# WHO SAID I NEVER POST PICTURES????



## bace (Dec 19, 2006)

:mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:

Some of these pics aren't perfect but this is the gallery I made for all those involved...

http://www.bacemedia.com/myspace/shoot.html

I know they're not numbered but I didn't wanna do a whole page on here with numbers cause i'm mad lazy.

Any C+C welcome!!!

Luv U!!!


----------



## Nurd (Dec 20, 2006)

Actually I like them ALOT. I love the way you use the natural light (I'm assuming natural because your outside) and just your lighting all together. Can you tell me what gallery viewer your using because I can't seem to find one. Or..well if its free that is.


----------



## Unimaxium (Dec 20, 2006)

Whoa. You take pictures? Since when! 
Nice shots... I like 5 and 17 especially.


----------



## Big Mike (Dec 20, 2006)

I'd look at them....but I'm lazy too.


----------



## bace (Dec 20, 2006)

Big Mike said:
			
		

> I'd look at them....but I'm lazy too.


Damnit...foiled again!!!!

*see avatar and title*


----------



## terri (Dec 20, 2006)

You done good! 

One suggestion: if you don't have a portrait lens for your camera, get one. It will help with shots like the ones where your model is leaning back with her legs crossed. You clearly see the distortion of the legs in the foreground (looking oversized) using a normal lens here. (or whatever you used)

But it doesn't matter on the others. I like your use of natural light, too. Overall, a really nice job. :thumbup:


----------



## bace (Dec 20, 2006)

terri said:
			
		

> You done good!
> 
> One suggestion: if you don't have a portrait lens for your camera, get one. It will help with shots like the ones where your model is leaning back with her legs crossed. You clearly see the distortion of the legs in the foreground (looking oversized) using a normal lens here. (or whatever you used)
> 
> :thumbup: But it doesn't matter on the others. I like your use of natural light, too. Overall, a really nice job.



Portrait lens?

I used my 17-55mm for that shoot. I have a 50mm, but I don't like how I have to stand so far away to get the full body shots that I want.

Is there something else I should use?


----------



## Arch (Dec 20, 2006)

i think you did good.... she's pretty... and you did well capturing her... but has base managed to _capture_ her?  

oh and the ones of the guy are good too... he makes a good model :thumbup:


----------



## terri (Dec 20, 2006)

bace said:
			
		

> Portrait lens?
> 
> I used my 17-55mm for that shoot. I have a 50mm, but I don't like how I have to stand so far away to get the full body shots that I want.
> 
> *Is there something else I should use?*


Maybe!  You have a DSLR, right? There should be an array of lenses available for it, or at best an non-name brand that will fit it. Find the one that calls itself the portrait lens. I don't do digicams, but here's the 35mm cam equivalent for my Pentax MZ-S: 50mm = *normal* lens, 85mm = portrait lens, 135mm = moderate telephoto, etc. Anything under 50mm starts to be wide angle, above 85 or 90, telephoto. (Generalized, but you get the drift.) 

Point being, there is a better or best focal length for whatever job you want to do. In the instance of your model with her legs in the foreground, the focal length in relation to her head in the image may be correct, but it left her legs looking disproportionately large in the way they were captured and laid out in the image. I'm not sure that bungled explanation is making sense, I don't explain this stuff overly well. You used a zoom lens so you may not really know what mm you shot this at, but a smallish telephoto prime lens eliminates this kind of distortion. 

Bottom line: if you want to shoot portraits, you may get more uniform results by using that kind of lens - not a zoom lens, and not a 50mm - to guard against this kind of thing.


----------



## bace (Dec 20, 2006)

Archangel said:
			
		

> i think you did good.... she's pretty... and you did well capturing her... but has base managed to _capture_ her?
> 
> :thumbup: oh and the ones of the guy are good too... he makes a good model



We're going out for beers sometime soon.

And the guy WAS actually a model. It was hard to get a lot of really good shots of him though. With a girl it's EASY to see good shots because when I see something hot I snap it. When it's with a dude it's a bit harder, but as long as the guy is attractive, it's something I can probably get. But for him it was weird because I didn't think he was even remotely attractive as a dude.

I couldn't really direct him to do things that were "sexy"...cause like...I don't know what sexy looks like for a man that looks like a girl?


----------



## bace (Dec 20, 2006)

terri said:
			
		

> Maybe!  You have a DSLR, right? There should be an array of lenses available for it, or at best an non-name brand that will fit it. Find the one that calls itself the portrait lens. I don't do digicams, but here's the 35mm cam equivalent for my Pentax MZ-S: 50mm = *normal* lens, 85mm = portrait lens, 135mm = moderate telephoto, etc. Anything under 50mm starts to be wide angle, above 85 or 90, telephoto. (Generalized, but you get the drift.)
> 
> Point being, there is a better or best focal length for whatever job you want to do. In the instance of your model with her legs in the foreground, the focal length in relation to her head in the image may be correct, but it left her legs looking disproportionately large in the way they were captured and laid out in the image. I'm not sure that bungled explanation is making sense, I don't explain this stuff overly well. You used a zoom lens so you may not really know what mm you shot this at, but a smallish telephoto prime lens eliminates this kind of distortion.
> 
> Bottom line: if you want to shoot portraits, you may get more uniform results by using that kind of lens - not a zoom lens, and not a 50mm - to guard against this kind of thing.



85mm would mean i'd have to be pretty far away from the subject though right?

I just got really used to using that 17mm-55mm because when it's zoomed out I can get right up close and sometimes direct them to do certain things. Like head this way, that way.

I mean, it makes sense that the lens be specific to portraits, I just didn't know there was such a thing.

Thanks terri.
Luv u.


----------



## bace (Dec 20, 2006)

Also I like a little distortion. If I had a fisheye i'd be using it all the time.

That picture with the leg certainly isn't a favourite and I wouldn't even be showing it if it wasn't for the fact that both the girl and the make up artist liked it.

So weird how they like crappy pictures.


----------



## terri (Dec 20, 2006)

bace said:
			
		

> *85mm would mean i'd have to be pretty far away from the subject though right?*
> 
> I just got really used to using that 17mm-55mm because when it's zoomed out I can get right up close and sometimes direct them to do certain things. Like head this way, that way.
> 
> ...


Yes it would, but darling you must realize where you stand physically and _how close they appear in the viewfinder_ are two different things....and it is the latter that makes the difference in the quality of the shot. So...you know....get over it. :mrgreen: 

There are lenses that are broadly considered *specific* to portraiture, as there are lenses specific to macro. You wouldn't swap one for the other. Of course rules are made to be broken and it's all relative to what makes people happy (and you said you think they like the *crappier* shots). So that part will always remain subjective. 

Just keep in mind that zoom lenses are meant to be an aid when stopping to change primes isn't always practical, ie: street photography. Which is sort of what you do. But if you are going to walk around with people with the aim of capturing their portraits, you're better off with a telephoto. Don't let a zoom lens make you lazy.


----------



## bace (Dec 20, 2006)

terri said:
			
		

> make you lazy.




haha...me? lazy?

NEVAARR


----------



## terri (Dec 20, 2006)

bace said:
			
		

> haha...me? lazy?
> 
> NEVAARR


Well....I was going say "....make you even lazier than you already are"....but it seemed kinda harsh. :sillysmi:


----------



## bace (Dec 20, 2006)

:sillysmi:





			
				terri said:
			
		

> Well....I was going say "....make you even lazier than you already are"....but it seemed kinda harsh.



That was harsh.

jerk.


----------



## Big Mike (Dec 20, 2006)

I finally got around to having a look...and I'm rather impressed.  Nice work man.

I agree with Terri about the focal length...the distortion can be cool....but it's not flattering to a model, in a lot of scenarios.

One thing I noticed, that I didn't like...was that for several of the shots...you seemed to be lower than the model's face...and were shooting up at her.  The result is that we can see right up her nostril.  After I noticed that...it really stands out on all the shots.  She has a rather high nostril and tends to keep her chin pretty high...so you would need to get higher up yourself.


----------



## bace (Dec 20, 2006)

Big Mike said:
			
		

> I finally got around to having a look...and I'm rather impressed.  Nice work man.
> 
> I agree with Terri about the focal length...the distortion can be cool....but it's not flattering to a model, in a lot of scenarios.
> 
> One thing I noticed, that I didn't like...was that for several of the shots...you seemed to be lower than the model's face...and were shooting up at her.  The result is that we can see right up her nostril.  After I noticed that...it really stands out on all the shots.  She has a rather high nostril and tends to keep her chin pretty high...so you would need to get higher up yourself.



Yeah, believe me I didn't like any of those pics. unfortunately the make up artist and the girl loved them. I put them up so they could see them.

I only REALLY liked 2 or three of the shots myself. None of them were the ones pointed out.

she did keep tilting her head up all the time. I think she said something about a double chin fear in pictures.

stupid really.


----------



## terri (Dec 20, 2006)

bace said:
			
		

> :sillysmi:
> 
> That was harsh.
> 
> jerk.


----------



## ClarkKent (Dec 20, 2006)

Well done!


----------



## oldnavy170 (Dec 20, 2006)

I thought I was looking at Magazine shots!!!  Nice job Bace!!!!!


----------



## Xmetal (Dec 20, 2006)

Nice work, Mr Bace. 

If I remember correctly you're using a 300D? Next time you're in the camera shop have a look at the EF-S 10-22mm wide-angle, might be the answer to your problems because last time I had a play with one I couldn't see any barrel distortion at 10mm.  Alternatively Sigma make a 10-20mm of the same nature but i'm not sure about the BD situation.


----------



## GoM (Dec 20, 2006)

Quality shooting there...for some reason, #9's my fav. Right out of an ad for a cell phone or mp3 player or something.


----------



## oCyrus55 (Dec 20, 2006)

I like these shots! You have inspired me to take some portraits over my break.  I can see that you used natural light for most of them, but for the ones you didn't, what kind of lighting did you use?


----------



## bace (Dec 20, 2006)

oCyrus55 said:
			
		

> I like these shots! You have inspired me to take some portraits over my break.  I can see that you used natural light for most of them, but for the ones you didn't, what kind of lighting did you use?



i had a 550 ex with a brand new of camera shoe cord 2 and a difuser.

I also had a florescent true daylight bulb in a cheapo light thingy.

I'm pretty ghetto with my stuff. I don't have the money to go big.

and yeah, i'm gonna go shopping for a lens after the holidays.

soon to come will be some belly shots of a prego ex of mine. thankfully, it's not mine!!!


----------



## bace (Dec 20, 2006)

thanks for all the compliments too!!!


----------



## darin3200 (Dec 20, 2006)

Good looking photos, especially the outside ones, the ghetto flash setup seemed to work well. A lenses you might want to consider would be the canon 35mm f/2 which is about 56mm on a digital. Personally that's my favorite because you are close to the subject but there really isn't much distortion. Or a more expensive option is a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 which is 48mm on a digi.


----------



## russrom (Dec 21, 2006)

dude... post more... more often!


----------



## markc (Dec 22, 2006)

I think you did a good job overall. I personally consider 50mm-85mm to be the portrait range on that camera. Everyone likes different things, but that's what matches the traditional look. Part of what you might want to ask yourself is, do you want how far away you have to stand from the subject to dictate how the image will look? A wide angle will do more than just barrel distortion. It will exaggerate distances and give people "balloon head". That can be cool for fun pics, but I find it less appealing for more fashion or beauty orientated shots.


----------



## Digital_Duck (Dec 27, 2006)

one suggestion for those captivating eye's .... 

if shooting the right side of the face - try to get the look (direction of the eye's focus) a bit closer to the upper right edge of the lens or even a little higher than than ... 

... IMHO it will give a bit more mystery to the eye's ...

other than that ... nice ....


----------



## jemmy (Dec 28, 2006)

Bumma!!  I read the comments 1st seeing as I was too lazy to click on the link... but my sLoW computer took too long...  will try again once i get broadband, hopefully in the next 2 weeks!!  They sound awesome...


----------

