Using a single strobe (NOT hotshoe flash)- creative examples - mark II

piekarz23 wrote in post #12864570

IMAGE LINK: http://www.fotosik.pl

Nice shot! Like the colors, they look really good.

JakAHearts wrote in post #12864579
Not to egg on this whole thing but I feel like a lot of time people dont give their normal "critique" to the "good" photogs. This even holds true for photos not on this site. I see a lot of pros work cutting of arms, heads, elbows etc. Then there are what some call bad poses, hot spots, too much contrast, harsh shadows etc etc. Where some unknown guy might post the same shot and have someone say "I dont like A and B about the shot" but if someone else were to post the same shot, and he is a well established and well liked photog, he would get "AMAZING work as usual". Sadly, thats just the way it is. All arts are like this, imho. A lot of times, its perception over reality.

Perfectly said, unfortunately there's not a lot you can do about it, so we just have to learn to deal with it.

hawk911 wrote in post #12834323
single 500 BxRi into a 69" octa.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

single 500 Bx Ri into the 16" maxilite

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Petrifying Springs park....

Well done.

piekarz23 wrote in post #12864570

IMAGE LINK: http://www.fotosik.pl

JakAHearts wrote in post #12864579
Not to egg on this whole thing but I feel like a lot of time people dont give their normal "critique" to the "good" photogs. This even holds true for photos not on this site. I see a lot of pros work cutting of arms, heads, elbows etc. Then there are what some call bad poses, hot spots, too much contrast, harsh shadows etc etc. Where some unknown guy might post the same shot and have someone say "I dont like A and B about the shot" but if someone else were to post the same shot, and he is a well established and well liked photog, he would get "AMAZING work as usual". Sadly, thats just the way it is. All arts are like this, imho. A lot of times, its perception over reality.

+ 1

JakAHearts wrote in post #12864579
Not to egg on this whole thing but I feel like a lot of time people dont give their normal "critique" to the "good" photogs. This even holds true for photos not on this site. I see a lot of pros work cutting of arms, heads, elbows etc. Then there are what some call bad poses, hot spots, too much contrast, harsh shadows etc etc. Where some unknown guy might post the same shot and have someone say "I dont like A and B about the shot" but if someone else were to post the same shot, and he is a well established and well liked photog, he would get "AMAZING work as usual". Sadly, thats just the way it is. All arts are like this, imho. A lot of times, its perception over reality.

I have noticed this as well.

JakAHearts wrote in post #12864579
Not to egg on this whole thing but I feel like a lot of time people dont give their normal "critique" to the "good" photogs. This even holds true for photos not on this site. I see a lot of pros work cutting of arms, heads, elbows etc. Then there are what some call bad poses, hot spots, too much contrast, harsh shadows etc etc. Where some unknown guy might post the same shot and have someone say "I dont like A and B about the shot" but if someone else were to post the same shot, and he is a well established and well liked photog, he would get "AMAZING work as usual". Sadly, thats just the way it is. All arts are like this, imho. A lot of times, its perception over reality.

Yes, this true. If you are a "forum hero", you can just say it's a choice you made and everyone agrees. Really, it's just bad lighting or posing that wouldn't do for a photo director, but it is not smart to say that around here, it seems people are not interested. (Or if they are, they are clever enough not to say anything.)

But that's forums all over the world. Excuses are great, some people have no idea about wanting to get better, which we all should be doing.

phamster wrote in post #12864541
Wow didn’t think there would be this big of a discussion on this..

Thanks for the comments both negative and positives

Original question of why I made the window brighter than the other? Artistic Choice like some have stated.

Short answer I did the best I could with the amount of time given. When I was setting up for the shot, it looked pretty good having the brighter window become the light source for the bride, but in hind sight now, some don’t like the bright window..

I guess I could have burned down the window some more and post before and after..

Problem is: even with out the lighting, there was one sunny window and one in the shade(two different ratio's). So no matter what you do in a single snap of a camera click, your going to get a bright and a darker window… that ratio will never change as it is ambient or am I wrong here? and brides wearing white.. who made that crazy protocol default color?

BTW The Brides Family is happy with the final results so in the end I guess I did my job.. interesting input and discussions.. makes us all better

I have been with out internet since Comcast is down in my area..

I (along with others here) think you made the right choice. As I understand it (but admitedly limited by my severly limited experience) you are right about being unable to bring the two windows to the same exposure. While you could have "balanced" the shot to bring down the exposure of the bright window, that would have left the other window dark (as Ryan pointed out earlier). Then, there probably would have been comments about the dark window! Damned if you do and damned if you don't...

But most importantly, if you would have "balanced" to bring down the exposure of the bright window, the exposure of the subject would have been different and I'm guessing you would have lost the magic of the scene as you portrayed it.

BTW - in some cultures, white is the color for funerals and other (easier to photograph) colors are for bridal gowns. Not a lot of call (anymore) for funeral photography... Oh well!

JakAHearts wrote in post #12864579
Not to egg on this whole thing but I feel like a lot of time people dont give their normal "critique" to the "good" photogs. This even holds true for photos not on this site. I see a lot of pros work cutting of arms, heads, elbows etc. Then there are what some call bad poses, hot spots, too much contrast, harsh shadows etc etc. Where some unknown guy might post the same shot and have someone say "I dont like A and B about the shot" but if someone else were to post the same shot, and he is a well established and well liked photog, he would get "AMAZING work as usual". Sadly, thats just the way it is. All arts are like this, imho. A lot of times, its perception over reality.

Hey! I displayed my displeasure with Peter Nguyen... once... When he shot a dude and not his usual stunning ladies.

HAHA, i actually like those shots... all 2 of them... :P

Roroco wrote in post #12865465
Hey! I displayed my displeasure with Peter Nguyen... once... When he shot a dude and not his usual stunning ladies.

And you were in the right

the default answer for any of us can always be "art's creative decision" so even if you could or would have, he/she didn't. Feel free to say you don't agree, but as Pham stated in the end, the customer was happy and that's really all that matters. So now we have members banned because Pham's decision was challenged? it is the social world we live in.

hawk911 wrote in post #12865628
the default answer for any of us can always be "art's creative decision" so even if you could or would have, he/she didn't. Feel free to say you don't agree, but as Pham stated in the end, the customer was happy and that's really all that matters. So now we have members banned because Pham's decision was challenged? it is the social world we live in.

No, they were banned because they didn't know enough about lighting so just got very rude instead.

Dann.Landau wrote in post #12865713
No, they were banned because they didn't know enough about lighting so just got very rude instead.

rofl