# Bad Portrait Session



## brian_f2.8

I had a bad portrait session tonight. I did photos for two girls hockey teams. We were suppose to shoot in the locker room. Just my luck 8 lights were out. I know don't shoot or reschedule. I had secondary lighting(consistent lighting). I use that. I would have thought that f5.6 / 1/60th / ISO 500 would have been fine. The images looked good on the camera but when I got home they were blurry and the color was off. I am cleaning them in Aperture now and then moving to PS for final edits. Im really not happy. I would love to share a drop box folder with you so leave your email. Ill only share with the first 2 or 3 people that leave their email. There are 27 photos in the folder.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan

What focal length were you shooting at, mostly? 1/60 isn't all that fast in some situations both to freeze movement and for hand-shake.


----------



## dhris

Do you shoot in RAW ? If not, do you custom color balance or use a grey/white card in the scene for adjusting color in post ? Did you not zoom in on the first shot of the session to reassure yourself that all was well ?

If you were shooting a team, focal length shouldn't have been a contributing factor to the blur (via camera shake) given you were probably shooting wide. Or were there close up individual shots taken at a longer focal length. >100mm at 1/60 and you would probably be in trouble.


----------



## brian_f2.8

Rotanimod - I shot at 50mm on a D7000(equivalent to 75 on a fx body). I wanted a full body shot but then I decided to crop. Some girls were fine others were not. I could not get to 1/125th at f5.6. The room was way too dark. My video lights(very warm) clashed with the two strobes. So All I could do is just put the video lights on the side and shoot away. I did go up to 1/80th and it was a little cleaner. 

I dont shoot raw(I use CS4 and a D7000 do not play nice with raw files). I zoomed in and it looked fine to me. What settings do you use for portraits?


----------



## brian_f2.8

I didn't want to go any higher on ISO(500) to increase the shutter. Could have used a tripod with a wireless trigger. They look ok in thumbnail view but Im not happy, how would you edit these?


----------



## brian_f2.8

Here is the team


----------



## JAC526

Just as a suggestion for next time:

Use flash.  Then you don't have to worry about how many lights are out.  You bring your own!

Also check out da grip....it really does work

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDsx3-FWfwk

EDIT:  It will not let me embed the youtube video...sorry.


----------



## brian_f2.8

Are they bad or am I beating my self up too much.


----------



## Robin_Usagani

If you have strobes, why use vid light?  If you shoot with jpeg, why didnt you use custom WB?  Nothing makes sense to me.


----------



## brian_f2.8

well to be honest, i had the strobes but they were too powerful. i adjusted them to 1/4 power, i guess i could have kept going. all in all we were in a rush because this was before a practice and ice time is limited. i got there at 5:15 to set up and do all this work. no one showed up till 6:15 to let me in and start setting up.


----------



## runnah

Sorry but you are boned on this one. Can fix the color but the blur is a deal breaker.

Are you auto focusing? Why f/5.6?

The hail mary I would do is try to use the in focus faces from the group shot and put them into the portraits.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler

brian_f2.8 said:


> I dont shoot raw(I use CS4 and a D7000 do not play nice with raw files).


Adobe has a fancy pants DNG converter, that will convert your raw files to DNG, which is adobe's "raw" digital negative format. 

Oh, and it's FREE!


----------



## Robin_Usagani

1/60 with strobes would have been fine.  1/60 with continuous lighting... not so much... especially if you dont use a tripod.


----------



## fjrabon

They're bad, yes. 

I always zoom in to 100% for EVERY SHOT I TAKE when doing events like this. Yeah, it slows you down, yeah it's a hassle, but you just have to. 

The color can mostly be fixed I'd guess. But no type of sharpening is going to fix the blurriness. 

To be honest I would have just used the 'overstrong' strobes, went to base ISO and whatever f/stop I needed.  Overpowering the ambient isn't a huge deal. Blurry photos from using 1/60 and constant light is a big deal. 

Try to schedule a reshoot if possible. I know that sucks, but its better than the alternative of turning these pictures in as a deliverable product. 

Try to have the right equipment if you reshoot and zoom in on every single portrait before you let the player walk away.


----------



## brian_f2.8

I think I am just going to re-do them. What f stop would you use? I used f5.6 because it was a good setting. These are just two of the images, I would like to share a folder with someone and get some feedback.


----------



## fjrabon

Oh, and since you asked, what settings do I use for portraits. Settings aren't as important as setup. For a session like this you want light that will consistently work. I usually just got with the tried and true method of two lights, into reflective umbrellas, about 5 feet in front of the player and centered about 4 feet apart. The lights can be speed lights, battery packed lights or full studio strobes. You should be able to make any of those work. 

Next, do you have a big background or not?  Here you had them in front of a wall I front of a hanging jersey (which is kind if ugly, but that's a whole different matter). You don't need to blur the background in this case, which makes your life MUCH EASIER. Shoot at f/8 and base ISO and then see what that forces your light power to be and then make finer adjustments with ISO and aperture from there. 

The harder case is going to be if you're doing indoors, but with a background too. Then you have to do the balancing ambient and flash, both exposure and temperature wise. Which requires gels and dragging your shutter.  And you'll need to figure what f/stop and focal length to get the background blur you want.


----------



## brian_f2.8

I agree, Im going to propose a re-shoot if parents do not like the portrait shots. I would not be happy but Im picky. Any good recommendations for a flash diffuser? Portraits are not my thing, Im more of a natural light n sports shooter. I was asked to do this so I figured why.


----------



## fjrabon

brian_f2.8 said:
			
		

> I think I am just going to re-do them. What f stop would you use? I used f5.6 because it was a good setting. These are just two of the images, I would like to share a folder with someone and get some feedback.



For portraits where blurring the background isn't important, you want f/8-11


----------



## fjrabon

brian_f2.8 said:
			
		

> I agree, Im going to propose a re-shoot if parents do not like the portrait shots. I would not be happy but Im picky. Any good recommendations for a flash diffuser? Portraits are not my thing, Im more of a natural light n sports shooter. I was asked to do this so I figured why.



I like reflective umbrellas for portraits of athletes in a setting like this.


----------



## runnah

I'd put them on the ice. Shoot 2.8 and lower to get a nice blurred BG of the arena. You could get away with a single hot shoe flash.

Honestly I would frame them just so you can see the team logo on the jersey and nothing more. 
(I don't like the pose, but you can see what I am talking about)
http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/v422lcd2VQ1/2007+NHL+Headshots/VOlWqV47ObH/A.J.+Thelen

Also I would have them not wear pads, just a jersey. You have teenage girls with linebacker shoulders and it's not very flattering.


----------



## fjrabon

runnah said:
			
		

> I'd put them on the ice. Shoot 2.8 and lower to get a nice blurred BG of the arena. You could get away with a single hot shoe flash.
> 
> Honestly I would frame them just so you can see the team logo on the jersey and nothing more.
> (I don't like the pose, but you can see what I am talking about)
> http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/v422lcd2VQ1/2007+NHL+Headshots/VOlWqV47ObH/A.J.+Thelen
> 
> Also I would have them not wear pads, just a jersey. You have teenage girls with linebacker shoulders and it's not very flattering.



From what it sounds like though, his lights are either continuous or high powered strobes that can only fire 1/4 power. Shooting a mixed ambient and flash portrait at f/2.8 is going to require strobes that can go very low power wise. F/2.8, even at base ISO, will be completely blown out with high powered strobes at 1/4 power. 

Though I suppose its possible OP has more gear than this. OP, what is your current, full gear situation?  Lighting wise. 

I love the mixed ambient and strobe look for these sorts of photos, but you have to have a lot of control over your lights and you have to be CAREFUL because its super easy to miss focus at f/2.8. ESPECIALLY of you're shooting in a darkly lit arena without modeling lights to help the camera find focus.

You'll also need gels if you do the ambient lit background with flashed subjects look, because its bear certain that the arena lights will be warmer than your flash, meaning you'd get yellow ice or blue hockey players.


----------



## tirediron

OP:  I am sorry, but you did not have bad luck, you undertook a commission for which you did not have the skill and/or resources to discharge properly.  The "problems" here are very basic ones which could have been overcome with two speedlights.  A reshoot is definitely in order, no ifs ands, or buts!


----------



## runnah

fjrabon said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd put them on the ice. Shoot 2.8 and lower to get a nice blurred BG of the arena. You could get away with a single hot shoe flash.
> 
> Honestly I would frame them just so you can see the team logo on the jersey and nothing more.
> (I don't like the pose, but you can see what I am talking about)
> http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/v422lcd2VQ1/2007+NHL+Headshots/VOlWqV47ObH/A.J.+Thelen
> 
> Also I would have them not wear pads, just a jersey. You have teenage girls with linebacker shoulders and it's not very flattering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From what it sounds like though, his lights are either continuous or high powered strobes that can only fire 1/4 power. Shooting a mixed ambient and flash portrait at f/2.8 is going to require strobes that can go very low power wise. F/2.8, even at base ISO, will be completely blown out with high powered strobes at 1/4 power.
> 
> Though I suppose its possible OP has more gear than this. OP, what is your current, full gear situation?  Lighting wise.
> 
> I love the mixed ambient and strobe look for these sorts of photos, but you have to have a lot of control over your lights and you have to be CAREFUL because its super easy to miss focus at f/2.8. ESPECIALLY of you're shooting in a darkly lit arena without modeling lights to help the camera find focus.
> 
> You'll also need gels if you do the ambient lit background with flashed subjects look, because its bear certain that the arena lights will be warmer than your flash, meaning you'd get yellow ice or blue hockey players.
Click to expand...


Honestly I would turn off the ice light (bright ass halogens) and leave the seating lights on. You'd have very low ambient lighting and could really have dramatic lighting with a single flash and maybe a single light source for fill.

http://blog.zjbphotography.com/2009/10/brebeuf-jesuit-hockey-portraits-2009.html

Good example of what I am talking about.

Even better because the photographer posted his flash setup.

http://rickdenham.com/blog/brock-womens-hockey-portraits/


Again not sure if the OP has the gear for these.


----------



## Designer

brian_f2.8; Not commenting on the lighting, but the poses are to kill for.  You, that is.  

Who chose the poses and background?  Does not work.

When you are able to reschedule:

1. Send reminders to everybody.
2. Make no assumptions regarding existing lighting.
3. Find a better background.
4. Have the players pose standing, not sitting.
5. Watch for shadows on people's faces.


----------



## Xavieous

Runnah, that is an awesome link!  I enjoyed that, thank you.  I always love when people post exactly how they do something.  Never fail to learn something new.


----------



## brian_f2.8

Well I love being attacked and educated at the same time. 

My gear is 
Nikon D7000, 50mm , sb-900 and a vivitar 383. The continous lights were quartz smith vector lights. They are very bright and warm. I turned down the power on the strobes because everything was blown out. 

I admit this is not my style of work so I was lost and also on a time crunch. I could have done on ice. Looking at the posing is fine for me. Don't argue because Im happy with it, its what I wanted.

I agree that the blur can't be fixed and this will require a re-shoot.


----------



## fjrabon

one more thing, DO NOT SHOW THESE PHOTOS TO THE PARENTS.  I think you said something about 'reschedule if they don't like them'.  No, just no.  Reschedule, no matter what it takes, unless you just don't care about ever being hired professionally again, reschedule.  If you send these to parents, you will be receiving threatening emails and calls from parents.  Those parents will tell every person they've ever known that you are highly unprofessional, unreliable, and they may make up rumors about you being convicted of minor felonies.  

Looking at my phone this morning, they looked bad.  Pulling them up on my calibrated laptop full res screen.  Eeeek.  They're awful.  Wish I could be nicer about it, but yeah, this is what awful looks like when it comes to paid team portraits.  Most parents could take better shots with a popup flash on a beginner dSLR with a kit lens on full program mode.  In fact I can near guarantee that you'd have been better off with a popup flash in full green auto than what came out here.

The poses are terrible, the background is terrible, the lighting is terrible, the shadows are terrible, the sharpness is terrible, the color is terrible, I can't even tell if they're out of focus, because they're too blurred from camera shake.  

Even if the other photos are twice as good as these, they're still not something that a client SHOULD EVER see.  

I know all that sounded really harsh, but you've been making comments like 'maybe these aren't really that bad, and I'm just really picky.'  I can tell you that if one of our shooters came back from a shoot with these images, they'd never be put back on the schedule.  You have to know that these aren't photos that you can charge people for, or if you value your reputation as a photographer, even give them for free.  

The team shot is bad, but it's only bad and not awful like the portraits, and could MAYBE work if you absolutely can't agree to get all the girls back for another shot if you print it out at a low printing resolution on a forgiving paper.

edit: and YOU aren't being attacked.  We are just pointing out the objective fact that these are really, really, really bad.  It's just about the pictures man.  Don't take it personal and learn from it.


----------



## tirediron

fjrabon said:


> one more thing, DO NOT SHOW THESE PHOTOS TO THE PARENTS. I think you said something about 'reschedule if they don't like them'. No, just no. Reschedule, no matter what it takes, ...


Okay, while I think fjarbon was more than a bit over-zealous in his condemnation, he brings up an excellent point.  Simply tell the people that there was an issue with some of the photographs and to ensure that everyone gets the best possible product, you would like to reshoot the entire job.  I would also suggest perhaps a sweetener; an extra print, file, or future credit.  I would also suggest consulting some of our more skilled sports photographers for assistance.


----------



## tirediron

OP:  In addition to everything else that has been posted here, I would like to say 'Well done' to you for posting these here and seeking assistance.  Yes, the commentary has been harsh, but there's also been a lot of excellent information provided.  Everyone's had at least one shoot go south on them, so take this as a learning experience, develop a plan to improve and for take two, knock 'em dead!


----------



## runnah

tirediron said:


> Okay, while I think fjarbon was more than a bit over-zealous in his condemnation



I don't, truth hurts. These photos should be in the beginner's forum, not the professional gallery. It makes my soul weep to think that the OP would even CONSIDER charging for these.

We are saving him for a throng of angry hockey moms.


----------



## fjrabon

tirediron said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> 
> one more thing, DO NOT SHOW THESE PHOTOS TO THE PARENTS. I think you said something about 'reschedule if they don't like them'. No, just no. Reschedule, no matter what it takes, ...
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, while I think fjarbon was more than a bit over-zealous in his condemnation, he brings up an excellent point.  Simply tell the people that there was an issue with some of the photographs and to ensure that everyone gets the best possible product, you would like to reshoot the entire job.  I would also suggest perhaps a sweetener; an extra print, file, or future credit.  I would also suggest consulting some of our more skilled sports photographers for assistance.
Click to expand...


Yeah, perhaps it was worded a little harshly, I just got a bit worried when he said things like "see if the parents are okay with them."  I just wanted to make it as clear as possible that if he wants to shoot professionally, he SHOULD NOT let anybody but the people here see these.  

And if you think I'm overzealous, try being screamed at by a parent who was relying on sending these to some grandmother across the country, and her being in tears.  because that CAN happen. Here, you just feel like you're getting beat up.  Parents will make you feel like the worst person of all time and a criminal.  Then again, some don't really care and will think they're fine, buy them, throw them in a drawer and never look at them.  However, banking on the entire team being the latter type as opposed to the former isn't a safe bet.


----------



## Robin_Usagani

You have to have a supernova where your light can be too bright.  Bring the ISO down and close down the aperture!  The only time it is going to be too bright is when you try to shoot it with large aperture.. but im sure you can lower the power of the flash much lower than 1/4.


----------



## runnah

Brace yourselves...



brian_f2.8 said:


> I admit this is not my style of work so I was lost and also on a time crunch



Okay then don't do it. Simple as that. If you feel the urge, do it for free. You don't want other people to literally have to pay for your mistakes. You are being paid to take photos, not to learn how to take photos.



brian_f2.8 said:


> Looking at the posing is fine for me. Don't argue because Im happy with it, its what I wanted.



You cannot see the forest for the trees. The poses are **** and don't help the case at all. You have very severe basic composition issues. 

You ask for help and people offer suggestion but you just ignore them. That is not how you improve. 

View attachment 26996View attachment 26997

You can honestly say that the jersey in the background does anything to help the photo? You can't see the jersey and the hanger is coming out the top of their heads!You've lost the edges of the shoulders and the shape of their bodies. 

I am not trying to be a dick but when you are in such denial about what is going on it's time for tough medicine.


----------



## pixmedic

runnah said:
			
		

> Brace yourselves...
> 
> Okay then don't do it. Simple as that. If you feel the urge, do it for free. You don't want other people to literally have to pay for your mistakes. You are being paid to take photos, not to learn how to take photos.



THIS^^^
I wish more people would take this advice. (not aimed at the OP in any way,  just in general)


----------



## tirediron

runnah said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, while I think fjarbon was more than a bit over-zealous in his condemnation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't, truth hurts. These photos should be in the beginner's forum, not the professional gallery. It makes my soul weep to think that the OP would even CONSIDER charging for these.
> 
> We are saving him for a throng of angry hockey moms.
Click to expand...

While I've never shot team portraits and know very little about hockey (That's the one with the flat, black, ball, right?)  Having had many friends who were into it, I've seen lots of this sort of work, and I know a LOT of people have paid for work that looks very similar in style (blur issues aside).  The poses and composition strike me as bland and unimaginiative, but "horrible" seems a stretch to me.


----------



## Mach0

Brian, I am in Seymour.... If you need any help reach out to me. I have plenty speedlights and some modifiers as well. It's only a 35 minute ride to Danbury.


----------



## fjrabon

After reading your gear:

1) buy some reflective umbrellas.  They're dirt cheap.
2) but the $30 Cowboy studios radio triggers from amazon.  
3) stands?  I'd guess you have stands?  Do you have a mount that can hold your umbrella and flash?
4) gels.  You'll need some gels for your speedlights if you have ambient in the background that is hitting the ice.  What they call CTO, or orange looking.

Your two speedlights are perfectly sufficient with this setup.  

You're working with a 50mm, so your choices are going to be a bit limited as far as getting a blurred background if you decide to shoot inside the arena.  Do you not have an 80-200 f/2.8?  That's a great lens from arena background shots.

You want your umbrellas at about a 45 degree angle from your subject, and as close as you can get them without them intruding into the actual shot.  I usually find that 5.5 feet in front, and 5 feet apart, with your subject dead centered between them 'just works'  It's not the most dramatic light, but you don't have to fiddle with it, and you can see the kids face, and you don't have to worry about shadows.  Parents like it.  It looks traditional.

CHECK YOUR SHARPNESS BY ZOOMING EVERY SINGLE SHOT, ALWAYS AND FOREVER.  Do not let a kid get up until you zoom into the eyes and are happy.

Athletes look best either kneeling or standing.  Sitting makes them look unathletic.  

I'd probably have them stand, tell them to turn their shoulders and feet towards one of the umbrellas, and then turn their head straight at the camera.  For Hockey you can have their hands on top of the stick.  3/4 shot on a 50mm looks good usually.  

Settings wise, if you use the arena as a background, you need f/2.8 and at least 70mm, unless the arena is cavernous.  Get as far away from your background as feasible, to give the longest throw.  If you go with the 50mm, still use f.2.8, because while you want the background blurred, you need at least f/2.8 so that the subject will be fully in focus.

If you're shooting up against a close background and aren't blurring the background, or are using a backdrop, shoot at f/11.  

Shoot in manual mode.  ISO 200 is usually where I start, just so I have a stop down I can go quickly if I need to.  We already discussed aperture. 

Im guessing you don't have a light meter.  You'll have to eyeball it with test shots.

Use your shutter speed to get your background like you want it (unless again you are shooting with a backdrop).  Then use your flash power to get your subject exposed like you want.  (make sure you have somebody or some thing to stand in for a subject.  I usually start with 1/4 power and work from there, playing the brighter/darker game.  

Remember, ISO and aperture control global exposure, ie subject and background.  Shutter speed controls only background and flash power and distance controls only subject exposure.

edit: seems like this may be more trouble than you're willing to go through with?  Find an actual pro to do the reshoot then?  I'll leave the above up, for the reference of others.


----------



## fjrabon

tirediron said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, while I think fjarbon was more than a bit over-zealous in his condemnation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't, truth hurts. These photos should be in the beginner's forum, not the professional gallery. It makes my soul weep to think that the OP would even CONSIDER charging for these.
> 
> We are saving him for a throng of angry hockey moms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While I've never shot team portraits and know very little about hockey (That's the one with the flat, black, ball, right?)  Having had many friends who were into it, I've seen lots of this sort of work, and I know a LOT of people have paid for work that looks very similar in style (blur issues aside).  The poses and composition strike me as bland and unimaginiative, but "horrible" seems a stretch to me.
Click to expand...


This is basically what the company I work for does, every single day.  I can tell you that if he turned these shots in, he'd be taken off the schedule for at least two weeks, while he redid training at 15 hours per week for two weeks at minimum wage.  I've seen that happen to three people since I've worked there, for shots better than those.  All three quit.  It's basically the way our company fires people without actually firing them.  

Sure, I've seen amateurs do stuff this bad.  But that's why they're amateurs.  He put these in the professional gallery, so I think that means give them professional level C&C.


----------



## gsgary

brian_f2.8 said:
			
		

> I think I am just going to re-do them. What f stop would you use? I used f5.6 because it was a good setting. These are just two of the images, I would like to share a folder with someone and get some feedback.



With flash F8-11 iso100


----------



## brian_f2.8

runnah said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, while I think fjarbon was more than a bit over-zealous in his condemnation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't, truth hurts. These photos should be in the beginner's forum, not the professional gallery. It makes my soul weep to think that the OP would even CONSIDER charging for these.
> 
> 
> We are saving him for a throng of angry hockey moms.
Click to expand...


Im not forcing you to comment on anything, its optional.


----------



## brian_f2.8

Yes, Im seeking pro CC. I am not claiming to be a pro photographer. My area is auto racing and golf. Natural light none of this stuff. THIS IS MY FIRST TIME DOING A SHOOT LIKE THIS. Way too many people criticize here and don't help.


----------



## brian_f2.8

Mach0 said:


> Brian, I am in Seymour.... If you need any help reach out to me. I have plenty speedlights and some modifiers as well. It's only a 35 minute ride to Danbury.



Oh nice, I live in southbury. Check your PM.


----------



## brian_f2.8

Also one thing was using the off camera flashes, I had at an angle. The locker was recessed which caused a lot of shadows. Thats why I went from full power to 1/4. Again on a time crunch due to ice time. The images looked fine on the camera, I figured I could fix in aperture - OBVIOUSLY NOT!


----------



## pixmedic

brian_f2.8 said:
			
		

> Yes, Im seeking pro CC. I am not claiming to be a pro photographer. My area is auto racing and golf. Natural light none of this stuff. THIS IS MY FIRST TIME DOING A SHOOT LIKE THIS. Way too many people criticize here and don't help.



Did you explain this to the paying clients? 
(im assuming they are paying clients) 
If so,  there shouldn't be issues. 
If not,  there is the possibility they will feel you misrepresented yourself. If they are fine with a reshoot,  then the problem is easily solved and everyone goes home happy.


----------



## tirediron

brian_f2.8 said:


> Also one thing was using the off camera flashes, I had at an angle. The locker was recessed which caused a lot of shadows. Thats why I went from full power to 1/4. Again on a time crunch due to ice time. The images looked fine on the camera, I figured I could fix in aperture - OBVIOUSLY NOT!


Two words:  "Advance recce".  NEVER, ever go into a situation like this without having explored it before hand.  Grab your camera and the lens(es) you figure you're likely to use, and head down there a day or three before the event and scout the location.  Note the ambient lighting, size, shape and colour of the rooms, and put together a mental location list.  Talk to the rink staff and ask them if there's a space that other photographers  have used.  Fail to plan - plan to fail!


----------



## brian_f2.8

We were able to use a semi-pro hockey locker room. Last I was in there everything was fine. I am going back to the rink this weekend to scout out a few other locker rooms. Yes I am bringing in my gear and doing it in advance. Complete amateur mistakes and thats why I am on this forum is to learn. Portrait and lighting aren't my thing. I understand it but I don't do it often enough to produce the results as others.


----------



## Derrel

Flashpoint CF2127N Carbon Fiber Tripod,Supports 17.6Lbs CF2127

Vanguard SBH-20P Ball Head for Tripod in Heads SBH-20P

Successful team photos, as well as individual portraits, were shot back in the 1880's using glass plate cameras with  film speeds in the single digits. Those guys ALL set up their cameras on tripods. Every single one of them. And they did alright. Of course, they had studied photography from people who learned it back in the 1840's.

396_smile.jpg


----------



## runnah

brian_f2.8 said:


> Way too many people criticize here and don't help.



Seriously? Everyone, including myself have been helpful. You can't ask for criticism on one hand and then complain about the criticism you get on the other.


----------



## brian_f2.8

no but there is a lot of ignorance from some. i have no problem being told these photos are awful. i know it but I want help how to improve it. my racing and golf photos have been used on the web and in editorial publications so I'm not worried about me over all, this is a shoot gone wrong. shooting sports and portraits are worlds apart as i have learned. this is my first time doing so and I'm actually interested in learning lighting techniques to become better.


----------



## Derrel

Your case is a fundamentals error. Mistakes with the very basic fundamentals of camera support, and the color temperature of different "types" of light. You made some errors in judgement regarding things like the right aperture to use in poor light; mixed light sources while shooting in color;had strobes available but somehow they were "too powerful", and so on. It's kind of sad that you do not have a mentor or good friend who you can call and who could have given you an immediate, over-the-phone plan of action that would have allowed this to be a success. I don't want to appear to be piling on, but this is a pretty good post you have made. You took on a commission and were not knowledgeable enough to recognize the warning signs while shooting the assignment. This is pretty common these days, with so many younger shooters not having had the benefit of an older, more-experienced mentor who can point out potential shot-ruiners like highly-divergent mixed light, hand-held at f/5.6 in sucky light, and so on.

One thing Brian, I think you've taken the C&C pretty well so far. I think you have "manned up" pretty damned well, all things considered. This is NOT the end of the world, either.


----------



## runnah

Group hug?


----------



## brian_f2.8

I agree D, can't say it better myself. I thought from previous experiences I could do it. I was wrong. I want to know where to go from here. I have gotten a lot of good help and I will use this to guide me in the future. I am re-shooting next week and I will use different equipment. Ill scout out my shoot on Friday or Sat n go from there.


----------



## pixmedic

brian_f2.8 said:
			
		

> I agree D, can't say it better myself. I thought from previous experiences I could do it. I was wrong. I want to know where to go from here. I have gotten a lot of good help and I will use this to guide me in the future. I am re-shooting next week and I will use different equipment. Ill scout out my shoot on Friday or Sat n go from there.



Dude.. You seriously just earned more respect here than 90% of the other photographers that "thought they could do it"  and then got all butthurt when they were told otherwise and refused to admit they needed help.  Good form man.


----------



## brian_f2.8

I'm not one of those guys. However, I do want to learn. No one wants to suck at anything. I'm only looking for help.


----------



## fjrabon

Yeah, I know you're trying to learn and I know you can tell the difference between harsh for the sake of harsh and harsh so you realize the situation. 

Kudos on the re-shoot. I've had to do re-shoots before, believe me. It SUCKS, but it usually bothers the client less than you are ashamed. And if you give them good pictures, every thing will be just fine. 

Do you have any sort of friend you can bribe with beer for some on location test shots?  

When I get home ill advise some lighting gear that is cheap and guaranteed to work and makes use of the speed lights you already have. And it will be stuff you should generally own anyway as a photographer. 

If you understand a few basic things, you can take these types of shoots from terrifying to really easy. For these types of shoots we literally give our less experienced shooters laminated schematics that are nearly impossible to mess up. They won't be the most creative shots and lighting ever, but they give you good, workman like results that are difficult to mess up.


----------



## Robin_Usagani

Really try to understand how to do off camera flash and how to mix ambient with flash.  I have a feeling you probably need to let a lot of ambient light in so you can see the background so you probably still want to shoot it with somewhat higher ISO and slower shutter.


----------



## fjrabon

alright, some specific gear, I know you asked me this over DM, but I figured I'd post here for general reference for anybody else reading:

Speedlights: You already have

Lightstands: You already have

Brackets for speedlight:

Amazon.com: Flash Shoe Holder Type B compatible with Canon Speedlite 270EX 430EX and 580EX II: Camera & Photo

I'm pretty sure that these will attach to your light stands, as I'm pretty sure that the ones you have are a standard mount.  If you want to be 100% sure, you can take a picture of it the top of your stands, without the lights attached, and I can confirm for certain if they'll work or not. They will support your speedlight and your umbrella on your stand.  You'd need two of them.  I know it says 'for canon' but hot shoes are hot shoes.  It will work with anything that has a hot shoe, and this will actually be attaching to your radio trigger anyway.

Triggers:

Amazon.com: CowboyStudio NPT-04 4 Channel Wireless Trigger for External Speelights with 1 Trigger and 2 Receivers (NPT-04+extra receiver): Camera & Photo

These will trigger your lights.  They're not the best radio triggers in the world, and if you end up doing a lot of portrait sessions, you'd probably want to upgrade to pocketwizards, but I've never had a problem with them, so long as I changed the batteries out when they died.  This one set will be all you need for this type of shoot.  Don't forget to buy the AAA batteries!

CTO Gel:

Amazon.com: Rosco Cinegel Roscosun CTO, 20 x 24 inches Color Correction Lighting Filter: Camera & Photo

Just buy this and cut out two strips for your flashes.  You may not need it, this will only be used if you are letting in a lot of ambient light.  If you're shooting against a backdrop that is completely lit with your flash, this won't be needed.  All this does is balances the color of your flash with the other colors of ambient light, so that you have even colored lighting throughout.  Otherwise you might get blue hockey players and yellow ice.  Nobody wants yellow ice.

Umbrella:

Amazon.com: CowboyStudio 33 inch Black and Silver Photo Studio Reflective Umbrella: Camera & Photo

I find that reflective umbrellas are best for sports, since you want a bit harder light than a shoot through umbrella would give, but you still want a larger light source.  Two of them.


This kit will get your job done.  If you plan on doing these types of things regularly, you'll want to buy higher quality versions of almost everything I listed, but these will do this job just fine.  The biggest flaw with the stuff above is durability.  Heck, if you take good care of the stuff above, it will basically work as well as much more expensive stuff.  Pros pay more for stuff because they often are forced to treat it roughly.  If you baby your gear, you can get away with using cheaper.


----------



## brian_f2.8

Im going to order this from Adorama tomorrow so I have it on Monday.


----------



## Mach0

brian_f2.8 said:
			
		

> Im going to order this from Adorama tomorrow so I have it on Monday.



What are you ordering ?


----------



## fjrabon

Oh, and as to how to attach a cto gel to your speed light. Leave an extra two inches on the left and right when you cut it out and just use good old rubber bands. Ie put the rubber band around the flash head, and tuck the extra on both sides in between the rubber bands and speed light.


----------



## Mach0

fjrabon said:
			
		

> Oh, and as to how to attach a cto gel to your speed light. Leave an extra two inches on the left and right when you cut it out and just use good old rubber bands. Ie put the rubber band around the flash head, and tuck the extra on both sides in between the rubber bands and speed light.



I bought the strips ------- I don't like them as much. I don't find them that long but they work. I would rather get sheets next time


----------



## fjrabon

Mach0 said:
			
		

> I bought the strips ------- I don't like them as much. I don't find them that long but they work. I would rather get sheets next time



Yeah, I like sheets because they're so much more versatile. And I use a lot of cto gel and very little of anything else, so buying the sample packs makes no sense. I can buy 4-5 sheets of cto and be set for a looooong time. I have one of the packs with strips of everything and that keeps me mostly set for everything but cto.


----------



## Robin_Usagani

The only reason it looks warm is because he used video light.  I think he wont need a gel.


----------



## Trever1t

tirediron said:


> OP:  I am sorry, but you did not have bad luck, you undertook a commission for which you did not have the skill and/or resources to discharge properly.  The "problems" here are very basic ones which could have been overcome with two speedlights.  A reshoot is definitely in order, no ifs ands, or buts!




Somebody said it! Yeah...have to agree on that one.


----------



## fjrabon

Robin_Usagani said:
			
		

> The only reason it looks warm is because he used video light.  I think he wont need a gel.



In most old hockey arenas, the ambient lights are warmer than speed light flash. And if anything not using a gel would make the subjects colder, not warmer. CTO gel will keep the subject right and make the background neutral to slightly cool. For hockey you want neutral to slightly cool backgrounds. It's better to have cto than not. 

If he shots the reshoot up against a backdrop he won't need cto. If he shoots with the ice in the background, he probably will.


----------



## Robin_Usagani

Sure.. but you dont know that.  The OP is the only one who knows.  It could be all fluorescent light.  Plus OP shoots in JPEG.. Who knows.. maybe he will even set his camera to the wrong WB.  Maybe he will only need half CTO?



fjrabon said:


> Robin_Usagani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason it looks warm is because he used video light.  I think he wont need a gel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In most old hockey arenas, the ambient lights are warmer than speed light flash. And if anything not using a gel would make the subjects colder, not warmer. CTO gel will keep the subject right and make the background neutral to slightly cool. For hockey you want neutral to slightly cool backgrounds. It's better to have cto than not.
> 
> If he shots the reshoot up against a backdrop he won't need cto. If he shoots with the ice in the background, he probably will.
Click to expand...


----------



## fjrabon

Robin_Usagani said:
			
		

> Sure.. but you dont know that.  The OP is the only one who knows.  It could be all fluorescent light.  Plus OP shoots in JPEG.. Who knows.. maybe he will even set his camera to the wrong WB.  Maybe he will only need half CTO?



But he should have cto with him. 90% of these old smallish arenas have warm lights. Anybody who shoots in old basketball/hockey arenas can tell you the lights are warmer than flash light 90% of the time. And if you're going to err, you'd rather have warm skin and cool ice than the reverse.


----------



## brian_f2.8

Well I am on my way to redemption with the help of fjrabon and mach0 who have given me guidance. If these photos suck its because of them! No just kidding, these members have been great at helping me and giving me some advice. Anyways I went n bought some umbrellas to start with. I was playing around with some hired help tonight. I'm learning about this stuff. My set up is just two flashes and two umbrellas at various angles. Id love to get a mono light but very expensive for one shoot but who knows what the future may hold.
1- I know a little warm n dark but I changed the color in aperture
2- I know hand is cropped but original shot I didn't get her whole hand so I cut it here - thoughts?


----------



## fjrabon

If you can get your light any closer, it would be a lot softer.


----------



## brian_f2.8

Well she was sitting on a couch so the depth was hard to work with. I think a player sitting on a bench would be great or against the wall. That's my intention for the room.


----------



## Sw1tchFX

If the pictures of the little girl are an indication of getting "better", than just hire an assistant to set up your lights and dial it in for you, while you pose everyone and just hit the shutter because I have no idea how you could screw it up more than you did...What a disaster.




And WTF are you doing paid work for when you're bumbling around with JPEG like a amateurish fool?


----------



## Robin_Usagani

Yeah man.. slow the fk down.  Do it as a hobby first.  Doing a whole hockey team is a BIG DEAL.  Stick with small family first (paid or not).  AND STOP TEACHING for now anyway!
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...teaching-photography-question.html?highlight=





Sw1tchFX said:


> If the pictures of the little girl are an indication of getting "better", than just hire an assistant to set up your lights and dial it in for you, while you pose everyone and just hit the shutter because I have no idea how you could screw it up more than you did...What a disaster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And WTF are you doing paid work for when you're bumbling around with JPEG like a amateurish fool?


----------



## JAC526

Sw1tchFX said:


> If the pictures of the little girl are an indication of getting "better", than just hire an assistant to set up your lights and dial it in for you, while you pose everyone and just hit the shutter because I have no idea how you could screw it up more than you did...What a disaster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And WTF are you doing paid work for when you're bumbling around with JPEG like a amateurish fool?



Ouch.


----------



## Trever1t

LOL, yes, they suck. The color is whacked. The compositions aren't up to snuff either. I don't know what you are doing but perhaps starting from the beginning with a single light. Perhaps you are really over-thinking all this.

*Now a comment about JPG*: If you have everything perfect in studio....give me one reason to shoot raw! None! That is, if you can get light just right, color balance just right, etc. SO blanket statements that shooting in jpg is ameteurish is out of line. I have a good friend, a portrait shooter who's work is top-notch, magazine work....has no idea how to process a raw file.


----------



## John27

Trever1t said:


> LOL, yes, they suck. The color is whacked. The compositions aren't up to snuff either. I don't know what you are doing but perhaps starting from the beginning with a single light. Perhaps you are really over-thinking all this.
> 
> *Now a comment about JPG*: If you have everything perfect in studio....give me one reason to shoot raw! None! That is, if you can get light just right, color balance just right, etc. SO blanket statements that shooting in jpg is ameteurish is out of line. I have a good friend, a portrait shooter who's work is top-notch, magazine work....has no idea how to process a raw file.



My grandfather has been a photographer all his life, using SLR camera most of it, and worked semi-professionally (He worked in marketing, and did a lot of his own shoots).  He just got his very first DSLR last year and has ditched film.  He shoots in JPEG, wouldn't have any idea how to deal with RAW.  He has to call me on the phone half the time because he can't remember how to take the pictures off the camera!  He takes extraordinary photos, and that's what a t1i with a kit lens...

BUT, I've never seen him take a shoot, look at it, adjust it, and shoot again either.  He can look at ANYTHING and INSTANLY tell you what the settings should be.  Years of shooting film, even before good metering tools or automatic SLR cameras, will do that for ya.  His exposures are spot on because he has the experience to do it!  The only exception is white balance, which he has been reading up on.  He will look at a shot and say "No that won't work, it'll turn out orange", so he simply won't shoot where Auto White Balance won't work.  But, that is the only key difference for him between film and digital, is the ability to manipulate the white balance.  When he figures out how to consistently turn on the computer without having a problem, maybe he can teach me a bit about composition and I can teach him to use lightroom and a grey card for white balance! 

That said, I shoot in RAW.  100% of the time.  Because I am not the experienced shooter, or a professional.  I'm a cruddy amateur hobbyist.  My grandpa, however, is experienced and can look at a shot and make it beautiful in the camera.  I need those couple stops of exposure and infinitely adjustable white balance.  I've had many a scenario where it looked good on the camera, but once it hit the calibrated monitor.. YUCK!  (Which brings me to another point, Brian, is your monitor calibrated?  You can ballpark it pretty easily without any special tools.  It occurred to me that, with as orange as your pictures are, perhaps they look okay on your screen and that's why there seems to be a miscommunication between you and everyone else?  Another option would be to use a grey card)

RAW is an excellent tool for the amateur, OR for the professional who is not using an extremely sterile, controlled environment.  In Brians case, it sounds like he is neither experienced, nor in a sterile controlled environment.  I think that RAW is the only choice for someone in his situation.


----------



## brian_f2.8

FYI - I actually shot this raw, imported to aperture did my own color correction(the way I wanted it) and exported to a jpg. All I am doing is playing around with balancing the lights for now. I am trying to figure out how to balance the power with a sb900 and a nissin 622. I am learning angles. Im doing the hockey team because I made some really good money. More than I make in one week, so yeah Ill do it. If you have a problem, oh well not going to stop. I actually was able to get more work because of this. Of course I need help and learn but this is part of my learning. 

As I mentioned my area of photography is doing sports. You do not use a strobe with PGA, NASCAR, INDY CAR or NBA(only Getty can). So I will continue to do more n more with lighting and learn just as you learned at some point in your life/career. If you were born with these talents awesome, I was not so I am at the learning phase. So I would appreciate some tips on how to make them better as opposed to people just saying that these are awe ful. Explain your self and be clear n precise. When I say I am improving its because the shots were more consistent as opposed to my original shoot. I had all kinds of shadows, and the coloring was way off. My settings are better 1/125th - f7.1 - iso 160. 

I am a beginner in this area, I originally posted in the professional gallery for professional CC.


----------



## Trever1t

Exactly and agree. When I shoot in a ever varied environment I use raw too, but in the studio I can't find a reason to.


----------



## JAC526

brian_f2.8 said:


> FYI - I actually shot this raw, imported to aperture did my own color correction(the way I wanted it) and exported to a jpg. All I am doing is playing around with balancing the lights for now. I am trying to figure out how to balance the power with a sb900 and a nissin 622. I am learning angles. Im doing the hockey team because I made some really good money. More than I make in one week, so yeah Ill do it. If you have a problem, oh well not going to stop. I actually was able to get more work because of this. Of course I need help and learn but this is part of my learning.
> 
> As I mentioned my area of photography is doing sports. You do not use a strobe with PGA, NASCAR, INDY CAR or NBA(only Getty can). So I will continue to do more n more with lighting and learn just as you learned at some point in your life/career. If you were born with these talents awesome, I was not so I am at the learning phase. So I would appreciate some tips on how to make them better as opposed to people just saying that these are awe ful. Explain your self and be clear n precise. When I say I am improving its because the shots were more consistent as opposed to my original shoot. I had all kinds of shadows, and the coloring was way off. My settings are better 1/125th - f7.1 - iso 160.
> 
> I am a beginner in this area, I originally posted in the professional gallery for professional CC.



I would love to be in your market where people pay "really good money" for the "work" you produced.


----------



## brian_f2.8

John27 said:


> Trever1t said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, yes, they suck. The color is whacked. The compositions aren't up to snuff either. I don't know what you are doing but perhaps starting from the beginning with a single light. Perhaps you are really over-thinking all this.
> 
> *Now a comment about JPG*: If you have everything perfect in studio....give me one reason to shoot raw! None! That is, if you can get light just right, color balance just right, etc. SO blanket statements that shooting in jpg is ameteurish is out of line. I have a good friend, a portrait shooter who's work is top-notch, magazine work....has no idea how to process a raw file.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My grandfather has been a photographer all his life, using SLR camera most of it, and worked semi-professionally (He worked in marketing, and did a lot of his own shoots).  He just got his very first DSLR last year and has ditched film.  He shoots in JPEG, wouldn't have any idea how to deal with RAW.  He has to call me on the phone half the time because he can't remember how to take the pictures off the camera!  He takes extraordinary photos, and that's what a t1i with a kit lens...
> 
> BUT, I've never seen him take a shoot, look at it, adjust it, and shoot again either.  He can look at ANYTHING and INSTANLY tell you what the settings should be.  Years of shooting film, even before good metering tools or automatic SLR cameras, will do that for ya.  His exposures are spot on because he has the experience to do it!  The only exception is white balance, which he has been reading up on.  He will look at a shot and say "No that won't work, it'll turn out orange", so he simply won't shoot where Auto White Balance won't work.  But, that is the only key difference for him between film and digital, is the ability to manipulate the white balance.  When he figures out how to consistently turn on the computer without having a problem, maybe he can teach me a bit about composition and I can teach him to use lightroom and a grey card for white balance!
> 
> That said, I shoot in RAW.  100% of the time.  Because I am not the experienced shooter, or a professional.  I'm a cruddy amateur hobbyist.  My grandpa, however, is experienced and can look at a shot and make it beautiful in the camera.  I need those couple stops of exposure and infinitely adjustable white balance.  I've had many a scenario where it looked good on the camera, but once it hit the calibrated monitor.. YUCK!  (Which brings me to another point, Brian, is your monitor calibrated?  You can ballpark it pretty easily without any special tools.  It occurred to me that, with as orange as your pictures are, perhaps they look okay on your screen and that's why there seems to be a miscommunication between you and everyone else?  Another option would be to use a grey card)
> 
> RAW is an excellent tool for the amateur, OR for the professional who is not using an extremely sterile, controlled environment.  In Brians case, it sounds like he is neither experienced, nor in a sterile controlled environment.  I think that RAW is the only choice for someone in his situation.
Click to expand...


No monitor is not calibrated. 

I rarely do adjustments myself in PP(this time I did for fun). I mess around with the different pic setting N, S, V etc... Then I also mess around with the filter effects, hue, sat, contrast, sharpening and go from there. I agree, I dont like doing PP but I do half to, I have a lot to learn.


----------



## brian_f2.8

JAC526 said:


> brian_f2.8 said:
> 
> 
> 
> FYI - I actually shot this raw, imported to aperture did my own color correction(the way I wanted it) and exported to a jpg. All I am doing is playing around with balancing the lights for now. I am trying to figure out how to balance the power with a sb900 and a nissin 622. I am learning angles. Im doing the hockey team because I made some really good money. More than I make in one week, so yeah Ill do it. If you have a problem, oh well not going to stop. I actually was able to get more work because of this. Of course I need help and learn but this is part of my learning.
> 
> As I mentioned my area of photography is doing sports. You do not use a strobe with PGA, NASCAR, INDY CAR or NBA(only Getty can). So I will continue to do more n more with lighting and learn just as you learned at some point in your life/career. If you were born with these talents awesome, I was not so I am at the learning phase. So I would appreciate some tips on how to make them better as opposed to people just saying that these are awe ful. Explain your self and be clear n precise. When I say I am improving its because the shots were more consistent as opposed to my original shoot. I had all kinds of shadows, and the coloring was way off. My settings are better 1/125th - f7.1 - iso 160.
> 
> I am a beginner in this area, I originally posted in the professional gallery for professional CC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would love to be in your market where people pay "really good money" for the "work" you produced.
Click to expand...


Gotta love Fairfield County in Connecticut. But I would love to live in OH, where I could also buy a nice house for 150k or less.


----------



## John27

brian_f2.8 said:


> John27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trever1t said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, yes, they suck. The color is whacked. The compositions aren't up to snuff either. I don't know what you are doing but perhaps starting from the beginning with a single light. Perhaps you are really over-thinking all this.
> 
> *Now a comment about JPG*: If you have everything perfect in studio....give me one reason to shoot raw! None! That is, if you can get light just right, color balance just right, etc. SO blanket statements that shooting in jpg is ameteurish is out of line. I have a good friend, a portrait shooter who's work is top-notch, magazine work....has no idea how to process a raw file.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My grandfather has been a photographer all his life, using SLR camera most of it, and worked semi-professionally (He worked in marketing, and did a lot of his own shoots).  He just got his very first DSLR last year and has ditched film.  He shoots in JPEG, wouldn't have any idea how to deal with RAW.  He has to call me on the phone half the time because he can't remember how to take the pictures off the camera!  He takes extraordinary photos, and that's what a t1i with a kit lens...
> 
> BUT, I've never seen him take a shoot, look at it, adjust it, and shoot again either.  He can look at ANYTHING and INSTANLY tell you what the settings should be.  Years of shooting film, even before good metering tools or automatic SLR cameras, will do that for ya.  His exposures are spot on because he has the experience to do it!  The only exception is white balance, which he has been reading up on.  He will look at a shot and say "No that won't work, it'll turn out orange", so he simply won't shoot where Auto White Balance won't work.  But, that is the only key difference for him between film and digital, is the ability to manipulate the white balance.  When he figures out how to consistently turn on the computer without having a problem, maybe he can teach me a bit about composition and I can teach him to use lightroom and a grey card for white balance!
> 
> That said, I shoot in RAW.  100% of the time.  Because I am not the experienced shooter, or a professional.  I'm a cruddy amateur hobbyist.  My grandpa, however, is experienced and can look at a shot and make it beautiful in the camera.  I need those couple stops of exposure and infinitely adjustable white balance.  I've had many a scenario where it looked good on the camera, but once it hit the calibrated monitor.. YUCK!  (Which brings me to another point, Brian, is your monitor calibrated?  You can ballpark it pretty easily without any special tools.  It occurred to me that, with as orange as your pictures are, perhaps they look okay on your screen and that's why there seems to be a miscommunication between you and everyone else?  Another option would be to use a grey card)
> 
> RAW is an excellent tool for the amateur, OR for the professional who is not using an extremely sterile, controlled environment.  In Brians case, it sounds like he is neither experienced, nor in a sterile controlled environment.  I think that RAW is the only choice for someone in his situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No monitor is not calibrated.
> 
> I rarely do adjustments myself in PP(this time I did for fun). I mess around with the different pic setting N, S, V etc... Then I also mess around with the filter effects, hue, sat, contrast, sharpening and go from there. I agree, I dont like doing PP but I do half to, I have a lot to learn.
Click to expand...


It's really easy to ballpark it.  What OS do you use?  Mac OS and Windows BOTH have built in tools to help you calibrate your monitor.  There are also websites with great charts and stuff to help.  A cheap monitor with no calibration tool can only go so far, but it'll be miles better than uncalibrated.  Shooting RAW, and having a semi-calibrated monitor, can save you a lot of headaches as you can fix a LOT in post in just a few seconds.  

Why not order a gray card?  I'm not sure about CS4, but I know CS6 has a nice little eye dropper tool for auto white balance.  Basically, have the first girl hold the gray card up in front of her face (and any person afterward if the light changes, power/angle, etc.) and take a shot.  In Lightroom, Photoshop (CS6 at least) and perhaps aperture, you can then 'select' the gray card, which will then adjust the white balance of that shot, THEN, you can 'apply to all', which will set those white balance features to ALL of the shots in the set.  It's super easy, no fumbling around or trying to guess, gray cards are cheap... and in theory, you don't really need a calibrated monitor because the gray card will get the white balance perfect.


----------



## JAC526

brian_f2.8 said:


> JAC526 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> brian_f2.8 said:
> 
> 
> 
> FYI - I actually shot this raw, imported to aperture did my own color correction(the way I wanted it) and exported to a jpg. All I am doing is playing around with balancing the lights for now. I am trying to figure out how to balance the power with a sb900 and a nissin 622. I am learning angles. Im doing the hockey team because I made some really good money. More than I make in one week, so yeah Ill do it. If you have a problem, oh well not going to stop. I actually was able to get more work because of this. Of course I need help and learn but this is part of my learning.
> 
> As I mentioned my area of photography is doing sports. You do not use a strobe with PGA, NASCAR, INDY CAR or NBA(only Getty can). So I will continue to do more n more with lighting and learn just as you learned at some point in your life/career. If you were born with these talents awesome, I was not so I am at the learning phase. So I would appreciate some tips on how to make them better as opposed to people just saying that these are awe ful. Explain your self and be clear n precise. When I say I am improving its because the shots were more consistent as opposed to my original shoot. I had all kinds of shadows, and the coloring was way off. My settings are better 1/125th - f7.1 - iso 160.
> 
> I am a beginner in this area, I originally posted in the professional gallery for professional CC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would love to be in your market where people pay "really good money" for the "work" you produced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gotta love Fairfield County in Connecticut. But I would love to live in OH, where I could also buy a nice house for 150k or less.
Click to expand...


That is indeed true.  Cheap cost of living here in the Great Midwest.


----------



## brian_f2.8

Trever1t said:


> Exactly and agree. When I shoot in a ever varied environment I use raw too, but in the studio I can't find a reason to.



Sounds like a logical reason but now to play devils advocate, whats the advantage of shooting jpeg n not raw? You arent bursting frames in sports so why not?


----------



## John27

brian_f2.8 said:


> Trever1t said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly and agree. When I shoot in a ever varied environment I use raw too, but in the studio I can't find a reason to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like a logical reason but now to play devils advocate, whats the advantage of shooting jpeg n not raw? You arent bursting frames in sports so why not?
Click to expand...


If he has everything perfect in-camera, then it's ready to go.  JPEG is a usable file, printable anywhere, postable to any website.  Also much smaller and takes up less space (that's the difference between RAW and JPEG, RAW has a lot more info)  He could theoretically shoot all day in the studio on one decent memory card in JPEG.

Also, though I am not a pro, I imagine for many full-time pro's one big issue is storage.  They probably keep the photos for a reasonable amount of time after the shoot and after delivery, and that can pile up!  Storage is getting cheaper, but it's still a hassle and an expense.  Especially since, I imagine a good professional doesn't keep all of their eggs in one basket, and likely uses RAID setups, off-site backup, or any number of and combination of redundancies for those said files.  If he shoots JPEG in the studio, he can cut in half the size of the files he has to store from the studio.  Depending on how much in-studio shooting he does, this can really save him a ton of space.   But, in the end, it's 'excess fat' if he isn't going to process the image.  Kinda like driving a school bus to work.  It's big, can haul a lot, can carry a lot of passengers, and do much more than your passenger car, but it's sort of pointless!  You don't need it, it uses more fuel, and it takes up a lot of space!  But if you are a schoolbus driver, running the route in a Prius seems a little silly, no?


----------



## brian_f2.8

John27 said:


> brian_f2.8 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trever1t said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly and agree. When I shoot in a ever varied environment I use raw too, but in the studio I can't find a reason to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like a logical reason but now to play devils advocate, whats the advantage of shooting jpeg n not raw? You arent bursting frames in sports so why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he has everything perfect in-camera, then it's ready to go.  JPEG is a usable file, printable anywhere, postable to any website.  Also much smaller and takes up less space (that's the difference between RAW and JPEG, RAW has a lot more info)  He could theoretically shoot all day in the studio on one decent memory card in JPEG.
Click to expand...


I know the difference between the two and understand but Im playing devils advocate for conversation purposes, not to be rude.


----------



## Trever1t

Shooting in jpg saves card space. Less time in editing Simple crop, perhaps adjust curve slightly and presto!


----------



## brian_f2.8

just did a calibration - looks a lot darker


----------



## fjrabon

Can you take a picture of your setup?  The light in your shot is ultra hard.

Also, you want to put some distance between the hockey players and your background.  AT THE VERY MINIMUM you want 3 feet.  The wall is a painted wall that is at least going to be partly reflective and has a textured surface.  If your subject is really close, that wall will look terrible.  Painted cinder blocks (what it looked like the locker room was) are notoriously hard to use as a background, especially if you're close to them.  

You also may consider just going to one light, since you're having difficulties getting them balanced.  The good news is that with your SB910 and your D7000 by themselves and you're shooting inside, you could probably just shoot full on auto TTL.  It's sort of amateur-ish, but it would get the job done, and probably look better than what's going on here.  Joe McNally uses TTL, so obviously it can be done...

But as far as balancing the two lights, here's how I usually go about it:

First, leave your 2nd light off.  get your main light right.  Have it look exactly how you want with test shots.  Then, add in your 2nd light.  In a case like this I usually get the 2nd light to work double duty as a hair light and fill for the shadow side.  It's going to be subtle.  usually if I'm running 1/4 power for my main, my 2nd is either 1/8 power or 1/16 power, sometimes even lower than that.  Where this is depends on how much of a dramatic one light look you want v. an even two light look.  

If you want one piece of advice, bring an assistant with you to the shoot.  they will help immensely in helping everything run smoothly, sitting in place for test shots, etc.  Do WHATEVER you can to get in to the location early.  At least an hour, if not two hours before, so you can quickly get your setup going and have plenty of time to do test shots on your assistant.  

Those are MUCH more important than what particular f/stop you're thinking about shooting.  

The easiest way to tell somebody who is new to this from somebody who is experienced is that new people worry about settings.  They constantly as you "oh, that looks great, what were your settings?"  Settings are local.  ie what makes a setting work here, might not work there.  You can't get married to f/7.1 (or what most photographers call a weak f/8).  Sure, I have my general settings that I use a a starting point, that will almost always get me in the ballpark, but after that it's test shot and adjust, rinse, repeat (or if you have a meter, use your light meter, I'm assuming you don't have a light meter and aren't willing to buy a $300 light meter for one job, though maybe you could rent one?)  Experienced photographers almost never ask what settings you used, they might ask where you put your lights, and what your lighting ratio was.  Every now and again they might ask how much you drug the shutter to let in ambient.  I've never had an experienced photographer ask me what ISO or f/stop I used, unless they were implying that I must have accidentally changed them and screwed the shot up (stupid canon scroll wheel on the back controlling aperture).

Also, keep in mind that all these settings on the camera go out the window if you move your light 4 inches.  

In a bit I'll draw you a diagram about how I'd approach the locker room, where I'd have my lights, what settings I think would get you in the ballpark.


----------



## John27

brian_f2.8 said:


> just did a calibration - looks a lot darker



It probably will.  Most folks set their computers as bright as they can get it.  This looks great for browsing web pages, watching videos or even playing games.  BUT, it distorts color, and mis-represents exposure.  The darker-ness is because your gamma and color settings are now representing accurately, which likely required dimming the backlight to accomplish.

There ARE bright, AND accurate monitors.  That's what the pros use.  They aren't cheap though!  They pretty much start around $1,000.  If you are really going to go pro at this, you should really consider a good, high end IPS display.  The Apple Cinema Display is a popular choice.  Believe it or not, despite it being Apple's offering it's a little more on the affordable side, running at $999 but being 27", very bright, and an excellent choice for accurate colors and exposure.  Couple that with a calibration tool ($200~) and a decent PC or Mac (Sounds like you have a Mac, if you have an iMac, you likely already HAVE an IPS display.  If you are using a Macbook, those are better than most laptop displays so you are one up there, but the external IPS display will still be better), and you'll have a professional grade post-processing setup.

BUT, like I said, I think investment numero-uno should be a gray card.  As a beginner myself (I only give the PP advice because I HAVE been dealing with PS and other stuff much longer than I've been shooting, and marketing/graphics design/post-processing type work kind of runs in the family so I've got SOME experience on that side of things), it's an amazing tool for making things super easy AND correct.


----------



## ghache

if you reshoot, do it the right way....use flash. faster shutter. your d7000 would be able to handle iso 640-1000 perfectly without noise. if you are not equipped to do the job, don't re-schedule to flop it again. refund and forget about it

I shot 4 hockey teams annual portrait last year, i had to use 3 400ws flash heads in 3X4 softbox to do the group shots. a sb-900 is not going to cut it


----------



## brian_f2.8

I dont want to manufacture photos so Im trying to be different but also be in the ball park. The original pose, a few parents actually like because it didnt look common, it was different. Ordinary people want  a variety. We all have different gear for our own reasons. We all listen to different music for our own reasons. Sorry ladies - if we all walked into a bar and saw a blonde and brunette, some would talk to the blonde while others would talk to the brunette. But as long as we own cameras, listen to music and talk to the ladies then we are in good shape.


----------



## fjrabon

ghache said:


> if you reshoot, do it the right way....use flash. faster shutter. your d7000 would be able to handle iso 640-1000 perfectly without noise. if you are not equipped to do the job, don't re-schedule to flop it again. refund and forget about it
> 
> I shot 4 hockey teams annual portrait last year, i had to use 3 400ws flash heads in 3X4 softbox to do the group shots. a sb-900 is not going to cut it



Indoors, in a relatively dark locker room (which seems to be where he is intent on shooting it), you absolutely can use an SB910 and get workable results.  Why wouldn't you?  Why in the world would you need any more power than that?  The only reason I can think is if you were married to the idea of a gigantic soft box.  Or you wanted a modeling light.  

Plenty of top end pros shoot athletic portraits with speed lights every day.

edit: I don't think he's re-doing the group shot, if that's what you're talking about.


----------



## ghache

fjrabon said:


> ghache said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you reshoot, do it the right way....use flash. faster shutter. your d7000 would be able to handle iso 640-1000 perfectly without noise. if you are not equipped to do the job, don't re-schedule to flop it again. refund and forget about it
> 
> I shot 4 hockey teams annual portrait last year, i had to use 3 400ws flash heads in 3X4 softbox to do the group shots. a sb-900 is not going to cut it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indoors, in a relatively dark locker room (which seems to be where he is intent on shooting it), you absolutely can use an SB910 and get workable results.  Why wouldn't you?  Why in the world would you need any more power than that?  The only reason I can think is if you were married to the idea of a gigantic soft box.  Or you wanted a modeling light.
> 
> Plenty of top end pros shoot athletic portraits with speed lights every day.
Click to expand...


the locker room, sure, the on ice portrait group? i don't think so. 

IMO, any sport team session should include one.


----------



## brian_f2.8

Im just going to re-do the individual portraits. The team photo, is kinda workable. Ill spend some time in PS - well lots of time. I can't get the whole team together. Yes a sb-900 will work just fine with a bounce flash on the side.  I sent some pics to a few members who offered help and they both seem to agree.


----------



## DiskoJoe

Bitter Jeweler said:


> brian_f2.8 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont shoot raw(I use CS4 and a D7000 do not play nice with raw files).
> 
> 
> 
> Adobe has a fancy pants DNG converter, that will convert your raw files to DNG, which is adobe's "raw" digital negative format.
> 
> Oh, and it's FREE!
Click to expand...


Freaking noobs man. I cant believe anyone would give up this easy on how to get the raw files to work. This is a deal breaker here.


----------



## DiskoJoe

fjrabon said:


> ghache said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you reshoot, do it the right way....use flash. faster shutter. your d7000 would be able to handle iso 640-1000 perfectly without noise. if you are not equipped to do the job, don't re-schedule to flop it again. refund and forget about it
> 
> I shot 4 hockey teams annual portrait last year, i had to use 3 400ws flash heads in 3X4 softbox to do the group shots. a sb-900 is not going to cut it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indoors, in a relatively dark locker room (which seems to be where he is intent on shooting it), you absolutely can use an SB910 and get workable results.  Why wouldn't you?  Why in the world would you need any more power than that?  The only reason I can think is if you were married to the idea of a gigantic soft box.  Or you wanted a modeling light.
> 
> Plenty of top end pros shoot athletic portraits with speed lights every day.
> 
> edit: I don't think he's re-doing the group shot, if that's what you're talking about.
Click to expand...


Strobist.com has a tutorial about shooting this exact same type of session with nothing more then two junky speedlites and he talks about how you could get by with just one and shows a shoot where he did just that.


----------



## John27

DiskoJoe said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> brian_f2.8 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont shoot raw(I use CS4 and a D7000 do not play nice with raw files).
> 
> 
> 
> Adobe has a fancy pants DNG converter, that will convert your raw files to DNG, which is adobe's "raw" digital negative format.
> 
> Oh, and it's FREE!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Freaking noobs man. I cant believe anyone would give up this easy on how to get the raw files to work. This is a deal breaker here.
Click to expand...



Everyone has to start somewhere right?  But OP, I would suggest you heed the advice and use RAW.  It is such a great tool, and can fix a LOT of headaches.


----------



## brian_f2.8

When I shot NASCAR I was asked to shoot raw. I didn't see a need. In fact I also didn't like bursting shooting raw.


----------



## John27

brian_f2.8 said:


> When I shot NASCAR I was asked to shoot raw. I didn't see a need. In fact I also didn't like bursting shooting raw.



The "need" is that, especially with ever-changing lighting conditions of an outdoor sporting event, the white balance can be infinitely adjusted, exposure can be adjusted a couple stops in each direction, and so-so pictures can be converted to extraordinary.  JPEG IS faster, but you need to be much more accurate.

In the case of your hocket photos, you could have adjusted the white balance (correctly, without distortion) and brought the skin tones back somewhat, and adjusted for over/under exposure.  

I really, really hope you'll learn a bit more about RAW and re-consider it.  There is a REASON the pro's use it when conditions aren't perfect.  Pro's do shoot JPEG sometimes, like in the studio as described above, or when speed is absolutely necessary, but again the settings must be PERFECT.  RAW is an excellent tool when things aren't PERFECT, but can be made perfect.


----------



## bunny99123

I know it is a pain, but I use an empty memory card, so I can pop it into my Ipad Mini to check for sharpness.  My eyes are the greatest, and I can't tell on my camera.  I would reshoot.  I would try to get a time, not before practice, so they are not worrying about practice.  Try to be forward on the fact you need time to set up, so you can produce good photos for the team.


----------



## John27

bunny99123 said:


> I know it is a pain, but I use an empty memory card, so I can pop it into my Ipad Mini to check for sharpness.  My eyes are the greatest, and I can't tell on my camera.  I would reshoot.  I would try to get a time, not before practice, so they are not worrying about practice.  Try to be forward on the fact you need time to set up, so you can produce good photos for the team.




It's a complicated setup, but it works well.  Look into "DSLR Remote Pro" for iPad.  It's pricey for an app, but oh man is it great for JUST THAT.

Again, it's a complicated setup, but will save you some time.  Basically, you install the DSLR Remote server app on a laptop (Mac or PC), run that and then plug it in via USB to the camera.  Then you need to have the laptop and the iPad on the same wi-fi network.  (An android device or jailbroken iOS device with a wifi hotspot app will accomplish this, or an old router, or one of those small wifi hotspot devices).  THEN, you can use the iPad as a remote controller device!  You can do live view focusing, the images will be instantly transfered to the iPad for review, change camera settings, you name it.

Yes, you could just use the laptop too and EOS Utility (or the Nikon equivalent), but that wouldn't be near as nice as the iPad setup!

I know it sounds complicated, and it is, but it's totally cool once you get used to using it.  I use an app called "MyWi" on my jailbroken iPad, which creates a mobile router.  I have an older PC laptop that is really small, plug USB into that, and bam!  Good to go.  It's an excellent way to accomplish everything.


----------



## brian_f2.8

Well Im not happy but I think this is much better. The locker room is very bare and not much going on there. I had an assistant help out(show in pic). She is going a nerdy smile but thats irrelevant. I would say the color is much better, sharper and over all just better than before, any thoughts?


----------



## fjrabon

brian_f2.8 said:


> Well Im not happy but I think this is much better. The locker room is very bare and not much going on there. I had an assistant help out(show in pic). She is going a nerdy smile but thats irrelevant. I would say the color is much better, sharper and over all just better than before, any thoughts?
> View attachment 27658



Color and lighting are much better.  Seems a little soft, but I can never tell if that's just the forum's hosting or if it's actually soft.  

she's cute.


----------



## Derrel

brian_f2.8 said:


> Well Im not happy but I think this is much better. The locker room is very bare and not much going on there. I had an assistant help out(show in pic). She is going a nerdy smile but thats irrelevant. I would say the color is much better, sharper and over all just better than before, any thoughts?
> View attachment 27658



Worlds better than the first hockey shots done with the mixed lighting. This shot looks like it was made by* a man with a plan*.


----------



## runnah

The red of the walls and the blue, green and white of the jersey should make the images pop.

Are you opposed to having them standing?


----------



## brian_f2.8

yes, honestly with kids too hard to get that many to pose correctly. for instance, i had 3 or 4 girls in the room at a time. i would tell the first girl to make sure her hair is back and to tuck in this annoying tag that kept popping out from their gloves. i had to repeat my self each time. these kids do not have the best attention span so yes keep it simple. i really wanted to play around with the lighting more and do something dramatic with just one light super fast shutter speed, low iso and f14 n beyond to illuminate just a side  of the face or get really creative with just poses. 

i have learned the difference between shooting one person opposed to shooting a team. also a model who knows how to pose n smile. kids giggle n smile too much. i dont min but im trying to get somewhere and there are plenty of distractions. 

yes Derrell, i normally have a plan when i shoot. i have shot in the locker room before(head shots in 2010) i was just so pissed that the other locker room was that dark and it was my only option. i had 40 min to set up and shoot 30 girls before their practice. i thought i could balance things out in aperture/ps but NOPE!


----------



## keith foster

Hey Brian.
I shoot a lot of team and individual photos, probably 40 teams a year.  I ALWAYS shoot RAW.  In fact I have gotten so used to shooting RAW that I rarely shoot jpgs at all anymore.
Use LightRoom and it makes handling the files a breeze.  Keeps them organized and you can export them in darn near any format you want.
My suggestion is to use 2 lights for these kind of shots.  One to camera left and one to camera right about 5-10 feet from you.  Raise them up so they are just above your head.
I aim the light on the left at the last person on my right and reverse it for the light on the right.  I also recommend trying to shoot at f8 or more so get the depth of field you need for groups to get everyone in focus.
I think you are doing the right thing to reshoot them.  It save you a bunch of time. 
As for posing, you are going to need to take control of the kids and tell them what you want.  If you get any flack just ask them to do it your way and then you will let them do whatever they want for a shot after you get what you need.  It almost always works.

Good luck with the retakes and hope it all works out for you.


----------



## tevo

I'm not sure why you _wouldn't_ shoot RAW... speed is not a concern in this scenario and lighting is... with RAW you can adjust +2- stops exposure and not lose detail. Why would you not give yourself this option? You can process RAW onboard your D7000 as well.


----------



## Justman1020

So how did this reshoot go? Can we see some of the final pictures?


----------

