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 General Gear Talk Flash and Studio Lighting 
Thread started 11 Jan 2011 (Tuesday) 14:25
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Show us your setup and the final result!

 
DisrupTer911
Goldmember
Avatar
2,452 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 29
Joined Jul 2008
Location: NJ, USA
     
Dec 10, 2015 10:29 |  #9361

Alveric wrote in post #17813905 (external link)
How do we know that 'underexposure' isn't precisely the ratio he aimed for?

We don't which is why we can give constructive criticism and look at everything with an artistic eye personal to ones self.


www.vividemotionphotograph​y.comexternal link

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
PhotosGuy
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
75,941 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 2589
Joined Feb 2004
Location: Middle of Michigan
     
Dec 10, 2015 10:34 |  #9362

Alveric wrote in post #17813905 (external link)
How do we know that 'underexposure' isn't precisely the ratio he aimed for?

Well, you're right. But there are two clues: 1. "Jr Member". 2. "21 posts."
Granted, that might not mean a lot as is illustrated here: https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1447573

But what does it hurt to make a suggestion? Isn't that what we're here for? ; )


FrankC - 20D, RAW, Manual everything...
Classic Carz, Racing, Air Show, Flowers.
Find the light... A few Car Lighting Tips, and MOVE YOUR FEET!
Have you thought about making your own book? // Need an exposure crutch?
New Image Size Limits: Image must not exceed 1600 pixels on any side.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Alveric
Goldmember
Avatar
4,598 posts
Gallery: 38 photos
Likes: 1057
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Canada
     
Dec 10, 2015 10:46 |  #9363
bannedPermanent ban

DisrupTer911 wrote in post #17813909 (external link)
We don't which is why we can give constructive criticism and look at everything with an artistic eye personal to ones self.

Yep, I hear you: we don't. That's one of the 'problems' with forums, we seem to have our 'let's find flaws with it' hats on all the time. Guess it'd help if the posters stated 'as intended' or 'C&C welcome' along with their photos.

Not trying to be a troll here, just that a couple of things come to mind with this: one, that I see quite a tendency to remove most if not all shadows from photos (which effectively flattens then, since it's the shadows that provide the richness to an image) and use only the softest light (especially for women portraits); and two, I remember when a stock agency once rejected one of my photos because the 'white balance was incorrect': yes, the photo had a pinkish tint because it was taken at sunrise!! Since when a faithful reproduction of the actual light that fell on a subject at a particular time is INCORRECT!!??

Then again, till the portraitist says yea or nay, we remain wondering. :)


'The success of the second-rate is deplorable in itself; but it is more deplorable in that it very often obscures the genuine masterpiece. If the crowd runs after the false, it must neglect the true.' —Arthur Machen
Why 'The Histogram' Sux (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
NewCreation
Goldmember
Avatar
3,216 posts
Gallery: 47 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 594
Joined Jan 2013
Location: Michigan
     
Dec 10, 2015 11:01 as a reply to  @ post 17813900 |  #9364

I think it's nice short lighting.


My name is Brenda ~Saved by grace, walking by faith
http://brendahoffmanph​otography.com (external link)
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cug
Member
140 posts
Likes: 57
Joined Oct 2015
Post edited over 5 years ago by cug.
     
Dec 10, 2015 11:12 |  #9365

saea501 wrote in post #17813714 (external link)
I see a B&W........

At least I know there's one other audio enthusiast with some taste around here. :-D

My wife didn't like the b&w version of it all too much. Generally we both like b&w better, but for this it just didn't work.

DisrupTer911 wrote in post #17813900 (external link)
If you added a reflector underneath it would fill in the shadows nicely as it's just a bit underexposed on her right hand cheek.

I know what you mean and we have versions of that that as well, but it made the lighting a bit flat and uninteresting in our opinion. I agree that this is what a lot of photographers and artists do, but I just don't always like it. Plus it then then often looks like "what everybody does".

Regarding going by the number of posts towards the experience of a person is like relating the age of a car to the experience of the driver: not really helpful.

But I have to admit that in this case you are mostly right, I don't have lots of flash experience and this was our first experiment at home. Still, I know what I like and what I don't like and I know how to use my equipment - I don't own all too much, but I think I know fairly well how to use it. I'm also not the most artistic or creative person but I do have a certain taste and it goes well along with my wife's taste, which in this case was the most important thing.

The main thing I don't like about the photo is that I had to over-expose the background just too much because of the cow-dropping colored wall which then in turn had an effect of washing out some of the hair in a way I didn't like, but there was nothing I could about it. We need a small backdrop if we do experiments like that as our house has no white interior walls or not enough space around the ones that do exist. We'll change that in the near future but that wasn't the case when we took the photos.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ptcanon3ti
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,718 posts
Gallery: 545 photos
Best ofs: 5
Likes: 9019
Joined Sep 2012
Location: NJ
     
Dec 10, 2015 11:26 |  #9366

NewCreation wrote in post #17813950 (external link)
I think it's nice short lighting.

me too. I don't think it's underexposed. I like shadow in portraits. It adds depth to the subject. IMO.


Paul
https://www.flickr.com​/photos/petshots/ (external link)
Body - Nikon D750
Lenses - Nikon 20 f1.8 / Nikon 16-35 f4 / Sigma 105 OS Macro / Sigma 24-105 f4 Art / Tamron 70-200 2.8 Di VC / Sigma 150-600 "S"

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
maxblack
I feel like I'm in danger
Avatar
2,050 posts
Likes: 317
Joined Sep 2008
Location: NYC Area
     
Dec 10, 2015 11:53 |  #9367

cug wrote in post #17813958 (external link)
My wife didn't like the b&w version of it all too much. Generally we both like b&w better, but for this it just didn't work.

I think saea501 was referring to your B&W speakers maybe,
not a Black & White version of the image. :-P



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Alveric
Goldmember
Avatar
4,598 posts
Gallery: 38 photos
Likes: 1057
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Canada
     
Dec 10, 2015 11:56 |  #9368
bannedPermanent ban

cug wrote in post #17813958 (external link)
My wife didn't like the b&w version of it all too much. Generally we both like b&w better, but for this it just didn't work.

I know what you mean and we have versions of that that as well, but it made the lighting a bit flat and uninteresting in our opinion. I agree that this is what a lot of photographers and artists do, but I just don't always like it. Plus it then then often looks like "what everybody does".

Regarding going by the number of posts towards the experience of a person is like relating the age of a car to the experience of the driver: not really helpful.

But I have to admit that in this case you are mostly right, I don't have lots of flash experience and this was our first experiment at home. Still, I know what I like and what I don't like and I know how to use my equipment - I don't own all too much, but I think I know fairly well how to use it. I'm also not the most artistic or creative person but I do have a certain taste and it goes well along with my wife's taste, which in this case was the most important thing.

The main thing I don't like about the photo is that I had to over-expose the background just too much because of the cow-dropping colored wall which then in turn had an effect of washing out some of the hair in a way I didn't like, but there was nothing I could about it. We need a small backdrop if we do experiments like that as our house has no white interior walls or not enough space around the ones that do exist. We'll change that in the near future but that wasn't the case when we took the photos.

You could use a white bed sheet, or vinyl bathroom curtain. Do get the subject at least 6 ft away from it, though, as it will flare back, which is a problem with subjects who have loose hair, and it can also give you flare. I like the all white background, it's not an easy thing to obtain, and you got it right right off the bat. Do note that an all white background is, by default blown out (RGB 255, 255 255).


'The success of the second-rate is deplorable in itself; but it is more deplorable in that it very often obscures the genuine masterpiece. If the crowd runs after the false, it must neglect the true.' —Arthur Machen
Why 'The Histogram' Sux (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CBell21
Mostly Lurking
19 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 10
Joined Nov 2015
     
Dec 10, 2015 13:14 as a reply to  @ post 17801511 |  #9369

I absolutely love this so much




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
welshwizard1971
Goldmember
Avatar
1,452 posts
Likes: 1099
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Southampton Hampshire UK
     
Dec 10, 2015 13:21 |  #9370

I liked the portrait, perfectly exposed skin from every angle just doesn't look right to me, it's obviously not natural, and shadows give the skin texture and help shape to the face.


EOS R 5D III, 40D, 16-35L 35 ART 50 ART 100L macro, 24-70 L Mk2, 135L 200L 70-200L f4 IS
Hype chimping - The act of looking at your screen after every shot, then wildly behaving like it's the best picture in the world, to try and impress other photographers around you.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cug
Member
140 posts
Likes: 57
Joined Oct 2015
Post edited over 5 years ago by cug.
     
Dec 10, 2015 16:10 as a reply to  @ maxblack's post |  #9371

Regarding B&W: LOL - you're right. I'm in "work mode" so my brain is left in the drawer ... ;-)a




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cug
Member
140 posts
Likes: 57
Joined Oct 2015
     
Dec 10, 2015 16:13 |  #9372

Alveric wrote in post #17814001 (external link)
You could use a white bed sheet, or vinyl bathroom curtain. Do get the subject at least 6 ft away from it, though, as it will flare back, which is a problem with subjects who have loose hair, and it can also give you flare. I like the all white background, it's not an easy
thing to obtain, and you got it right right off the bat. Do note that an all white background is, by default blown out (RGB 255, 255 255).

Thanks for the hint. We were looking at everything we have in the house and we plain don't have ANYTHING large enough and at least "whitish". Weird household, I know, but that's what it is. We don't own the typical bedsheets.

I'll likely get some reasonable stands and white cloth or curtain, or whatever for next time. It's not too expensive and overall worth it.

Thanks for saying I got it right - took a while to dial in the exposure, positions, flash power in all places and as I had different flashes also the experimenting which one worked best where. In the end I just did with one 32" umbrella and two Yongnuo flashes triggered wirelessly. It wasn't hard, just took a while to dial in all the parameters.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Didereaux
Senior Member
Avatar
415 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 254
Joined Jun 2014
Location: Upper Texas coast
     
Dec 10, 2015 16:35 |  #9373

cug wrote in post #17813958 (external link)
My wife didn't like the b&w version of it all too much. Generally we both like b&w better, but for this it just didn't work.

I know what you mean and we have versions of that that as well, but it made the lighting a bit flat and uninteresting in our opinion. I agree that this is what a lot of photographers and artists do, but I just don't always like it. Plus it then then often looks like "what everybody does".

Regarding going by the number of posts towards the experience of a person is like relating the age of a car to the experience of the driver: not really helpful.

But I have to admit that in this case you are mostly right, I don't have lots of flash experience and this was our first experiment at home. Still, I know what I like and what I don't like and I know how to use my equipment - I don't own all too much, but I think I know fairly well how to use it. I'm also not the most artistic or creative person but I do have a certain taste and it goes well along with my wife's taste, which in this case was the most important thing.

The main thing I don't like about the photo is that I had to over-expose the background just too much because of the cow-dropping colored wall which then in turn had an effect of washing out some of the hair in a way I didn't like, but there was nothing I could about it. We need a small backdrop if we do experiments like that as our house has no white interior walls or not enough space around the ones that do exist. We'll change that in the near future but that wasn't the case when we took the photos.


use a second flash with a gel on the background.


Couple of Canon bodies, a couple of Canon lens, few gadgets all stuffed in a bag...and a stick, and a tripod.
https://www.flickr.com …ringandmontepho​tos/albums (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dragon76
Member
Avatar
130 posts
Gallery: 51 photos
Likes: 733
Joined Dec 2014
     
Dec 10, 2015 18:54 |  #9374

cug wrote in post #17813501 (external link)
QUOTED IMAGE
QUOTED IMAGE

I like it. Nice and natural details. In my opinion, the kicker light does its job and no further fill is needed as the image would be flat. By the way, with B&W bob actually meant the Bower & Wilkins with their trademark tweeter :-). What amplification that goes with the B&W I wonder...


www.deannita.com

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cug
Member
140 posts
Likes: 57
Joined Oct 2015
     
Dec 10, 2015 19:25 as a reply to  @ dragon76's post |  #9375

There is a Musical Fidelity A5 amp and CD player behind the 804S speakers.




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

7,285,733 views & 11,207 likes for this thread
Show us your setup and the final result!
FORUMS General Gear Talk Flash and Studio Lighting 
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 elkaboing
958 guests, 261 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.