Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Visual Enjoyment People 
Thread started 09 Aug 2010 (Monday) 09:28
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

STICKY: How to photograph a high school Senior

 
this thread is locked
mtimber
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,011 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Cambs, UK
     
Mar 30, 2012 12:45 |  #6886

charro callado wrote in post #14181418 (external link)
I took me a while to come up with an explanation with which I was happy and that clients would understand. I tell them it's like going fishing - it's not every trip out that you're going to walk away with a dozen trophy catches. And just like in fishing, I have "size" limits...if we get something too small, we're going to throw it back. I'm not going to hand over a few mediocre shots just to meet some arbitrary quota. That helps no one.

That said, I have always managed to walk away with at least one "trophy" shot from every session. Anything else is gravy, and I make sure my clients know that this is my mindset.

If I go out shooting for a day and get 5 good images I am happy. :-)


"Light travels faster than sound. Which is why people some people appear bright, until you hear them speak..."

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
wamerritt
Member
Avatar
192 posts
Likes: 15
Joined May 2009
     
Mar 30, 2012 13:46 |  #6887

umphotography wrote in post #14180761 (external link)
Yeah, i think you are. Not saying you can get F/2.0 with a F/2.8. Its the creamy blur look from a F/2.0 i was talking about. But i will tell you that you can put an ND on an F/2.8 lens and get it to underexpose. slow the shutter and raise the iso and get awesome results. I do it all the time when im in lower light with a 70-200.....straight off the camera lighting and Blur

QUOTED IMAGE

This doesn't make sense to me. (photo link broken) Are you talking about motion blur? If so why raise the iso? ND's remove light, but exposure is exposure.


Wes
http://www.wesmerritt.​com (external link)
https://www.facebook.c​om/wesmerrittphotograp​hy/ (external link)
Olympus OMD M43

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
shankarhokie
Goldmember
Avatar
1,894 posts
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Saline, Michigan
     
Mar 30, 2012 14:23 |  #6888

wamerritt wrote in post #14181761 (external link)
This doesn't make sense to me. (photo link broken) Are you talking about motion blur? If so why raise the iso? ND's remove light, but exposure is exposure.

I guess that if the scene's lighting (either ambient or in studio situation) registers a higher F stop for proper exposure, then if you use a ND filter to cut down lighting, you end up opening the aperture thus aloowing for more background blur.

Example: If teh scene registers F5.6, then by using a 3 stop ND filter, you will shoot at F2.8 to get the same exposure, but you now have a nice Bokeh.

http://strobist.blogsp​ot.com …-kill-depth-of-field.html (external link)


Shankar
Perpetual learner.
FLICKR (external link) -- Gear-- Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JFusion
Senior Member
Avatar
851 posts
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Dayton, Ohio
     
Mar 30, 2012 14:28 |  #6889

shankarhokie wrote in post #14181910 (external link)
I guess that if the scene's lighting (either ambient or in studio situation) registers a higher F stop for proper exposure, then if you use a ND filter to cut down lighting, you end up opening the aperture thus aloowing for more background blur.

Example: If teh scene registers F5.6, then by using a 3 stop ND filter, you will shoot at F2.8 to get the same exposure, but you now have a nice Bokeh.

http://strobist.blogsp​ot.com …-kill-depth-of-field.html (external link)

Mikes response didn't actually indicate needing one to get the wider aperture he said, " slow the shutter and raise the iso and get awesome results", that's why he's confused. I am as well since there seems no benefit to that scene by doing that, but whatever...


Jeremi
http://www.jeremiblurt​on.com (external link)
JB Photography - Facebook Fan Page (external link)
5D Mark iii, 7D, 24-70 2.8L, 70-200 2.8L IS II, 100 Macro 2.8, Nifty, 100-400 4.5-5.6L and a bunch of other stuff.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
shankarhokie
Goldmember
Avatar
1,894 posts
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Saline, Michigan
     
Mar 30, 2012 14:38 |  #6890

JFusion wrote in post #14181933 (external link)
Mikes response didn't actually indicate needing one to get the wider aperture he said, " slow the shutter and raise the iso and get awesome results", that's why he's confused. I am as well since there seems no benefit to that scene by doing that, but whatever...

I see that now..

Maybe Mike is saying that if you are already at F2.8, adding a ND filter will cut light, so you have to raise the ISO & Reduce shutter speed to get a proper exposure. ??? ???


Shankar
Perpetual learner.
FLICKR (external link) -- Gear-- Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,120 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 1129
Joined Dec 2006
     
Mar 30, 2012 14:44 |  #6891

shankarhokie wrote in post #14181972 (external link)
I see that now..

Maybe Mike is saying that if you are already at F2.8, adding a ND filter will cut light, so you have to raise the ISO & Reduce shutter speed to get a proper exposure. ??? ???

But you could regain that balance by either raising the ISO, or the reducing the shutter speed, you wouldnt need to do both necessarily. You could do both if you wished. Say you had a 3 stop ND, you could regain that loss by one stop of ISO and two stops of shutter speed.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
umphotography
THREAD ­ STARTER
grabbing their Johnson
Avatar
10,598 posts
Gallery: 15 photos
Likes: 2364
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Gig Harbor, Washington
     
Mar 30, 2012 15:02 |  #6892

gonzogolf wrote in post #14181998 (external link)
But you could regain that balance by either raising the ISO, or the reducing the shutter speed, you wouldnt need to do both necessarily. You could do both if you wished. Say you had a 3 stop ND, you could regain that loss by one stop of ISO and two stops of shutter speed.


Correct. You need to bring it back to F/2.8 to get proper exposure. Its an F/2.8 lens right. In the meantime the ND reduced the ambient to F/2.0. It also causes the DOF to be shallower. The background blur on her completely surrounds her. She jumps off the page. I have tried w/o ND's and cant get the same depth results. Just as you would be reducing F/5.6 light to F/2.8 with a 3 stop ND to get the exposure at F/2.8 you also reduce your DOF. Same thing applies by taking it below F/2.8, raising the iso and adjusting the shutter to get proper exposure...it also creates a better shallow DOF


Mike
www.umphotography.com (external link)
GEAR LIST
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Rich1971
Member
92 posts
Joined Jul 2010
Location: ohio
     
Mar 30, 2012 15:03 |  #6893

sevillafox wrote in post #14159374 (external link)
Kinsey


IMAGE NOT FOUND
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

IMAGE NOT FOUND
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO


IMAGE NOT FOUND
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO


IMAGE NOT FOUND
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO


IMAGE NOT FOUND
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

The poses are decent enough in all of these but the eyes look WAAAYYYY overprocessed. What ever you use you should definitely back off a couple notches. It looks like milk...


Rich
"Yes I am serious... And don't call me Shirley" - L. Nielson
Canon 50d / 580ex II / 24-70L 2.8 / EF28-135/ EF70-300/ EF85 1.8-elichrom 4d lite. Paul Buff White Lightning X-1600.Paul Buff Octa/Strip Bank/Large Softbox

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wamerritt
Member
Avatar
192 posts
Likes: 15
Joined May 2009
     
Mar 30, 2012 16:16 |  #6894

umphotography wrote in post #14182078 (external link)
Correct. You need to bring it back to F/2.8 to get proper exposure. Its an F/2.8 lens right. In the meantime the ND reduced the ambient to F/2.0. It also causes the DOF to be shallower. The background blur on her completely surrounds her. She jumps off the page. I have tried w/o ND's and cant get the same depth results. Just as you would be reducing F/5.6 light to F/2.8 with a 3 stop ND to get the exposure at F/2.8 you also reduce your DOF. Same thing applies by taking it below F/2.8, raising the iso and adjusting the shutter to get proper exposure...it also creates a better shallow DOF

f5.6 to 2.8 is only 2 stops. I can't see how an ND is going to affect DOF aside from the obvious. ND's to me are for lowering shutter speed to below camera sync, (example; using strobes on the beach with a large aperture)or to enable longer exposures for effect. If you are getting more BG blur it must be camera shake. It is possible that you are freezing the subject with the flash so the camera shake is not visible in that area.

If this is true we could just buy ND filters and save lots of $ on fast glass!

I love the shot, and your contribution to this thread BTW. I'm just confused.


Wes
http://www.wesmerritt.​com (external link)
https://www.facebook.c​om/wesmerrittphotograp​hy/ (external link)
Olympus OMD M43

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JFusion
Senior Member
Avatar
851 posts
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Dayton, Ohio
     
Mar 30, 2012 16:34 |  #6895

umphotography wrote in post #14182078 (external link)
Correct. You need to bring it back to F/2.8 to get proper exposure. Its an F/2.8 lens right. In the meantime the ND reduced the ambient to F/2.0. It also causes the DOF to be shallower. The background blur on her completely surrounds her. She jumps off the page. I have tried w/o ND's and cant get the same depth results. Just as you would be reducing F/5.6 light to F/2.8 with a 3 stop ND to get the exposure at F/2.8 you also reduce your DOF. Same thing applies by taking it below F/2.8, raising the iso and adjusting the shutter to get proper exposure...it also creates a better shallow DOF

You were using a flash? That would lower the exposure but you're still not going to get a DoF wider than 2.8. NDs only affect exposure not DoF. This is incorrect: "In the meantime the ND reduced the ambient to F/2.0. It also causes the DOF to be shallower." The effect you're likely seeing is exposing the background under your subject not causing the DoF to be shallower.


Jeremi
http://www.jeremiblurt​on.com (external link)
JB Photography - Facebook Fan Page (external link)
5D Mark iii, 7D, 24-70 2.8L, 70-200 2.8L IS II, 100 Macro 2.8, Nifty, 100-400 4.5-5.6L and a bunch of other stuff.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dave ­ Jr
Goldmember
Avatar
1,873 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2006
Location: MN
     
Mar 30, 2012 16:40 |  #6896

It does seem Mike is confused. There is no effect on depth of field what so ever shooting at f/2.8 with an ND filter vs. f/2.8 without an ND filter.


Dave Jr - MN
5 (external link)px | Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wamerritt
Member
Avatar
192 posts
Likes: 15
Joined May 2009
     
Mar 30, 2012 16:52 |  #6897

JFusion wrote in post #14182568 (external link)
You were using a flash? That would lower the exposure but you're still not going to get a DoF wider than 2.8. NDs only affect exposure not DoF. This is incorrect: "In the meantime the ND reduced the ambient to F/2.0. It also causes the DOF to be shallower." The effect you're likely seeing is exposing the background under your subject not causing the DoF to be shallower.

I think you nailed it. He was at 1/160 on a 5d so he did need the ND to knock down the BG exposure. The good thing about being a poor 50D user is syncing at 1/320 with no problems. =] Now I can sleep easier. :D


Wes
http://www.wesmerritt.​com (external link)
https://www.facebook.c​om/wesmerrittphotograp​hy/ (external link)
Olympus OMD M43

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jmalonear
Senior Member
Avatar
651 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Feb 2010
Location: Corning, AR
     
Mar 30, 2012 17:01 |  #6898

Dave Jr wrote in post #14182599 (external link)
It does seem Mike is confused. There is no effect on depth of field what so ever shooting at f/2.8 with an ND filter vs. f/2.8 without an ND filter.

I second this...lol


Friends call me Jay!
Gear: Canon 5D Mark III | Canon 70D | Canon 50D w/grip|Canon 10D|Canon 70-200mm 2.8L IS|Canon 24-70mm 2.8L|
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bobbyz
Cream of the Crop
19,400 posts
Likes: 1505
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
     
Mar 30, 2012 17:20 |  #6899

OK, Here is what happens when I am using ND filter. Usually I am using ND filter when it is sunny but then say you shooting in shade now with darker bg. You can remove ND filter and shoot at lower power with wider apertures.

Or

Leave ND filter but slow your ss to get more ambient. Now if ss falls below whatever you hand holding speed is, you need to bump ISO. That in turn means lowering power of the flash to keep same ambient/bg mix.

Blur, ambient/bg ratios remains same with ND.


5dmk3, 35L, 85L II, 300mm f2.8 IS I, 400mm f5.6
Fuji XT-1, 14mm f2.8, 23mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, 56mm f1.2, 90mm f2, 50-140mm f2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
charro ­ callado
Goldmember
Avatar
1,144 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 6
Joined Mar 2008
Location: PA
     
Mar 30, 2012 17:34 |  #6900

LOL.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

2,681,539 views & 2 likes for this thread
How to photograph a high school Senior
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Visual Enjoyment People 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Barbatz
774 guests, 326 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.