Any photographers in here?

Thanks for the words NVP5... Here are 2 others from the same shoot...the light covers the face a little better....any thoughts on either of these 2?

dawn-portrait-1.jpg


dawn-portrait-2.jpg




Good picture (composition, model, expression, hair) but the exposure is still off. I think to get the look you want you need less even (more directional) lighting. For example, I think you could get the look right by placing a diffused light source (softbox, umbrella, scrim) above the subject. Slight in front, or slightly to the side, but above and close...just out of frame. That will allow you to get proper exposure on the eyes (the focus in this composition) but also have a fast and dramatic light fall-off to underexpose the rest of the subject.

EDIT: I have examples of this shot and maybe of the set-up at home. I'll try and remember to post them this evening.
 
Well Just got back from shooting New York Fashion Week and it was freakin awesome!!! I got to be backstage at a couple of the shows and get some great shots. Of course I was flown up there by La Mode as they will be the ones using the shots but I get to use them for my port too!!
 
Your HDR's are still giving weird light/dark fluctuations all across your pictures. Do you work on your pictures after you HDR them? Keep one photo unchanged and in "perfect" exposure and use it along w/ your HDR photo. Save them as TIF from Photomatix and then work on them and then save as a jpg in Pshop.
 
A couple from the weekend at the MX track. Used my 55-250mm IS with a Promaster Polarizer filter:

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/25174230@N03/3942934502/" title="#65 MX by flyinhawaiian071, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3514/3942934502_71a3f11472.jpg" width="500" height="334" alt="#65 MX" /></a>
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/25174230@N03/3942934906/" title="#442 MX by flyinhawaiian071, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2475/3942934906_72cd2716fb.jpg" width="500" height="334" alt="#442 MX" /></a>
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/25174230@N03/3942935344/" title="#65 Turn MX by flyinhawaiian071, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2537/3942935344_8df8c027e2.jpg" width="334" height="500" alt="#65 Turn MX" /></a>
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/25174230@N03/3942935918/" title="Over the Top MX by flyinhawaiian071, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2437/3942935918_002634081a.jpg" width="500" height="334" alt="Over the Top MX" /></a>

Full set is here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/25174230@N03/sets/72157622303659819/
 
Here is another I took with my 50mm 1.8. Notice the Small DOF and slight Vignetting effect that it gives...
3943786027_70c7f4005f_o.jpg









jkjk, I put those in with photoshop.
 
Thanks for the words NVP5... Here are 2 others from the same shoot...the light covers the face a little better....any thoughts on either of these 2?

dawn-portrait-1.jpg

The above image is good: expression and composition are solid. But the exposure is still off. Now I now you may be going for something dark and moody (and if you are lose the toothy smile) but you are going to hard time of it without some kind of light modifier. I dont think you described your set-up, but based on the image Id say you are pretty much using a bare flash. Shoot that same flash through a $15 white umbrella and marvel at the improvement in light quality. Since you are shooting through the umbrella you can get the apparent light source (the umbrella, not the flash) close to the subject but keep it out of the frame. The science behind this is that light gets weaker at the square of the distance. By moving your light source close to the subject you can expose for the face, or even part of the face, but have a very fast, even and controlled fall-off as the rest of your subject get significantly farther away from the light source.

One word of caution is that you must carefully meter so that the brightest part of the image is not blown out, especially when its a subjects face. And this technique works less well with bare flash. If you dont have an umbrella then move the subject close to a wall and bounce the flash into that. If you have a zoom you can control the size of the apparent light source (the wall, in this case) by altering the zoom setting. Play around with exposure and the distance from subject to the apparent light source.

I still owe you some pictures from my home PC

EDIT:

Here are the pics I referenced in my previous post:

20090914-DSC_0099-Self-800.jpg


This image was done using a 20"x20" softbox that I modified to be used with a flash and mount to a standard stud versus a monobloc flash head. I think this most closely resembles the look you were trying to achieve. While the image is certainly dark and moody, there are parts of the image that are properly exposed. I hope that comes through on your monitor. The fast light fall-off comes from the fact that the softbox is pointing straight down and is just in front and above my head.

20090914-DSC_0197-Self.jpg


Another single light image here with the same softbox. This time the light is positioned in front and angled at about 45 degrees towards me. I adjusted my distance from the background to adjust the amount of light hitting it. The fall-off I speak about above is evident in that wall (although there is some vignetting added in Lightroom). As you move further from the source the light quickly dims.

20090918-DSC_0381-Self.jpg


Final image is even further in front and above again at about 45 degrees to the subject. Exposure is also higher in this image. I used a second flash on a stand behind me to fill in the wall and fill in the subject. I aimed the flash head straight up but used a bounce card to reflect some light toward the wall. This means most of the light hits the ceiling and fills in much of the scene. This light off the ceiling is similar to ambient in that it will not be bright compared to the key light. But t provides a higher "floor" for your set-up resulting in a more even overall lighting scheme. Don't know what's up with that look...
 
Last edited:
I love the second posted picture there. Do you also ride? Ive been thinking about posting a thread in the off topic to see how many people do OHV recreation on here.

Yeah, I love that shot too... I can't say that I really ride, but I'm learning. I can putter around on the dirtbike for now and not crash it, but that's about the extent of my abilities so far. Considering I'm leaning on his KX450F, I'd say its not bad... lol

cool MX pics! especially the last one!

I need to get me one of them fancy CP filters.

Thanks dude! I forgot to let you know my folks were in West Palm this past weekend. My dad's a huge car nut too and could have met you at the dealership... I should be down there in the next few months, so I'll hit you up when I am (hi)

The hardest part about using the filter is knowing when to use it, but when the situation dictates it, it's a beast to have!
 
NVP5White,
thanks for the critique...

The photos were shot with a 580EXII in a 20" Softbox....Some photos also used a snooted 430EXII as a rim light...This last photo did not.

I understand how to shoot a photo with correct exposure on a whole complete face...and this was not what i was trying to achieve. I was looking for a directional type light for a dark almost silhouette type photo.

Below is the type look that i was going for..
3799595857_a47de3b296.jpg


This photo obviously has 2 sidelights to light both sides of the face.


at any rate...thanks for the help. I know i still need to work on my flash photography but it'll come with time.
 
NVP5White,
thanks for the critique...

The photos were shot with a 580EXII in a 20" Softbox....Some photos also used a snooted 430EXII as a rim light...This last photo did not.

I understand how to shoot a photo with correct exposure on a whole complete face...and this was not what i was trying to achieve. I was looking for a directional type light for a dark almost silhouette type photo.

Below is the type look that i was going for..
3799595857_a47de3b296.jpg


This photo obviously has 2 sidelights to light both sides of the face.


at any rate...thanks for the help. I know i still need to work on my flash photography but it'll come with time.

Make a snoot or get a grid for your purpose. it'll help narrow down your light source and concentrate it more to a certain area.
 
The above image is good: expression and composition are solid. But the exposure is still off. Now I now you may be going for something dark and moody (and if you are lose the toothy smile) but you are going to hard time of it without some kind of light modifier. I dont think you described your set-up, but based on the image Id say you are pretty much using a bare flash. Shoot that same flash through a $15 white umbrella and marvel at the improvement in light quality. Since you are shooting through the umbrella you can get the apparent light source (the umbrella, not the flash) close to the subject but keep it out of the frame. The science behind this is that light gets weaker at the square of the distance. By moving your light source close to the subject you can expose for the face, or even part of the face, but have a very fast, even and controlled fall-off as the rest of your subject get significantly farther away from the light source.

One word of caution is that you must carefully meter so that the brightest part of the image is not blown out, especially when its a subjects face. And this technique works less well with bare flash. If you dont have an umbrella then move the subject close to a wall and bounce the flash into that. If you have a zoom you can control the size of the apparent light source (the wall, in this case) by altering the zoom setting. Play around with exposure and the distance from subject to the apparent light source.

I still owe you some pictures from my home PC

EDIT:

Here are the pics I referenced in my previous post:

20090914-DSC_0099-Self-800.jpg


This image was done using a 20"x20" softbox that I modified to be used with a flash and mount to a standard stud versus a monobloc flash head. I think this most closely resembles the look you were trying to achieve. While the image is certainly dark and moody, there are parts of the image that are properly exposed. I hope that comes through on your monitor. The fast light fall-off comes from the fact that the softbox is pointing straight down and is just in front and above my head.

20090914-DSC_0197-Self.jpg


Another single light image here with the same softbox. This time the light is positioned in front and angled at about 45 degrees towards me. I adjusted my distance from the background to adjust the amount of light hitting it. The fall-off I speak about above is evident in that wall (although there is some vignetting added in Lightroom). As you move further from the source the light quickly dims.

20090918-DSC_0381-Self.jpg


Final image is even further in front and above again at about 45 degrees to the subject. Exposure is also higher in this image. I used a second flash on a stand behind me to fill in the wall and fill in the subject. I aimed the flash head straight up but used a bounce card to reflect some light toward the wall. This means most of the light hits the ceiling and fills in much of the scene. This light off the ceiling is similar to ambient in that it will not be bright compared to the key light. But t provides a higher "floor" for your set-up resulting in a more even overall lighting scheme. Don't know what's up with that look...

this might help you.
 

I'm not sure I was necessarily going for low key in my images. However, the first sentence on the first link in that search states: "Both High Key images and Low Key images make an intensive use of contrast, but in a very different way." I think contrast, proper exposure to under exposure, is something I focused on in my advice to LEXi73.
 

New Threads and Articles

Back