First shoot with new A7. I would like to solicit help in picking the "best' couple of shots from my favourites album to do further editing on, if anyone polite wants to kill some time. What I am looking for, is, "this photo is one of the best, because - good thing - good thing so it's worth editing some more" not "this is the only one that isnt total crap", etc. https://photos.app.goo.gl/TzajYNhKh34Tv2p1A There are currently around 45 shots, taken from a shoot of around 300. Yes I know half of the ones in pink are poorly lit/underexposed. Was pondering if they are worth saving. Thats why they're in there. If not, no need to comment on them. Aug 18 18 08:10 pm Link Sorry but I don't see any images in your set that I would consider good. Posing is mediocre. Nothing interesting about most; the ones with the book have some interest but the model's fingers are very wide spread and detract. But just one worthless opinion. Aug 18 18 09:32 pm Link Philip Brown wrote: You're gonna post in Critique and dictate what can and can not be said? Aug 19 18 01:16 am Link Philip Brown wrote: This is the Critique forum, not the Participation Trophy forum. Aug 19 18 02:16 am Link Philip Brown wrote: I like Your Model. Aug 19 18 03:32 am Link Aug 19 18 04:02 am Link Quit concentrating on what to edit more. Concentrate instead on getting it right (in terms of lighting and composition) in-camera. Aug 19 18 04:14 am Link OP, those are the 45 you choose to show us from the 300 you shot? I'd hate to see the rest. You seem to shoot without seeing. For shots like the ones with the red robe or the dice I wonder what you were looking at. Others are poorly lit and/or awkward. I don't think that any shots are worth post time. Aug 19 18 05:36 am Link File A7100260 is the best I can find in the set you've uploaded. The models expression is neither here nor there, but the pose makes the most of her physique with that outfit and lighting set up. The solid blacks lack detail and basically detract from her lean curves, I think it would have paid better dividends if you'd been a little more discerning with the wardrobe selection. Your model sells the shot, but not in an entirely convincing manner, I'm sure you can do a lot better with this lady if you were to shoot with her again. Aug 19 18 07:04 am Link Black Z Eddie wrote: okay. what would make the lighting better? And, you need to lose that DYI backdrop nonsense. Go to a studio. This one for example seems to be inexpensive at $25/hr 2 hr min. http://www.luminostudios.com/hours.php Seems like if I dont learn how to use studio lighting properly first, i'll just be wasting an extra $50 there. Aug 19 18 07:39 am Link Rik Williams wrote: A fair point. I was only thinking about fabric texture and color. Forgot about specific fit on her. Aug 19 18 07:46 am Link Rik Williams wrote: This was one of the dark ones. I bumped it up a bit. Aug 19 18 07:54 am Link Be nice? Depth of field was well selected to make it seem that the background is not wrinkled. Aug 19 18 08:28 am Link I like the first two photos of the model on the sofa, although in one her foot is awkwardly cropped. Maybe you can adjust that; cropping of limbs and digits can be a challenge sometimes. Your control of depth of field could be a bit tighter in my opinion. It might be worth just taking the same image over and over again with differing depths of field to see which one pleases you most. JT Aug 19 18 08:53 am Link I like these two best. https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipO … ZjNHNIMDJn https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipO … ZjNHNIMDJn Her pose is better as well as the composition of the images. Aug 19 18 09:32 am Link Znude! wrote: Thanks! Aug 19 18 10:01 am Link So let me get this straight...you spent anywhere from $1,000 to $2,000 on a brand new camera, but you haven't even come close to understanding the basics of good photography yet. Just my opinion, but you should've saved that money and put it towards a good photography class or seminar; where you could actually apply fundamental techniques to even the cheapest camera and still achieve good results. As far as the shots go; they're all just snapshots. The poses and expressions are stiff, the lighting is dull; cropping won't save them; and the colors you've chosen to use between backdrops and wardrobe don't work well together at all. If you want us to be nice, then you won't learn anything. As the old saying goes; you have to learn how to walk before you can run. Giving a Lamborghini to a 16-year-old who just got his license won't make him a better driver; giving him driving lessons on a race track, even in a cheap old car, will. Aug 19 18 11:09 am Link Philip Brown wrote: Quit relying on ambient light. The vast majority of your images are flat, flat, flat. Seems like if I dont learn how to use studio lighting properly first, i'll just be wasting an extra $50 there. If it gives you an environment in which you'll quit relying on flat ambient light and start learning to actively use light, it's money well spent. Aug 19 18 12:17 pm Link Philip Brown wrote: 1. Go back to basics. 1 light. Uno. Singular. I think that's been suggested in the past, but, you are so adamant on using multiple lights. You seem to think the more lights, the better. I know I know, you bought a set. Just because it came with 2, doesn't mean you have to use 2. Philip Brown wrote: Yeah, but, your backdrop is one of the things that's killing your photos. Also, something to consider is those studios come with lighting equipment as part of the rental. So, who knows, you might get to learn on equipment similar to those in the videos. Since you're trying to do more studio stuff, if it were me, I'd try it at least once. Aug 19 18 12:19 pm Link Black Z Eddie wrote: Actually...I dont think thats ever been suggested to me. Aug 19 18 01:21 pm Link Philip Brown wrote: Philip, Aug 19 18 02:57 pm Link Philip I have shot for a while now and all my studio images have been shot with a single strobe. I also shoot with ambient (natural light) not just outside but even indoors where ever it makes sense. Model photography takes time. You do need to take some basic photography and studio photography classes. I am sure there art top end camera stores that offer classes. With focus and dedicated work you will see strong improvement after 10,000 images. You can also look through MM browse local photographers that you admire. Contact and offer to pay them to help you improve your photography. In 2012 I wanted to sit at the feet of an experienced art photographer. I paid $500 and worked with one of the best. R. Michael Walker. We spent from 8 am to well after midnight being critiqued, instructed, looking at prints, and then going out to Joshua Tree to shoot my model who I had brought with me from Minneapolis MN. It's a day I will never forget and it changed my photography forever. After you can play your camera like a well trained musician I would suggest you work with payed traveling models. If you don't have a studio shoot outdoors. Keep shooting, keep getting help from strong model photographers in your area. And a year from now I will gaurentee you that will see a world of difference in your images. Aug 19 18 03:23 pm Link FIFTYONE PHOTOGRAPHY wrote: for the record, my softbox is 50cmx70cm. Aug 19 18 03:23 pm Link OP, what did you think of the video tutorial that Black Z recommended... "3. This is just one of many video tutorials out there. It's only 7 minutes. Watch the entire thing. Pay attention to his photos then look at yours. This should give your some inspiration/motivation. If it doesn't, sell all your gear because you're just never going to get it." Aug 19 18 03:47 pm Link Fleming Design wrote: I watched it. yes, "all the way through". Aug 19 18 03:56 pm Link Philip Brown wrote: No need to buy more gear. White foamcore should do for fill. Aug 19 18 04:09 pm Link okay. So. Below, is what I get doing a self-portrait via the sony remote app, single light classic 45 degree above, with white foamcore reflector on the other side. You're saying that this: is better lighting than this ? Aug 19 18 05:26 pm Link Philip Brown wrote: There's something Wrong if the ISO is 3200, with a light. For one, the light settings are too low, and at high ISO's, you're pulling other light. It's better to use manual mode and lower ISO's in general. Many photographers first learn outdoors, before indoors. It's also good to know equipment limitations. Take advantage of outdoor opportunities. Aug 19 18 06:03 pm Link OP, I think before every shoot, you need to decide the purpose the theme for your lighting. You just can't use a bunch of lights and expect everything to look nice because your lighting then has no purpose and does convey any mood. Please learn more about low-key vs high-key lighting, the different effects of different light modifiers in making hard or soft lighting, and the most important one, the inverse square law of light. Finally, learn to use your camera properly in manual mode and don't rely on aperture mode if you're shooting inside with strobes. After all of those, your photos should improve drastically. Just FYI, I use the same camera as you do, a Sony A7II, and I mainly use 1 strobe for all my shoots, yet my ISO rarely goes over 160. Aug 19 18 06:39 pm Link CaliModels wrote: err.. I specifically said this was with no lighting. You even quoted me saying it? :-} Philip Brown wrote: Aug 19 18 06:59 pm Link Philip Brown wrote: How big is the foam core and how close is it to you? Try moving it even closer, if possible, and see how that goes. Aug 19 18 07:28 pm Link PhotographybyT wrote: its as tall as me, and if it were any closer it would be in the frame :-/ Aug 19 18 07:53 pm Link kinda reluctant to put my 2 cents in Philip..Your'e not easy to converse with cause you seem to have an answer for every suggestion people offer... 1) I suggest you make friends with an MUA 2) make friends with a hair stylist 3) if you can't do that then attend meet ups that work with MUA's and hair stylists.. you need to get your models up to speed.. Aug 19 18 10:20 pm Link Philip Brown wrote: A disingenuous comparison of apples and oranges. There is far more difference in the two images than just the addition of a foamcore reflector. Look at the lighting on the background and on the two models. Completely different position and intensity of the light source. Aug 19 18 11:11 pm Link Black Z Eddie wrote: Philip Brown wrote: Actually....yeah it has; and no you didn't start with one light. Remember this. Maybe issue is I need a bigger softbox? If you think about it, a lot of photographers use beauty dishes, speedlights, etc. A larger softbox could be more forgiving and give softer lighting wrapping around the model, but, like everything else, you need to use it correctly. as an aside: the room is relatively dark without lighting. You would think this could be an advantage for you to hide the backdrop + light the model cleaner. Risen Phoenix Photo wrote: Aug 20 18 12:41 am Link Philip Brown wrote: Let us know your settings with or without strobes. Per the photos with the model,look like they're on high ISO's. Also, if the room is as dark as you claim, the numbers provided for ambient light levels show there's light in that room. Using simple factoring, F5 is about 2 stops away from 2.8. Which makes ISO 3200 about 2 stops from 800. So, your room at F2.8, 1/60s, and ISO 800 has quite a bit of light. Aug 20 18 02:02 am Link To better understand lighting quality and ratios it might help if you set up something like a mannequin head in a stationary position and practice lighting it in fully manual mode, manual ISO, manual shutter speed, manual f/stop, and fully manual flash settings. Leaving the flash in the same position do a series of shots changing only one thing, flash power. Leave everything else unchanged on the camera and position of the light and mannequin. You could use a basketball or soccer ball if you don't have the mannequin. Use a low ISO Take careful notes relative to light power and position. Repeat with a bounce card on the opposite side. Pay attention to where the light is aimed and the angle of the bounce card. Do another run of tests moving the light in closer, and another changing the angle of the main light so it's more directed at the bounce card. Learn to shoot fully manual before digging in to anything automatic. Once you master that you should be able to repeat it over and over again using the light ratio and settings that you prefer. Personally I prefer to learn to shoot with available light outdoors using no more than a reflector before venturing into using a flash. At some point you will have to learn to mix flash with available light. But just master one thing at a time and keep it as simple as possible before moving to the next step. And be thankful you aren't learning all of this using film as it could get expensive. Aug 20 18 05:48 am Link CaliModels wrote: Interesting. What makes you say that? Aug 20 18 07:06 am Link Phillip, People are referring to you using strobe/flash but it appears that you are using LEDs or even hot lights. It might help if you would include a wide shot that shows your entire set up. If you were near me I would invite you in to use my studio and all the lighting and modifiers for a few hours. It would help you immensely. Aug 20 18 07:17 am Link Black Z Eddie wrote: I am definitely considering the classes/shadowing someone approach. Aug 20 18 07:39 am Link |