# One from today's session, trying to learn new lens



## luvmyfamily (Feb 25, 2012)

Indoor studio photography at night, black backdrop and this one was taken at f/2.8. Not enough room inside to stand far away so she is not as sharp as she should be. I'm tired.....going to bed, yawn. Will post more from tomorrows session when I edit more. Input/C&C welcome.

Aperture (F):* 2.80*ISO speed rating:* 800
*Lens focal length, mm:* 50.0
*Flash:* Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode
*Shutter speed (APEX):* 0.0078 (1/128)
*Exposure mode:* Manual exposure
*


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Feb 25, 2012)

What do you have to say about it? What's your self critique of this image?


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 25, 2012)

Distance has nothing to do with sharpness! Knowledge Does! With knowledge, you can get sharpness at any distance, any aperture, any shutter speed, any lighting condition....

If you had dropped down to F4 or so, she would be sharp (at least her face would be.. you would need more for the feet with that pose! Did you even try to use a reflector on her face to kill those ugly shadows?

Sharpness is not as much an issue here as bad lighting!


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 25, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> What do you have to say about it? What's your self critique of this image?



My critique is that she is not sharp, but could have been.  So, CGipson is saying she could have been sharper at f/4?


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 25, 2012)

E for effort?? Night/Indoor photography???:blushing:


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Feb 25, 2012)

luvmyfamily said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > What do you have to say about it? What's your self critique of this image?
> ...



That's it?

You don't notice anything about the framing of this shot?


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 25, 2012)

luvmyfamily said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > What do you have to say about it? What's your self critique of this image?
> ...



How far away were you? how many feet?  At six feet, you had a DOF of .48 of a foot. So not quite 6"... not enough if you want all of her sharp, and with that pose, you should!


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 25, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> luvmyfamily said:
> 
> 
> > Bitter Jeweler said:
> ...



As in CROPPING TOES? Maybe VERTICAL (portrait) orientation would have been MUCH better?  lol!


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Feb 25, 2012)

Maybe.


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 25, 2012)

luvmyfamily said:


> E for effort?? Night/Indoor photography???:blushing:



FLASH! Fixes all of those problems!


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 25, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> What do you have to say about it? What's your self critique of this image?



The lighting is bad and her feet are too close...you should always allow enough room around edges.  Also, I didn't have the room indoors to stand so far away.  So yep, I am a natural light portrait "photographer." E for effort on indoor at night.


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 25, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> luvmyfamily said:
> 
> 
> > Bitter Jeweler said:
> ...



What's wrong with the framing? You don't like all that black abyss around the subject?


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 25, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > luvmyfamily said:
> ...



You beat me to it...I already said so...anyway, I will have to pick up this critique tomorrow.  I am so tired, going to bed. Night.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Feb 25, 2012)

It's very "2001", or "Major Tom".


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 25, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> luvmyfamily said:
> 
> 
> > E for effort?? Night/Indoor photography???:blushing:
> ...



I don't have a flash other than the one on my Canon, so it interferes with the studio lighting and i've had it happen where too much light is on the face.


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 25, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> It's very "2001", or "Major Tom".



Yep.. she is just floating, without an anchor! lol!


----------



## Derrel (Feb 25, 2012)

Okay...let me just say the lighting pattern here is not a good one. You could have put Cindy Crawford or Irena Shayek down there, and with that lighting, the photo would still be bad. I want to say "awful", but, with Cindy or Irena, it would not be awful...just "bad". What I mean by bad is a multi-part thing. For instance, her eyes: they are not lighted well. The new polite term is raccoon eyes. THe eyes would look so much better if they had a catchlight in them.

What you have here is a case of two, conflicting lights. The "main light" is placed horribly wrongly. It is the "main" or "key" only by virtue of its brightness, and as we can see on the camera left sleeve of her blouse, it casts a strong, deep shadow, AND even worse, it lights the camera-left ear up like a pumpkin...there's a secondary light that causes a second, weaker shadow, on the camera-left arm, below the deep shadow...that is a second light, casting a secondary shadow...the entire light set-up is not good...

This lighting simply looks horrible...it's set-up and aimed entirely wrong. A better solution would to have placed ONE LIGHT, to the right of the camera, and aimed it at her face and body. Just one, single light. That would have been fine. That way there would not have been conflicting shadows and also, her eyes would have had some catchlights in them, as well as some light in the eye socket/brow area, to alleviate that raccoon eye look. As to Bitter's question about the framing--it's a seated pose, horizontally framed, and she's outweighed by all that blackness around her. The classic pose would be her seated on her butt, her left hand resting on the floor, her knees pointed camera right, and her lower legs and feet bent around and pointed camera left. Her right hand would grasp an ankle, or be placed on a knee, or her top thigh. That is the classic way to photograph a pre-teen girl in a skirt and blouse,seated, indoors, in formal portraiture. That pose would have looked nice on an all-black backdrop, shot as a TALL...and it would have looked good tomorrow, as well as 10, then 20, then 30, then 40, then 50 years down the road.


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 25, 2012)

luvmyfamily said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > luvmyfamily said:
> ...



Off Camera is better.. but even on camera is better than continuous lighting that is not used correctly. If you were getting blown out highlights.. that means you were using flash incorrectly!


----------



## Vtec44 (Feb 26, 2012)

Lighting, composition, white balance, sharpness, and cropping.  Oh, black background looks very unnatural.


----------



## LightSpeed (Feb 26, 2012)

Distance certainly does play a role in sharpness and/or what might appear to be lack thereof.
In this case it doesn't, given the image and its data.
She wasn't far enough away.

When the atmosphere takes it's toll on the image......along with heat and a number of other factors, it really can't be blamed on a lens.
6 feet away has nothing to do with it though.


----------



## LightSpeed (Feb 26, 2012)

Vtec44 said:


> Lighting, composition, white balance, sharpness, and cropping.  Oh, black background looks very unnatural.



Yep, but it's still better than that crap you posted earlier.
No offense.


----------



## Vtec44 (Feb 26, 2012)

LightSpeed said:


> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> > Lighting, composition, white balance, sharpness, and cropping.  Oh, black background looks very unnatural.
> ...



That was taken by my 2nd shooter, using a 5Dm2 and his 70-200 VR2! lol


This picture was taken last year using the Nikon version of the 50mm f1.8D, about 5ft away at f2.2 if I remember it correctly.  Yes, flat lighting, sharp shadow on her forehead, short sleeves, and weird halo on her chest.   Lighting was simple 2-light setup (speed lights).  It's not my best work but just a quick example of how close you can get w/o having to stop down that much and still get a sharp image.  Given that she was using Canon's version of that lens, she should be able close to the sharpness.

And for Derrel, yes her necklace is centered!


----------



## WesVFX (Feb 26, 2012)

This might be stupid questions but...

Why would one shoot with an ISO of 800? Don't you typically want to shoot with as low an ISO as possible to reduce noise? (Not that noise is really a problem in this picture).

Secondly, why the large aperture? I mean, that gives you a very small DOF, which I'd think is another reason she's out of focus.

And of course the lighting has already been discussed...


----------



## Vtec44 (Feb 26, 2012)

WesVFX said:


> This might be stupid questions but...
> 
> Why would one shoot with an ISO of 800? Don't you typically want to shoot with as low an ISO as possible to reduce noise? (Not that noise is really a problem in this picture).
> 
> ...



I'd assume that she doesn't have enough light to use lower ISO, and same goes to using a large aperture.  I personally don't think the focus issue has to do with distance or aperture.


----------



## MTVision (Feb 26, 2012)

Vtec44 said:
			
		

> I'd assume that she doesn't have enough light to use lower ISO, and same goes to using a large aperture.  I personally don't think the focus issue has to do with distance or aperture.



What do you think cause her focus issue? I think it had to do with her aperture. She is not use to shooting with a shallow depth of field. Think about all the threads here about people missing focus with their primes and it is usually due to a shallow depth of field. She can definitely get a sharp image with a shallow depth of field if she practices. 

I guess how she is focusing could also play a factor but I'm sure the shallow depth of field is part of the issue.


----------



## Vtec44 (Feb 26, 2012)

MTVision said:


> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think it's more her technique and that's something she has to figure it out on her own.  I was at a much closer distance using wider aperture but didn't have focus issues at all.  Maybe Nikon equipment are just that good.  lol


----------



## MTVision (Feb 26, 2012)

Vtec44 said:
			
		

> I think it's more her technique and that's something she has to figure it out on her own.  I was at a much closer distance using wider aperture but didn't have focus issues at all.  Maybe Nikon equipment are just that good.  lol



No - it is technique but that's what I meant by practicing.  It's harder to nail focus at shallow DOF's versus a depth of field of 4ft+. It is far from impossible to get sharp focus at wide apertures but more than likely it wouldn't happen after having the lens a couple days. 

I shoot at wide apertures a lot but I did practice at it. 

Horrible old picture but it's in focus! F/2.0 and really close


----------



## LightSpeed (Feb 26, 2012)

Vtec44 said:


> MTVision said:
> 
> 
> > Vtec44 said:
> ...




Possibly due to using auto focus with a lens that is not correctly tuned in? IE backfocus issues?
Has nothing to do with equipment.
Any decent camera with a decent lens can capture a great image.
There are award winning images out there captured with Holga's.


----------



## MTVision (Feb 26, 2012)

LightSpeed said:
			
		

> Possibly due to using auto focus with a lens that is not correctly tuned in? IE backfocus issues?
> Has nothing to do with equipment.
> Any decent camera with a decent lens can capture a great image.
> There are award winning images out there captured with Holga's.



So are you saying it could be an equipment issue or not. Tired and you confused me! 

Anyways - it could be the lens is back focusing OR it could be that she just got her lens and isn't able to nail focus yet with a shallow depth of field (like a million other people with their first primes).


----------



## LightSpeed (Feb 26, 2012)

MTVision said:


> LightSpeed said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If the lens is correctly tuned for focus and focus priority is turned on, the camera won't fire unless focus is obtained.
Makes it kinda hard to miss focus. Add to this proper aperture, and missing focus becomes almost impossible , but people still do it.


----------



## Bossy (Feb 26, 2012)

Wes, she's trying to shoot with about 150 watts total of continuous light, that's why she needed 800 ISO.


----------



## Vtec44 (Feb 26, 2012)

The ratio of new photographers getting defective lenses is just amazingly high.  There must be something in the water.   Seriously, I have no clue.  I don't want to bring up the aperture issue as she's EXTREMELY sensitive about it.  I have PM's to prove it!


----------



## MTVision (Feb 26, 2012)

Vtec44 said:
			
		

> The ratio of new photographers getting defective lenses is just amazingly high.  There must be something in the water.   Seriously, I have no clue.  I don't want to bring up the aperture issue as she's EXTREMELY sensitive about it.  I have PM's to prove it!


----------



## MTVision (Feb 26, 2012)

Bossy said:
			
		

> Wes, she's trying to shoot with about 150 watts total of continuous light, that's why she needed 800 ISO.



BOSSY!!! Hi!


----------



## Bossy (Feb 26, 2012)

Hi Megan!!


----------



## LightSpeed (Feb 26, 2012)

MTVision said:


> Bossy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## LightSpeed (Feb 26, 2012)

Bossy said:


> Hi Megan!!



Oh boy,


----------



## Bossy (Feb 26, 2012)

You should try Rogaine LS. Your head is a bit shiny. And holy **** its 4am so I'm going to sleep.


----------



## LightSpeed (Feb 26, 2012)

Bossy said:


> You should try Rogaine LS. Your head is a bit shiny. And holy **** its 4am so I'm going to sleep.



Wonderful.
A hit and run.
lol


----------



## gsgary (Feb 26, 2012)

WesVFX said:


> This might be stupid questions but...
> 
> Why would one shoot with an ISO of 800? Don't you typically want to shoot with as low an ISO as possible to reduce noise? (Not that noise is really a problem in this picture).
> 
> ...




Because she has crappy continuos lighting


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 26, 2012)

I am not going to say much, or get defensive to anything anyone said, however, this was a quick edit and the highlights are blown out due to a quick edit in curves.  Also, I didn't *realize you were a Fauxtographer if you took portraits outside*??  I don't care, i'm going to do it anyway.


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 26, 2012)

MTVision said:


> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This was taken outdoors!!  This is not at you Megan but to CGipsons comment about natural light photography.  Why are you considered a fauxtographer if you choose to do portraits outdoors?


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 26, 2012)

Wow, you all saw one photo how of the 100 I took, did a tired, quick edit on the one i was having trouble with and I get PM'd on how to pose children lol.  Once again, someone please tell me why are you considered a fauxtographer as CGipson says if you choose to take portraits outdoors?? At least I've give this indoor stuff a try.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Feb 26, 2012)

So was that PM helpfull, or stuff you already mastered?


----------



## analog.universe (Feb 26, 2012)

luvmyfamily said:


> Once again, someone please tell me why are you considered a fauxtographer as CGipson says if you choose to take portraits outdoors?? At least I've give this indoor stuff a try.



Because this is the internet, and being judgemental and calling people made up words is the name of the game.  If I see people use words like "fauxtographer" and "MWAC", I assume they've run out of actual photographic conversation and just want to make a fuss...

Just worry about your technique, not some condescending made up words.


----------



## analog.universe (Feb 26, 2012)

As far as this photo, I agree the lighting is the primary concern.

So did you run any noise reduction on this shot?  Some of the softness I see seems like it could've been as a result of shooting at ISO800.  If you want critically sharp photos of living subjects indoors, you will need much brighter lights (but you knew that).  Your DOF could stand to be larger in this shot, but the in focus area is still not as sharp as I would expect, leading me to suspect the NR for being partially responsible.


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 26, 2012)

luvmyfamily said:


> MTVision said:
> 
> 
> > Vtec44 said:
> ...



A PHOTOGRAPHER can take a portrait ANYWHERE, ANYTIME, ANY LIGHT! A fauxtographer cannot! They typically use ambient light only.. calling it NATURAL LIGHT like it has some special quality or something. It is really because they don't know how to use flash properly.. most don't even know how to use a reflector to help with the ambient light.


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 26, 2012)

luvmyfamily said:


> Wow, you all saw one photo how of the 100 I took, did a tired, quick edit on the one i was having trouble with and I get PM'd on how to pose children lol.  Once again, someone please tell me why are you considered a fauxtographer as CGipson says if you choose to take portraits outdoors?? At least I've give this indoor stuff a try.



I NEVER used the term fauxtographer.. until after YOU did!  

As faas as the distance thing goes... this lens has a closest focusing distance of about 1.5 ft. So it is capable of being sharp at that distance... to infinity.

I doubt very much the lens is bad. 

yes.. cheap contious lighting sucks big time.


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 26, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> luvmyfamily said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, you all saw one photo how of the 100 I took, did a tired, quick edit on the one i was having trouble with and I get PM'd on how to pose children lol. Once again, someone please tell me why are you considered a fauxtographer as CGipson says if you choose to take portraits outdoors?? At least I've give this indoor stuff a try.
> ...



Only reason I said that is because I saw it on that website you are nota photographer, and figured that is what you were talking about because you have said it more than once about natural light....

and now you all have me worried the lens might be defective...


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 26, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> So was that PM helpfull, or stuff you already mastered?



I have a slew of photos of children I would dare post on here.  So yep....I have mastered how to pose children.  I only post the photo's I have the most trouble with, like this one.  That link wasn't anything I didn't already know. I can't imagine why I wouldn't post my favorite work....in fear of being discouraged maybe?


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 26, 2012)

Vtec44 said:


> LightSpeed said:
> 
> 
> > Vtec44 said:
> ...



This is a nicely done studio photo but did she have something wrong with her eye....it's red.  Also, if she did, why didn't you fix it?


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 26, 2012)

LightSpeed said:


> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> > Lighting, composition, white balance, sharpness, and cropping. Oh, black background looks very unnatural.
> ...



Which crap did I post earlier?


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 26, 2012)

luvmyfamily said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > luvmyfamily said:
> ...



THE LENS IS NOT DEFECTIVE! THE choice of aperture was!   (and the choice of lighting was not optimal, and neither was the background!)


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 26, 2012)

luvmyfamily said:


> *I can't imagine why I wouldn't post my favorite wor*k....in fear of being discouraged maybe?



Maybe you like "your favorite work"  because you are invested in it... and don't want to post it because we might actually point out mistakes and errors that you don't want to hear? That is very common with new photographers that say they want to learn, but really think they already know what they are doing. 


They call those mistakes and errors "STYLE" or "Artistic whatever"!


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 26, 2012)

luvmyfamily said:


> LightSpeed said:
> 
> 
> > Vtec44 said:
> ...



Lightspeed was giving VTEC44 a hard time.. not you!


----------



## Mot (Feb 26, 2012)

I don't understand. I've read the whole thread and you've got all the help you could need. You've said it yourself, the photo is terrible, so why are you getting all defensive when someone is trying to help you improve it?

Instead of responding to the feedback you defend things that, as far as I can see, are totally irrelevant. If you're a master at posing children then why post a badly posed one and then complain when someone tries to help you with it? Why complain about people using natural light when you are using artificial continuous light? Why blame lack of sharpness on your distance from the subject? I just don't understand.

 Don't post images that don't reflect the quality of the rest of your work if you've already mastered the issues you are looking to correct. I suggest you read your signature. Maybe your photo is a fish climbing a tree? I just wonder whether this fish can swim.

What's worse is you start on the offensive when someone posts what looks like slightly defective image in your eyes. What would you do if they started posting in a manner similar to yours? It would probably go like "I have hundreds of photos without red in the eye, I just didn't want to get bad comments about my favourite images". In reality I think she has some natural colour imbalance in her eye.

I would love to get as much attention as you on this forum. Maybe I should post worse pictures.

Whoops. Did I rant? Ignore me. I don't know anything.


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 26, 2012)

Mot said:


> I don't understand. I've read the whole thread and you've got all the help you could need. You've said it yourself, the photo is terrible, so why are you getting all defensive when someone is trying to help you improve it?
> 
> Instead of responding to the feedback you defend things that, as far as I can see, are totally irrelevant. If you're a master at posing children then why post a badly posed one and then complain when someone tries to help you with it? Why complain about people using natural light when you are using artificial continuous light. Why blame lack or sharpness on your distance from the subject? I just don't understand.
> 
> I would love to get as much attention as you on this forum.



I wasn't getting defensive.  Can you rephrase where I was getting defensive?  You would love to get as much attention on here?  Huh?


----------



## IByte (Feb 26, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:
			
		

> It's very "2001", or "Major Tom".



Whooo hooo David Bowie!!!  It was needed.


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 26, 2012)

Here is one I took a while back of my son with flash. * This is the original, UNEDITED.*  I have a lot to learn about studio work as well as a lot of other things, but I am trying every single day and very very very determined!  The flash makes his face look pale and I know his skin tone because he is my kiddo.  So either way i am screwed and I am not made of money to invest in all the equipment I need.  I was lucky to get my lens.  I do appreciate all the advice. This is the issue I have with flash.


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 26, 2012)

IByte said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hey, if you mention Bowie, you have to also mention Arthur C. Clarke...


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 26, 2012)

luvmyfamily said:


> Here is one I took a while back of my son with flash. * This is the original, UNEDITED.*  I have a lot to learn about studio work as well as a lot of other things, but I am trying every single day and very very very determined!  The flash makes his face look pale and I know his skin tone because he is my kiddo.  So either way i am screwed and I am not made of money to invest in all the equipment I need.  I was lucky to get my lens.  I do appreciate all the advice. This is the issue I have with flash.



That is because it is overexposed! Common with the pop-up flash (any camera.. but especially on Canon's.. when shot in TTL) Try using your exposure compensation.. and or EVEN BETTER.. MANUAL FLASH! Based on distance! Much more accurate!  (and Lose the Black Background until you know how to deal with it! The Metering system in your camera sees all that BLACK and overexposes the shot trying to light it also. SPOT METER is your friend with that BLACK background!)


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 26, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> luvmyfamily said:
> 
> 
> > Here is one I took a while back of my son with flash. *This is the original, UNEDITED.* I have a lot to learn about studio work as well as a lot of other things, but I am trying every single day and very very very determined! The flash makes his face look pale and I know his skin tone because he is my kiddo. So either way i am screwed and I am not made of money to invest in all the equipment I need. I was lucky to get my lens. I do appreciate all the advice. This is the issue I have with flash.
> ...



This is why I keep coming back, I love the advice such as this.  Oh, I have a white backdrop as well....but I really do not like studio work. I like outdoors not just because of "natural light," but because there are more interesting locations than a boring backdrop....no matter what color it is. Preference....


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 26, 2012)

> I would love to get as much attention as you on this forum. Maybe I should post worse pictures.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 26, 2012)




----------



## IByte (Feb 26, 2012)

cgipson1 said:
			
		

> Hey, if you mention Bowie, you have to also mention Arthur C. Clarke...



Lol most of these youngens are not ready for him yet.


----------



## mishele (Feb 26, 2012)

You will learn the most from photos that you put the most effort into...just sayin


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 26, 2012)

luvmyfamily said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > luvmyfamily said:
> ...



Using AMBIENT light is wonderful..... go for it! But do it right! I  would estimate that on the average day.. the AMBIENT light is perfect  for photography maybe for an hour or two! So that gives you a couple of hours window every day to shoot in!    (better know how to work  that WB though.. as the hours are typically just after sunrise and  before sunset)!

If you add some reflectors.. that might increase the window an hour or two! If you learn how to use them!

Shooting  in the shade is a good idea on really sunny days.. but that can also  kill color and WB and even clarity. Again reflectors (got an assistant  handy?)...or if you get good at using fill flash.. the colors will pop  better, there will be more clarity.. and you won't need an assistant..  just a light stand or two. Notice I said FILL FLASH.. we are just adding  to the AMBIENT light.. not overpowering it. (and yes.. reflectors and  fill flash work well together!) (Oh.. I forgot to mention.. FLASH will stop movement.. so if you need SHARP photos.. of moving kids, dogs, etc.. FLASH!)

Guess what? You have just increased your shooting time to anytime there is any sunlight at all !  WOW.. no longer limited to just a few hours! And since you can apply  what you learned about flash.. to shooting at night or in a dark  house... you can now shoot ANYTIME!  No limitations!  

Which sounds better to you?


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 26, 2012)

mishele said:


> You will learn the most from photos that you put the most effort into...just sayin



Thanks, but I like to post the one's I have the most trouble with.


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 26, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> luvmyfamily said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...



So I should youtube some tutorials on properly using reflectors, or "assistants" as you call them


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 26, 2012)

MTVision said:


> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> > The ratio of new photographers getting defective lenses is just amazingly high. There must be something in the water.  Seriously, I have no clue. I don't want to bring up the aperture issue as she's EXTREMELY sensitive about it. I have PM's to prove it!



I don't remember sending you a PM.....


----------



## mishele (Feb 26, 2012)

luvmyfamily said:


> mishele said:
> 
> 
> > You will learn the most from photos that you put the most effort into...just sayin
> ...


If you don't understand why this work is bad, how do you know the other work is good?


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 26, 2012)

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...orum/274292-our-wedding-bands-c-c-please.html

This is why I don't like to post any of my photos I personally like to the person commented on this.  Is this photo my best work, no, could I have done better, yes, but I have yet to see a photo on here, even good ones get an A   So, I post the one's I have the most trouble with, and the feedback helps me to improve my better one's.


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 26, 2012)

luvmyfamily said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > luvmyfamily said:
> ...



hahaha.. you will need an "Assistant" to hold and aim the "Reflector"!  lol!


----------



## gsgary (Feb 26, 2012)

luvmyfamily said:


> Here is one I took a while back of my son with flash. * This is the original, UNEDITED.*  I have a lot to learn about studio work as well as a lot of other things, but I am trying every single day and very very very determined!  The flash makes his face look pale and I know his skin tone because he is my kiddo.  So either way i am screwed and I am not made of money to invest in all the equipment I need.  I was lucky to get my lens.  I do appreciate all the advice. This is the issue I have with flash.




If you can't afford studio lighting why are you trying to shoot it ? this shot is in desperate need of a light from behind to give seperation, when shooting black on black it is needed, here's one of my dog shots to give you an idea only 2 lights






And how the lights were set up


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 26, 2012)

mishele said:


> luvmyfamily said:
> 
> 
> > mishele said:
> ...


 See above....I just posted a link to a photo I posted a while back that I personally like.


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 26, 2012)

You talk about not "liking" studio work... that you prefer the "outdoors"! 

You do realize that 'LIGHT" works the same way in both places, right? you don't need to master studio or outdoors shooting! You need to master using the "LIGHT" to achieve what you want.. no matter where or when!


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 26, 2012)

luvmyfamily said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > luvmyfamily said:
> ...



I noticed that you avoided the word "FLASH" in your reply.... even though my intent was to point out the added ability FLASH gives you! lol!


----------



## pgriz (Feb 26, 2012)

Your photos do have issues with lighting. But when you don't have the money to spend of flashes, you have to improvise. One technique that works uses a north-facing large window as the primary light source, with an appropriate backdrop and a reflector that fills in the side of the face opposite the window. While working next to the window is not always ideal, it gets around the issue of having enough light, and the size of the window usually works well to create a rather soft enveloping light. To set the exposure, use either a spot meter on a "typical" subject, or a grey card. Once you have your exposure settings, set the exposure manually (if the light doesn't change, neither will your exposure). At this point, it's also a good idea to shoot a picture of the grey card at the exposure settings you will be using. Later, you can use the grey card to adjust the white balance point.

The other issue is the shallow DOF and your focus placement. Figure out how much DOF you need, then use the DOF utility (such as here: Online Depth of Field Calculator), to determine what aperture and what distance. Put some inanimate, 3-dimensional object that approximates the size of your subject, put your camera on a tripod, and practice getting the focus so that the entire object (or the portion you care about) is within the desired DOF. I suggest, shoot, upload to computer, check it carefully, then go back (camera on tripod in same position) and make your adjustments. Do this until you can get your focus pretty much each time.

Then, put the two together.

Once these basic technical issues are taken care of, you can switch your attention to the pose and framing of the image.

Here's an example of a picture by the window.  Taken a few years back, when I just started doing portraiture and there was a lot that I didn't know...


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 26, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> You talk about not "liking" studio work... that you prefer the "outdoors"!
> 
> You do realize that 'LIGHT" works the same way in both places, right? you don't need to master studio or outdoors shooting! You need to master using the "LIGHT" to achieve what you want.. no matter where or when!



Yeah, now I am not that dumb.  I just have better luck outdoors than in a dark basement at night.  Oops, sorry I left out the word flash.  As far as getting defensive like Mot said, I am not and I appreciate all the help.  I don't think you all would be saying these things if you didn't see a slight bit of potential in me.  Also, once again, the reason I post work that i have the most trouble with is it helps me with the work I have done well with.  This got overlooked, but this is why I do not like to post work I have done that I personally like.  Is this my best, no, but I did like it.  http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...orum/274292-our-wedding-bands-c-c-please.html


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 26, 2012)

pgriz said:


> Your photos do have issues with lighting. But when you don't have the money to spend of flashes, you have to improvise. One technique that works uses a north-facing large window as the primary light source, with an appropriate backdrop and a reflector that fills in the side of the face opposite the window. While working next to the window is not always ideal, it gets around the issue of having enough light, and the size of the window usually works well to create a rather soft enveloping light. To set the exposure, use either a spot meter on a "typical" subject, or a grey card. Once you have your exposure settings, set the exposure manually (if the light doesn't change, neither will your exposure). At this point, it's also a good idea to shoot a picture of the grey card at the exposure settings you will be using. Later, you can use the grey card to adjust the white balance point.
> 
> The other issue is the shallow DOF and your focus placement. Figure out how much DOF you need, then use the DOF utility (such as here: Online Depth of Field Calculator), to determine what aperture and what distance. Put some inanimate, 3-dimensional object that approximates the size of your subject, put your camera on a tripod, and practice getting the focus so that the entire object (or the portion you care about) is within the desired DOF. I suggest, shoot, upload to computer, check it carefully, then go back (camera on tripod in same position) and make your adjustments. Do this until you can get your focus pretty much each time.
> 
> ...



Thank you.  One thing though, it was pitch black outside, so a window wouldn't have helped in this case.  I'm logging how to practice and read more about DOF.  Megan suggested practicing with a perfume bottle.


----------



## blackrose89 (Feb 26, 2012)

pgriz said:


> Your photos do have issues with lighting. But when you don't have the money to spend of flashes, you have to improvise. One technique that works uses a north-facing large window as the primary light source, with an appropriate backdrop and a reflector that fills in the side of the face opposite the window. While working next to the window is not always ideal, it gets around the issue of having enough light, and the size of the window usually works well to create a rather soft enveloping light. To set the exposure, use either a spot meter on a "typical" subject, or a grey card. Once you have your exposure settings, set the exposure manually (if the light doesn't change, neither will your exposure). At this point, it's also a good idea to shoot a picture of the grey card at the exposure settings you will be using. Later, you can use the grey card to adjust the white balance point.The other issue is the shallow DOF and your focus placement. Figure out how much DOF you need, then use the DOF utility (such as here: Online Depth of Field Calculator), to determine what aperture and what distance. Put some inanimate, 3-dimensional object that approximates the size of your subject, put your camera on a tripod, and practice getting the focus so that the entire object (or the portion you care about) is within the desired DOF. I suggest, shoot, upload to computer, check it carefully, then go back (camera on tripod in same position) and make your adjustments. Do this until you can get your focus pretty much each time.Then, put the two together.Once these basic technical issues are taken care of, you can switch your attention to the pose and framing of the image.


External flashes work best obviously, but there are plenty of tutorials on YouTube for homemade pop up camera flash diffusers. That mixed with manually setting your pop up flash compensation, you will be utilize your flash  to some degree for now until you decide if/when you want to invest in something off camera. That's what I'm working with now.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 26, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> You talk about not "liking" studio work... that you prefer the "outdoors"!
> 
> You do realize that 'LIGHT" works the same way in both places, right? you don't need to master studio or outdoors shooting! You need to master using the "LIGHT" to achieve what you want.. no matter where or when!



Well, you know, the idea that "LIGHT" works the same way in both places is, uh, really NOT 100 percent accurate...like in the shot of her son, on the black background, wearing the fedora-type hat...his FACE is "hot" with flash or studio incandescent light, but his FEET are seriously under-exposed, in relation to the FACE. Now, outdoors, the light would NOT DO THAT SAME THING!!!! That's right, outdoors, with the kid laying down on the grass in a park or field on a bright, cloudy day, the amount of light on his FACE and his FEET would be IDENTICAL. And I mean the light would be IDENTICAL in its intensity. SO, right there, we can see that LIGHT does NOT, I repeat, does NOT, behave "the same way" outdoors as it does indoors.

I've seen the same allegation from other posters, that light is light and that outdoor light is the same as indoor light, and that light behaves the "same way". Uh...in terms of photography, that is simply not an accurate statement. At normal, indoor distances, light from artificial sources, like lamps, and flash units, falls off extremely rapidly in its intensity when the light is placed CLOSE TO a subject and the subject moves away from the flash or other artificial light source. Outdoors in open areas, with the sun as the light source, natural light has basically almost NO FALL-OFF in its intensity!!!!! The exposure for a man standing 10 feet from the camera is the same as the exposure for his face 4 feet from the camera. And the exposure that is correct for the man standing 40 feet from the camera is the SAME EXPOSURE as it is when he is 4 feet from the camera.

With a flash or lamp, the exposure settings required at 4,10,and 40 feet are are all, each, INCREDIBLY DIFFERENT!!!!!!! There is a HUGE variance in the intensity of the light produced by many artificial sources, like studio flash, on-camera flash, and off-camera speedlight flash, or off-camera electrical lighting, s the distance from the light source changes. Part of the reason natural light and artificial light have been separated and differentiated between for over 100 years by experienced,sensible,sane photographers is that natural, outdoor lighting, and indoor-distance artificial lighting often behave very,very,very *differently*.

The portrait of the boy on the black background, with the BRIGHT, well-exposed face and the DARK, dark feet up in the air...gsgary mentioned that the shot desperately needed a second light, to provide separation from the background...well, it would also provide more light on his legs and body....light that WOULD HAVE BEEN THERE, if the shot had been made outdoors, in an open field. So, again...a shot that would have looked perfectly EVENLY LIGHTED if it had been lighted by the sun, looks very bright up close, and very DIM, just 30-36 inches behind the boy's face. So,again, in a practical sense, a photograhic exposure sense, natural light does not behave the same way as indoor, studio lighting does...

In natural lighting situations, lighted by the sun, or the sky, the light tends to be of almost the same,exact,identical,equal INTENSITY, across distances of thousands and thousands of feet. Why? Because the source of the light is so,so far away that the inverse square law is basically non-existant for all practical intents. When the light comes from an artificial source, at indoor distances, such as in a portrait studio situation, the amount of light fall-off can vary TREMENDOUSLY from 36 inches to 50 inches. That does NOT OCCUR when shooting outdoors, in natural lighting conditions in parks, or on laws, etc. This difference is one of the reasons new shooters have such difficulty transitioning from a single, HUGE, exceptionally distant light source (either the sky, or the sun itself) to very CLOSE light sources.


----------



## Overread (Feb 26, 2012)

blackrose89 said:


> External flashes work best obviously, but there are plenty of tutorials on YouTube for homemade pop up camera flash diffusers. That mixed with manually setting your pop up flash compensation, you will be utilize your flash  to some degree for now until you decide if/when you want to invest in something off camera. That's what I'm working with now.



There are a few things to consider though, even with using a diffuser on the popup flash:

1) Direction of the lighting. Generally most portraits are not trying to light the subject fully, but instead are trying to mimic sunlight upon the subject, whilst keeping softer shadows (not harsh ones). This means lighting has to be weighted to one side of the photo, rather than the full in the face shot from the camera. This is why directional lighting (as suggested the window) is popular because it gives that direction to the lighting, which helps mimic that natural light we are used to seeing and also helps cast  a contrast difference over the face - giving definition to features and helps with textures.

2) Even with a diffuser the popup flash light source is still pretty small, this limits it greatly since small light sources cast a harsher shadowing effect on the subject. Consider how much bigger a window, softbox or bounced light is onto a subject in comparison to the size of a popup flash with a diffuser (even a small reflector manages to be at least twice or more times the size). 


I'm not saying popup never has a place, nor that directional lighting from on-camera isn't a valid method, but one has to round such advice against the wider picture. If the photographer wants to go for that professional look they've got to move that main, primary, lighting away from the same plane of angle as the camera is facing (this also helps greatly with avoiding red-eye and other problems).


----------



## blackrose89 (Feb 26, 2012)

Overread said:


> blackrose89 said:
> 
> 
> > External flashes work best obviously, but there are plenty of tutorials on YouTube for homemade pop up camera flash diffusers. That mixed with manually setting your pop up flash compensation, you will be utilize your flash  to some degree for now until you decide if/when you want to invest in something off camera. That's what I'm working with now.
> ...


 Oh yeah I know it's not ideal. Just some advice when you're desperate lol.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 26, 2012)

pgriz said:


> Your photos do have issues with lighting. But when you don't have the money to spend of flashes, you have to improvise. One technique that works uses a north-facing large window as the primary light source, with an appropriate backdrop and a reflector that fills in the side of the face opposite the window. While working next to the window is not always ideal, it gets around the issue of having enough light, and the size of the window usually works well to create a rather soft enveloping light. To set the exposure, use either a spot meter on a "typical" subject, or a grey card. Once you have your exposure settings, set the exposure manually (if the light doesn't change, neither will your exposure). At this point, it's also a good idea to shoot a picture of the grey card at the exposure settings you will be using. Later, you can use the grey card to adjust the white balance point.
> 
> The other issue is the shallow DOF and your focus placement. Figure out how much DOF you need, then use the DOF utility (such as here: Online Depth of Field Calculator), to determine what aperture and what distance. Put some inanimate, 3-dimensional object that approximates the size of your subject, put your camera on a tripod, and practice getting the focus so that the entire object (or the portion you care about) is within the desired DOF. I suggest, shoot, upload to computer, check it carefully, then go back (camera on tripod in same position) and make your adjustments. Do this until you can get your focus pretty much each time.
> 
> ...



This photo demonstrates the Inverse Square Law almost perfectly!!! This is shot indoors. The light source is not "that big", really. SHe is positioned indoors, fairly close to the source of the light. How do I know she's fairly close to the source of the light??? Well, look at how fast the light drops in its intensity,across the width of her face--a distance of around six inches I guess.

ON the window side, the skin on her face and cheek is BRIGHT, almost blown-out and yellow...her hair looks well-lighted on the "light side". But, around four inches farther from the light source, the intensity of the light has dropped tremendously...her skin on the cheekbone on the right hand side of the frame looks nice. But look at the BLACK shadow on her neck, and the total loss of all color in hr hair on the right hand side.

Her chin is totally blown-out and over-exposed. But one inch to the right, it's got good skin tone. But some four inches to the right, where her ear is....totally black...

Why is this lighting of such high contrast? well, the first reason is that the subject is so,so CLOSE TO the source of the light...had she been positioned farther away from the window, more in the center of the room, the lighting would have been dimmer, yes, but also more "even" in its intensity across the width of her face. The second reason is that the light source is "small", in relation to the size of the subject. But the main reason the light has such a high degree of contrast is the subject's distance from the source of the light, and to a lesser degree, the size of the light source in relation to her.

As one can see, in this type of photo, with the light source being very close to the model, the Inverse Square Law affects the light to a very easily-seen degree. One side of the face the exposure used creates blown-out and almost detail-less skin in the highlight areas, and the other side of the face is seen as being in near total darkness. That is what is called "*steep fall-off*". That degree of fall-off would NOT occur outdoors with the sky as the source; there would be some fall-off, but not anywhere near as much as when using a window as the source. That same degree of fall-off would not have occurred if she had been placed farther from the window, and the exposure adjusted to compensate for the light lost by the increased distance away from the source of the light.


----------



## pgriz (Feb 26, 2012)

Yep, that's one of the things I've been learning - to take into account the light fall-off.  The eye doesn't see that fall-off very well due to the eye's dynamic range, but the camera does.


----------



## kundalini (Feb 26, 2012)

Derrel said:


> ....
> 
> I've seen the same allegation from other posters, that light is light and that outdoor light is the same as indoor light, and that light behaves the "same way". Uh...in terms of photography, that is simply not an accurate statement. At normal, indoor distances, light from artificial sources, like lamps, and flash units, falls off extremely rapidly in its intensity when the light is placed CLOSE TO a subject and the subject moves away from the flash or other artificial light source. Outdoors in open areas, with the sun as the light source, natural light has basically almost NO FALL-OFF in its intensity!!!!! The exposure for a man standing 10 feet from the camera is the same as the exposure for his face 4 feet from the camera. And the exposure that is correct for the man standing 40 feet from the camera is the SAME EXPOSURE as it is when he is 4 feet from the camera.
> 
> .....



Practical demonstration of the Inverse Square Law.


----------



## LightSpeed (Feb 26, 2012)

Wonderful, I came back to see if Bossy returned to the scene of the incident after the hit and run and what do I find?
Gipson all over the place.


----------



## Vtec44 (Feb 26, 2012)

luvmyfamily said:
			
		

> This is a nicely done studio photo but did she have something wrong with her eye....it's red.  Also, if she did, why didn't you fix it?



Lol thats her birth mark and no she doesn't want to fix it.  That picture was taken using off camera flashes.  You should see the picture I did with my iPhone and a led flash light.


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 26, 2012)

Derrel said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > You talk about not "liking" studio work... that you prefer the "outdoors"!
> ...



I agree with Derryl here about natural light.  It's true, had he been outdoors laying in the grass, wouldn't have had that.  These are* poor UNEDITED EXAMPLES*, but just showing the difference in my pringles can experiment.  *I believe all of the exposure of all of these could be easily edited.*  However, I DO agree with CGipson that a true photographer knows how to shoot in all types of lighting.  I am struggling with indoor night studio.  The photos posted of the pringles can are just for EXPERIMENT since we are on the subject of LIGHTING.

#1 taken in the same studio I took last night but with natural light coming through the window.  I believe this image could be easily edited to fix the exposure.





#2 taken by a window in my bedroom.  Parts of the can are darker than others.





#3 Direct sunlight!  Sun literally shining on the can, but there are no dark areas of the can.





#4 In the shade, but still natural light.  Still, no dark areas of the can.  






*
 

 

 

 

 




*


----------



## gsgary (Feb 26, 2012)

luvmyfamily said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...




Not sure what you are getting at with these, 1+2 exposure should be a lot better, you should not rely on PP to fix exposure  1+2 will be full of noise if fixed


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 26, 2012)

gsgary said:


> luvmyfamily said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...



You didn't read what Derryl said about had the photo been taken outdoors his face and feet wouldn't be of different exposures.


----------



## gsgary (Feb 26, 2012)

luvmyfamily said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > luvmyfamily said:
> ...




Who Mr Pringle


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 26, 2012)

:taped sh:


----------



## Rosy (Feb 26, 2012)

MTVision said:


> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



megan

how far were you?  this picture is stunning


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 26, 2012)




----------



## gsgary (Feb 26, 2012)

Just found one that was shot with continuos lighting 
just 1 light but it was an Arri


----------



## MTVision (Feb 26, 2012)

luvmyfamily said:


>



Just because it can be done doesn't mean it should! 

You should try to get it right in camera.  Fixing underexposure will introduce noise and noise removal softens the image. Not saying you can't fix underexposure but...its more productive to get it right in camera.


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 26, 2012)

blackrose89 said:


> plenty of tutorials on *YouTube*



*YOUTUBE! Why college educations, long apprenticeships, and practice is no longer needed!   *


----------



## MTVision (Feb 26, 2012)

Rosy said:


> MTVision said:
> 
> 
> > Vtec44 said:
> ...



Thanks! I don't know the exact distance but I was fairly close. Probably 5ft or less is my guess.


----------



## Rosy (Feb 26, 2012)

MTVision said:


> Rosy said:
> 
> 
> > MTVision said:
> ...



dont have my DOF calc at hand but @ 2.8 your DOF would be quite shallow.  What focal length

Sorry for all the questions- i'm just trying to take ALL this DOF in - and you hit me with this

Again - practice is everything


----------



## Rosy (Feb 26, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> blackrose89 said:
> 
> 
> > plenty of tutorials on *YouTube*
> ...



You are TOOO funny.  Brutal honestyt mixed with 80% sarcasm


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 26, 2012)

Rosy said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > blackrose89 said:
> ...



Thank you (I think!)    So is that a good thing?


----------



## MTVision (Feb 26, 2012)

Rosy said:


> MTVision said:
> 
> 
> > Rosy said:
> ...



With a 50mm lens at 2.0 standing about 5 feet away there would be a DOF of roughly 2.88 inches.


----------



## Rosy (Feb 26, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> Rosy said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...



yep ALWAYS good.  you know your stuff so i respect what you say - smack and ALL.  Unforetunately 'some' on TPF have lots to say but their images do not defend their words


----------



## pgriz (Feb 26, 2012)

gsgary said:


> Just found one that was shot with continuos lighting
> just 1 light but it was an Arri
> 
> <snip>



So how do you get ONE light to show up on both sides?  A mirror on the other, or something else?


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 26, 2012)

Rosy said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Rosy said:
> ...



:hug::  !!!!!


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 26, 2012)

pgriz said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Just found one that was shot with continuos lighting
> ...



Some awesome lights....!

ARRI Group: Lighting Americas

Here is a nice 2000 watt soft light... 

Amazon.com: Arri Arrisoft Tungsten Soft Light, 2000 Watt, 120 Volt AC.: Camera & Photo


----------



## gsgary (Feb 26, 2012)

pgriz said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Just found one that was shot with continuos lighting
> ...



6 foot poly board


----------



## LightSpeed (Feb 26, 2012)

gsgary said:


> Just found one that was shot with continuos lighting
> just 1 light but it was an Arri



The reason hats were invented.


----------



## gsgary (Feb 26, 2012)

LightSpeed said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Just found one that was shot with continuos lighting
> ...




Thats funny he took his Trilby off for the shot, he's a great photography teacher


----------



## Vtec44 (Feb 26, 2012)

Well I'm just glad the OP didn't charge for that photoshoot.


----------



## dhjallboyz (Feb 26, 2012)

LightSpeed said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Just found one that was shot with continuos lighting
> ...


LOL!!!


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 26, 2012)

Vtec44 said:


> Well I'm just glad the OP didn't charge for that photoshoot.



Thanks


----------



## rexbobcat (Feb 27, 2012)

Yeah, I think that some studying of portrait lighting would help. Her eyes are dark sockets. It also seems like there are two different light sources? Tungsten from overhead and fluorescent from both sides. There is an orange tint on parts of her body.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 27, 2012)

OP, those blacked out  eyes...how could you do her like that


----------



## luvmyfamily (Feb 27, 2012)

2WheelPhoto said:


> OP, those blacked out eyes...how could you do her like that



I blackened them for not behaving during the session HA!


----------

