# Night Strobist Portraits.  2 for CC



## Geaux (Aug 7, 2011)

Had my "new to photography" Nephew in town from Dallas this week and he's been wanting me to shoot him for a new fb profile pic lol, so I did.  Any thoughts or comments would be greatly appreciated.  Both shots were with D90 + Sigma 10/20 and sb600 off camera.

1. I've gotten mixed reviews on the editing style of this shot, he seemed to love it along with other family (figures), but I've also heard from others who hate the 'vintage' editing style of today.  Personally, I think both have their plus and minuses. Strobist information: sb600 with stofen, hand held camera left slightly above the subject.  It's also a 30 second exposure with rear curtain flash.






Original w/o Vintage look





2.  Strobist info:  SB600 in 14" DIY beauty dish on boom held above/front of subject (about 2 foot above).






Still new to OCF and first time I've done a long exposure with rear curtain strobe portrait, had a blast learning though.


----------



## reznap (Aug 8, 2011)

#1: not sure why the long exposure?  If there were headlight trails from cars on a nearby street or something or even more dramatic water spouts from the fountain, it might have given the shot more impact.

#2's awesome.. square crop works here as well I think.  I like the lighting and the background.. basically everything about it.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 8, 2011)

#2 is very nice!!! Like reznap said above, everything about it is agreeable. Way to go! Such simplicity.


----------



## Geaux (Aug 8, 2011)

reznap said:


> #1: not sure why the long exposure?  If there were headlight trails from cars on a nearby street or something or even more dramatic water spouts from the fountain, it might have given the shot more impact.



The reason I chose the long exposure is because the fountain is tucked under trees with no lighting around it and I wanted to get some of the background/foreground lighted.  The one strobe wasn't enough light to light the subject and surrounding area or get the feel that I wanted in the shot.  It was either, short exposure and only have him and the rim of the fountain lit or let the shutter run to get the ambiant lighting the way I wanted.  Keep in mind, this was shot after midnight.


@Derrel, thanks man.  One thing I worried about with this image was his eyes not looking at the camera and a bit off to the side.  I was iffy on if I liked it or not (the facial expression, not the shot lol)


----------



## IgsEMT (Aug 8, 2011)

GREAT JOB!!!
30s exposure, that's something... my wedding party can't stand still for 5 seconds and you got this kid standing for 30 
I love number 3. Wide angle + square + distorted back ground = GREAT COMBO!!!


----------



## cnutco (Aug 8, 2011)

The last is great!  I need to make that dish I have been putting off...


Thanks for sharing.


----------



## e.rose (Aug 8, 2011)

I'm gonna go against the grain of everyone here, and say, I actually really like the way you edited #1.


----------



## Geaux (Aug 9, 2011)

^Thanks E.Rose   I'm leaning in the same direction, personally.  I know it's not for everyone, but I dig it.

@Cnutco: Seriously, if you get a chance to make one, do it.  Overall an easy project, imo.  I did it in about 6 hours, made custom bracket for flash etc.  I'll post a picture when I get home later.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Aug 9, 2011)

dude..  1600 posts and you still post in the beginners section?  You must be a slow learner.


----------



## Geaux (Aug 9, 2011)

I am.  I have A LOT to learn still.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Aug 9, 2011)

With all due respect to everybody in this thread, I want to understand something because I am confused by the responses you have received on these photos.  I've seen a lot of pics slammed as "snapshots" and I don't understand how these supposed "snapshots" are any worse than these photos that you put here for review.

The first 2 shots just look like a kid standing in a garden (?) and the last looks like a kid standing in a street.  I see nothing interesting about these photos.  Not good, not bad, just neutral to me.

Derrel, Schwettylens, you each have a lot of posts and seem to know what you are talking about. Can you tell me specifically what you like about these pictures?  How are these not snapshots?  What is appealing about these photos?


----------



## Robin Usagani (Aug 9, 2011)

I do like #2. The first one I didnt like it as much.

For me snap shot means: poorly planned shot. Distracting background, bad lighting, etc. and these shots are definitely not snapshots.





jwbryson1 said:


> With all due respect to everybody in this thread, I want to understand something because I am confused by the responses you have received on these photos. I've seen a lot of pics slammed as "snapshots" and I don't understand how these supposed "snapshots" are any worse than these photos that you put here for review.
> 
> The first 2 shots just look like a kid standing in a garden (?) and the last looks like a kid standing in a street. I see nothing interesting about these photos. Not good, not bad, just neutral to me.
> 
> Derrel, Schwettylens, you each have a lot of posts and seem to know what you are talking about. Can you tell me specifically what you like about these pictures? How are these not snapshots? What is appealing about these photos?


----------



## Robin Usagani (Aug 9, 2011)

actually i take that back.  I like #1 but not so much with the PP.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Aug 9, 2011)

Okay, well, to my **untrained** eye, and I have only been shooting for 3 years and consider myself fairly "new" to photography, it was my understanding that a "good" photo takes you to the subject and focuses your eye there.  In the first shot above, however, I find myself completely uninterested in the kid (who is supposed to be the subject) and instead I'm looking intently at the light through the trees trying to decide if that's the Lincoln Memorial through the trees.  In the last shot, there is nothing to look at besides the kid, but I find him uninteresting because he's not connecting with the viewer at all by looking away from the lens.

Meh, I dunno.  Not much here for me but I'm just one person with an opinion.  Take it or leave it.


----------



## Geaux (Aug 9, 2011)

I've only been doing this for a year and a half, so if you're fairly new to photography, I'm a baby at this stuff.  I respect your opinion on the shots, thanks for your input, but I'd disagree with them looking "snapshotish" though.




> I've seen a lot of pics slammed as "snapshots" and I don't understand how these supposed "snapshots" are any worse than these photos that you put here for review.


^ this is the only thing that aggravates me about your opinion...I take offense to these shots being compared to the shots being called snapshots lol.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Aug 9, 2011)

Geaux, no offense, not really.  At least none intended.  I'm hardly one to "review" photos.  Having said that, Schwettylens says a "snapshot" is a photo with a distracting background---that's how I see the first 2 shots.  The background distracts my eye and pulls it from the subject.  The last photo I just find uninteresting, but that's just my opinion.  Keep shooting and don't listen to me. I'm just a guy with a camera.  My shots that I think are decent are called snapshots on occasion and I keep trudging along.


----------



## Geaux (Aug 9, 2011)

I've noticed you got railed with the 'snapshot' thing in one of your most recent threads.  I now see why the topic was brought up 


Here's my thing with the 'snapshot' phenomena.  I don't understand how you can call something a snapshot if it's a thought out shot with off camera flashes lol.  I also don't understand how you say that the first photo is a snapshot b/c it has a cluttered background, yet call the second one a snapshot b/c it's just a kid and no background.  Sort of contradictory eh?


----------



## Derrel (Aug 9, 2011)

A snapshot is not "lighted" with a beauty dish, outside, at night, as part of a photo shoot...when one goes to a fair amount of effort like this, the resulting images are not snapshots...they are the results from a "photo shoot". Or a "test session". A snapshot is just a quick snap, made as a memory place-holder, or a simple recording of something seen. A very simple photograph, without a lot of props or a complicated set, such as the second image, is not automatically classified as a snapshot. The intent and effort the photographer put into the shot is what separates a simple, direct photograph from a snapshot.


----------



## Geaux (Aug 10, 2011)

Whoa Derrel, thanks for having my back on this.  I was racking my brain, thinking I was crazy for not thinking these were snapshots lol.


----------



## shortpants (Aug 10, 2011)

I really don't want to go off on a rant about snapshots again, but I hate how the word is thrown around like it's dirty. There are GOOD snapshots. It's a legitimate part of photography. It's about capturing a moment that happens in a split second. Henri Cartier Bresson is rolling over in his grave right now. ANYWAY! 

These are not snapshots, because they're set up. There's controlled lighting, posing, etc. 

OP I'm loving the second one, same reasons people have said. I especially like the background lights leading to him, and also I like the way he looks. Like a typical bored teenager without being awkward.


----------



## BekahAura (Aug 10, 2011)

I like the unedited version of the first one. Specifically because in the edited version the background is too dark. I like the unedited version because of the eerie look of the green forest to the left.

The second one is great. His expression isn't incredible, but the composition and lighting are very nice. =)


----------



## Geaux (Aug 11, 2011)

shortpants said:


> OP I'm loving the second one, same reasons people have said. I especially like the background lights leading to him, *and also I like the way he looks. Like a typical bored teenager without being awkward.*





BekahAura said:


> I like the unedited version of the first one. Specifically because in the edited version the background is too dark. I like the unedited version because of the eerie look of the green forest to the left.
> 
> The second one is great. *His expression isn't incredible*, but the composition and lighting are very nice. =)



This is exactly why photography is an art, everyone has their opinions.  I love it.  Thanks for your input again.

@bokeh -  I love the green'ness of the forest in my unedited version too.  Truthfully, I like both edits equally lol.


----------



## DiskoJoe (Aug 11, 2011)

only suggestion i would make is choose your locations better. that lighting is to help light the model from the front. the locations you chose make make it very obvious that you are using artificial lighting and also make the images look unnatural due to there being bright lighting coming from no where. try to shoot closer to some other lights so your flash will blend with them and not stick out so much.


----------



## Geaux (Aug 11, 2011)

Thanks for the suggestion DiskoJoe, never really thought of the idea of blending the lighting with a strobe.  I've always liked the strobist idea of making the subject stand out b/c of the lighting along with the background.  I also sort of like that strobed effect where the source of light doesn't seem to come from a natural or manmade object in the frame.  I could be the minority in that thought though haha.  

I appreciate it though, might have to try it out next time.


----------



## e.rose (Aug 11, 2011)

Geaux said:


> Thanks for the suggestion DiskoJoe, never really thought of the idea of blending the lighting with a strobe.  I've always liked the strobist idea of making the subject stand out b/c of the lighting along with the background.*  I also sort of like that strobed effect where the source of light doesn't seem to come from a natural or manmade object in the frame.  I could be the minority in that thought though haha. *
> 
> I appreciate it though, might have to try it out next time.



No, I agree with you too.    That's part of the reason why I like this image... feels kind of mystic to me.  Camoflauging the strobe certainly has it's applications... but so does what you did here, in my opinion... and I dig it.


----------

