Portraits

[Levitron]

Hits you like a ton of bricks doesn't it

[davidhtam]

Originally Posted by Levitron

Yeah, that was me. I drove my dad's car that day...I usually drive the Mazda.

how do you like the triggers? i kind of wish they came w/ the pc cords.. but meh... $20

[Levitron]

Originally Posted by davidhtam

how do you like the triggers? i kind of wish they came w/ the pc cords.. but meh... $20

You mean the ones that you picked up from Kyle? I didn't get them. I have the original PT04's, so the YongNuo's wouldn't be compatible with them.

[Levitron]

Originally Posted by Domani

yes it was...


but shooting with a buddy is always fun.

+1

[g/rex]

tried some series shots today. here's what i came up with.

[tweakynuts]

Originally Posted by rdris

^I'm graduating next year

hey i grad next year too! woohoo for us!

what school do/did you guys go to? tupper?

[g/rex]

[dspirit79]

These were all taken in one session with the lights unchanged in position. All of these photos were taken with 580EX's and Vivitars. I'm a strobist at heart.

3 Lights... different uses.

Can any of you guess what I used in each photo and where the lights are positioned? It's good practice for those wanting to improve their off hotshoe lighting.

Enjoy! These haven't been touched except for exposure and color correction. All vignetting and light fall offs are in camera.

[dspirit79]

Oh... I forgot to mention to you Greg. The finer aspects of portraiture lighting is to be able to light with only one major catchlight in the subject's eye. The reason behind it is because 2 catch lights take away from the eyes as well as start to become distracting. Just a quick tidbit!

Good work tho considering you've only been at it for a few months!

[g/rex]

Originally Posted by dspirit79

Oh... I forgot to mention to you Greg. The finer aspects of portraiture lighting is to be able to light with only one major catchlight in the subject's eye. The reason behind it is because 2 catch lights take away from the eyes as well as start to become distracting. Just a quick tidbit!

Good work tho considering you've only been at it for a few months!

thank you, i will take that into consideration.

[Denny]

From photographer's POV:
-softbox 45º right; height around his head
-flash 90º left with snoot; height around top of his head.
-flash 90º left same height as softbox
?

[on]

1 background
1 rimlight camera left and behind model
1 soft box right of camera

^- no fill light

and i disagree with the no more than 1 catchlight rule. theres been debates about this...

LOTS AND LOTS of shoots have beautiful catchlights with multiple lights such as high fashion glamor stuff with the reflector under chin. it actually catches the viewers attention more. of course not "more catchlight the better" its more like it takes skills and practice to make catchlights look good

[Denny]

BACKGROUND! That's it!! I was wondering where the 3rd flash was haha

[Levitron]

dspirit...I think I've mentioned this before as well, but your lighting always seems to be underexposed. Save for that first shot, the other ones simply lack light and even though you're going for the dramatic look, there's not enough contrast.

I'm also with on for the "multi-catchlight" idea. It's not "bad" per se to have more than one catch light. Heck, I have to be honest here...I sometimes photoshop at least 2 catchlights into the eye just to make it "sparkle" more. The eyes are windows to the soul....I prefer to draw people's attention to them.

[Levitron]

^ Sorry for the brashness of the critique, but I hold you to a higher level because I know you have the knowledge, talent, and gear to do so

[g/rex]

i know what you mean by the multiple catchlight being a distraction but i find that sometimes, if done right, it can be very pleasing. for example, an eye with 2 catchlights one under the other of a square and a circle can take away from the overall picture, but two catchlights that are square/rectangle beside each other can look very cool and interesting. i guess its in personal preference. different photographer, different style, different perception.

OT: is it just me or do you guys get lazy typing the proper way? i had this instance today where i was typing a letter to a client and i went from proper to msn/internet typing.

[Levitron]

Originally Posted by g/rex

OT: is it just me or do you guys get lazy typing the proper way? i had this instance today where i was typing a letter to a client and i went from proper to msn/internet typing.

Yeah I hate it when that happens. I drive myself crazy when I do that automatically....it's almost mechanical.

[g/rex]

"lols rofl omg haha ttyl ... np ty kk icic ok nope"

gotta get these out of my internet vocab/phone text

[Levitron]

I don't think my clients would enjoy that very much either LOL

[on]

dont i get a prize or soemthing for guessing the light ~.~

[dspirit79]

Originally Posted by Levitron

dspirit...I think I've mentioned this before as well, but your lighting always seems to be underexposed. Save for that first shot, the other ones simply lack light and even though you're going for the dramatic look, there's not enough contrast.

I'm also with on for the "multi-catchlight" idea. It's not "bad" per se to have more than one catch light. Heck, I have to be honest here...I sometimes photoshop at least 2 catchlights into the eye just to make it "sparkle" more. The eyes are windows to the soul....I prefer to draw people's attention to them.

Levitron: May I ask what you are basing your observation on in terms of exposure. When I expose my subjects, I look for graying of the skin. That signals underexposure to me. In the above photographs except for the 2nd & 4th one the exposure to me is bang on. Those are a little shy. There is graying in his white shirt even in the brightest spot. I did use a lightmeter for the session, shots may differ slightly in exposure because of not enough time for recharge.

When you say lacking light, perhaps I'm not understanding what you are meaning.

I think so many photographers are straying to harder contrasts nowadays. The use of LCD monitors with 1500:1 ratios (and above) is skewing the contrast curve. You only have to look through the forum to see that there is a general migration to stronger contrast. I prefer not to.

[dspirit79]

Originally Posted by on

1 background
1 rimlight camera left and behind model
1 soft box right of camera

^- no fill light

and i disagree with the no more than 1 catchlight rule. theres been debates about this...

LOTS AND LOTS of shoots have beautiful catchlights with multiple lights such as high fashion glamor stuff with the reflector under chin. it actually catches the viewers attention more. of course not "more catchlight the better" its more like it takes skills and practice to make catchlights look good

Nope. Guess again! No prizes yet!

[dspirit79]

Originally Posted by Levitron

^ Sorry for the brashness of the critique, but I hold you to a higher level because I know you have the knowledge, talent, and gear to do so

No such thing! A critique is a way to improve right?! No worries.

[Levitron]

Originally Posted by dspirit79

Levitron: May I ask what you are basing your observation on in terms of exposure. When I expose my subjects, I look for graying of the skin. That signals underexposure to me. In the above photographs except for the 2nd & 4th one the exposure to me is bang on. Those are a little shy. There is graying in his white shirt even in the brightest spot. I did use a lightmeter for the session, shots may differ slightly in exposure because of not enough time for recharge.

When you say lacking light, perhaps I'm not understanding what you are meaning.

I think so many photographers are straying to harder contrasts nowadays. The use of LCD monitors with 1500:1 ratios (and above) is skewing the contrast curve. You only have to look through the forum to see that there is a general migration to stronger contrast. I prefer not to.

Here's what I mean by underexposed. Maybe my terminology isn't tack on, but if you take a look at the histograms for your photographs they are weighted towards the left side. I have to admit that histograms aren't the be all and end all of examining the photographs, but at least it gives you and idea of what I mean. I know what you mean by a migration towards a stronger contrast, but in your pictures, the histograms should at least show some spikes in the places where it should....i.e. the subject's white shirt, etc. Right now it's all weighted towards the left. Where it DOES spike, it's very minimal. One good thing is that the white shirt is not blown out at all But you have your own style, and I respect that.

[dspirit79]

The histogram in the 2nd photograph is close. Remember that data spike is in relation to the entire photograph. You would expect a small spike near the white area. Albeit, that 2nd photograph is slightly underexposed, but the amount of white is quite small in relation to the black where the spike is dominant.