures better.




We never said we were talking specifically about bokeh. That is a big factor, but nice lenses are also a lot sharper...and at lower fstops at that. I have a 55-250mm 'kit' lens and yes it gets more bokeh than my 50 1.4. But that isn't the whole argument here.


----------



## Vtec44 (Nov 29, 2012)

paigew said:


> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> > "Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms."
> ...




yes really...


----------



## paigew (Nov 29, 2012)

vtec44, Sorry I did add 'mm' after 50....I didn't realize you didn't know how to use the search feature. 

btw sorry Robin for your thread being hijacked


----------



## kathyt (Nov 29, 2012)

Vtec44 said:


> kathythorson said:
> 
> 
> > I will disagree to an extent as well. Okay Robin, here is your challenge. I would like to see that same quality of an image and that same creamy, yummy bokeh with your Rebel and either the 55-200 or the 55-300 lens. I am not saying that skill is not a HUGE factor, but quality primes are very noticeable. Are you game?
> ...



In my original comment to Robin, I could tell he was using a quality prime lens by the bokeh in his images. It looked like the 85, 100, or the 135 just from the bokeh. That's why I asked him what he was using. I was just curious. I understand quality bokeh doesn't make your images better, but I just happen to adore properly done bokeh.


----------



## Vtec44 (Nov 29, 2012)

paigew said:


> We never said we were talking specifically about bokeh. That is a big factor, but nice lenses are also a lot sharper...and at lower fstops at that. I have a 55-250mm 'kit' lens and yes it gets more bokeh than my 50 1.4. But that isn't the whole argument here.



That was the answer to kathythorson's challenge. lol  I print on large canvases, over 40x40" at times.  Noise, sharpness, bokeh are all relative to what you do.


----------



## paigew (Nov 29, 2012)

Vtec44 said:


> paigew said:
> 
> 
> > We never said we were talking specifically about bokeh. That is a big factor, but nice lenses are also a lot sharper...and at lower fstops at that. I have a 55-250mm 'kit' lens and yes it gets more bokeh than my 50 1.4. But that isn't the whole argument here.
> ...




I'm sorry that is just b.s. if that is what you believe then why do you have nice gear?


----------



## Vtec44 (Nov 29, 2012)

paigew said:


> vtec44, Sorry I did add 'mm' after 50....I didn't realize you didn't know how to use the search feature.



I did a cut and paste using the terms you wanted me to search for.  Even clicking the URL you provided came up with the same error.


----------



## Vtec44 (Nov 29, 2012)

paigew said:


> I'm sorry that is just b.s. if that is what you believe then why do you have nice gear?



I shoot objects moving at at over 100mph.  I shoot in the rain.  I shoot in the dirt.  I shoot in dark rooms.  I shoot in below freezing temperature.  I capture once in a life time moments that require instant focus.  I also use my iPhone to take pictures of my kids.


----------



## paigew (Nov 29, 2012)

Vtec44 said:


> I shoot objects moving at at over 100mph.  I shoot in the rain.  I shoot in the dirt.  I shoot in dark rooms.  I shoot in below freezing temperature.  I capture once in a life time moments that require instant focus.  I also use my iPhone to take pictures of my kids.



well I guess we can agree to disagree then


----------



## ManualMode (Dec 7, 2012)

paigew said:


> vtec44, Sorry I did add 'mm' after 50....I didn't realize you didn't know how to use the search feature.
> 
> btw sorry Robin for your thread being hijacked



Wow.. harsh.


----------



## ManualMode (Dec 7, 2012)

Wwwwait.. is someone arguing that a kit lens is equal in quality to a good prime? 
Bwahahahaha! Ohh.. ok.. sure it is. 

Remember that a kit lens is designed in such a way to keep a camera within a very finite price point. 
When most of that price point is based on the quality/features of the body the golden triangle of the lens would be:

Price Low vs. Quality vs. Versatility


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Dec 7, 2012)

ManualMode said:


> Wwwwait.. is someone arguing that a kit lens is equal in quality to a good prime?
> Bwahahahaha! Ohh.. ok.. sure it is.




Where do you see that?  If you know what you are doing and understand the limitation and under the right condition a kit lens can produce amazing results.  Most people that use kit lens don't use it at its full potential.  Nobody ever argued that the kit lens is equal in quality.


----------



## ManualMode (Dec 7, 2012)

Robin_Usagani said:


> ManualMode said:
> 
> 
> > Wwwwait.. is someone arguing that a kit lens is equal in quality to a good prime?
> ...



Of course it can produce amazing results.. but you get what you pay for.  Many non-kit lenses exceed the cost of camera + kit lens; there's a reason why. 
I've never found a Kit Lens as sharp as primes - ever.


----------



## Vtec44 (Dec 8, 2012)

Talk is cheap post more photos.    I don't think my 70-200 f2.8 VR2 is as sharp as my 105 f2.8 VR2 and  it costs more than double.  lol


----------



## Tee (Dec 8, 2012)

paigew said:


> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> > "Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms."
> ...



This linky no workee.  Try again.  That's what Vtec was trying to tell you.


----------

