5d3, Einstein strobe, beauty dish and 4 stop ND filter (couple portraits inside)

Perhaps I'm alone here but to me your shadows are too harsh. However, before you take that as criticism, understand this: I believe lighting should look as natural as possible while still lighting up the face and eyes.

The shadows created here look so harsh that it almost looks like you're shooting this in the studio or on a green screen. Yes, I know that you aren't but if you dialed down the power or simply shot a little later in the day when the ambient isn't so harsh, I think all of the portraits would look better...

^ I think part of the point of the 'exercise' (thought really it's a proper shoot and looks great) was to play with overpowering the harsh ambient of early afternoon. I'd probably also prefer the light associated with later in the evening; but sometimes we don't have a choice. It's good to see that if forced to shoot early-mid afternoon in non-overcast conditions, we can adopt this setup (of many possible setups).

Also--in terms of lighting these 'naturally', wouldn't the sun produce equally as harsh if not far harsher shadows than are present here ?

collierportraits wrote in post #14450588
Perhaps I'm alone here but to me your shadows are too harsh. However, before you take that as criticism, understand this: I believe lighting should look as natural as possible while still lighting up the face and eyes.

The shadows created here look so harsh that it almost looks like you're shooting this in the studio or on a green screen. Yes, I know that you aren't but if you dialed down the power or simply shot a little later in the day when the ambient isn't so harsh, I think all of the portraits would look better...

I'm not seeing it.

nice set ,but you need to calm down the watermark it very distracting in some of the shots

nicksan wrote in post #14447430
There are some color temp variations on these, particularly the first one, but I like them all. Good stuff and it definitely gives me food for thought since I have the EXACT same setup, but never really use the Kacey BD. Did you eye ball the exposure on the subjects or used a light meter? How was it carrying around the rig?

Just eye-balled it.

nicksan wrote in post #14447431
Link please. I've been looking to do something like this...you know, use my fast primes outdoors.

This is what I got, and I am really pleased with it. http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …ND16_77mm_Pro_1​D_16x.html

Rahul wrote in post #14447449
awesome work!

Thank you.

elrey2375 wrote in post #14447490
Really nice work. Only criticism I have would be to move your watermark over to the left side on #6, it looks like it's a part of her shoe.

Thank you. It is an automated watermark exported from lightroom. I have tried placing them individually, but it takes exponentially longer.

Christopher Steven b wrote in post #14448062
The setup shot suggests that shots 4,5 are sort of revealing your light presence via the dark band (ring) that starts at the bottom left of the photos proceeding diagonally upward. Is there a way of tapering off the light a little better ? or would titling the dish up help ? Perhaps it isn't so much of a problem, but I noticed it immediately in the shots.

Your light looks a little hot in 1, bang on in 2.

Above all, pretty natural for shooting all that light into the scene !

I tried angling the BD upwards, but because of how it reflects it still shoots some light to the bottom. I tried to get the results like you suggest, but I think I need a grid to control spill a little more.

I agree about it being a bit hot on 1, and a little warm.

Tigerkn wrote in post #14450289
Nice photos Bryan! 3 & 7 are my fav.

Thanks. Those are my favorites as well.

Lukasz_Centka wrote in post #14450340
nice set although sometimes your watermark gets in the middle... worth moving around maybe...

Thank you. I will keep that in mind, maybe make it smaller. There is a fine balance between being in the way and not being able to be seen.

Tigerkn wrote in post #14450373
I think, Bryan watermark is an Action, so it place at the same spot on every shot.

True.

frugivore wrote in post #14450422
This has nothing to do with the lighting or technicality of the shot, but I don't like the clothing selection. Do you discuss this with the clients beforehand?

You know, I was really laxed about it. When I talked to Melissa the day before she said he was going to wear a shirt, and I assumed a button up of some type but he showed up with this. Not a big deal to me honestly. If I was shooting for a magazine or something, then it would be different. If they want to wear certain clothing for their shoot, that is fine with me.

StephenAndrew wrote in post #14450487
I was going to mention this too - the lighting and posing are wonderful, but the big red lettering on the guy's shirt distracts me in 1, 6, and 7. Very nicely done though!

Thank you.

collierportraits wrote in post #14450588
Perhaps I'm alone here but to me your shadows are too harsh. However, before you take that as criticism, understand this: I believe lighting should look as natural as possible while still lighting up the face and eyes.

The shadows created here look so harsh that it almost looks like you're shooting this in the studio or on a green screen. Yes, I know that you aren't but if you dialed down the power or simply shot a little later in the day when the ambient isn't so harsh, I think all of the portraits would look better...

I dont see the harsh shadows, are you saying the light is too strong and should be toned down a little (thus the studio/backdrop comment)? My goal wasnt to make this look the most natural, but somewhat surreal and getting in the elements of the area as well as them properly lit. I wanted them to stick out, and get a little fashion-y with it.

Christopher Steven b wrote in post #14450761
^ I think part of the point of the 'exercise' (thought really it's a proper shoot and looks great) was to play with overpowering the harsh ambient of early afternoon. I'd probably also prefer the light associated with later in the evening; but sometimes we don't have a choice. It's good to see that if forced to shoot early-mid afternoon in non-overcast conditions, we can adopt this setup (of many possible setups).

Also--in terms of lighting these 'naturally', wouldn't the sun produce equally as harsh if not far harsher shadows than are present here ?

This was exactly the point. Although I did this shoot at 5PM rather than noon (because I wanted some backlight) I wanted to show that it could be done. There was a thread about this in the discussion portion of the forum about shooting e-shoots midday. The Einstein did a great job overpowering the sun (even though it fell and broke at the end of the session).

elrey2375 wrote in post #14451173
I'm not seeing it.

poldodog wrote in post #14451572
nice set ,but you need to calm down the watermark it very distracting in some of the shots

Thank you. I will play around with it a little.

Red Tie Photography wrote in post #14451708
This is what I got, and I am really pleased with it. http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …ND16_77mm_Pro_1​D_16x.html

I was just about to get that same filter.

Red Tie Photography wrote in post #14451708
You know, I was really laxed about it. When I talked to Melissa the day before she said he was going to wear a shirt, and I assumed a button up of some type but he showed up with this. Not a big deal to me honestly. If I was shooting for a magazine or something, then it would be different. If they want to wear certain clothing for their shoot, that is fine with me.

I agree, whatever they want to wear should be fine. But recently, I did educate a couple that I shot about what clothing works best for portraits and they understood and changed something that they had selected. As photographers, I think we should give some guidance even if the clients choose not to accept it.

Quite a long multi-post, btw. I think you now hold the record!

That sucks your light fell and broke. What stand/anchoring did you bring or use?

Love the images btw. The shadows seem just right and the couple fits this style completely.

JakAHearts wrote in post #14452908
That sucks your light fell and broke. What stand/anchoring did you bring or use?

Love the images btw. The shadows seem just right and the couple fits this style completely.

It sucks, but it was because I was stupid. I usually put my Thinktank retrospective 30 on the stand when it has a few lenses in it and it weighs it down fine. Or have my assistant hold it (both of which I had available). I didnt use either and put the stand on a hill with it slanting backwards. So if you dont want your stuff to fall over and break, just dont be dumb with it I guess.

Red Tie Photography wrote in post #14453214
It sucks, but it was because I was stupid. I usually put my Thinktank retrospective 30 on the stand when it has a few lenses in it and it weighs it down fine. Or have my assistant hold it (both of which I had available). I didnt use either and put the stand on a hill with it slanting backwards. So if you dont want your stuff to fall over and break, just dont be dumb with it I guess.

Good work Bryan and don't sweat the light. It happens. I dumped one in a lake last year.....Thats when i went to a beauty dish when im by myself. Umbrellas and outdoor don't mix well unless someone is holding the stand:o

umphotography wrote in post #14463681
Good work Bryan and don't sweat the light. It happens. I dumped one in a lake last year.....Thats when i went to a beauty dish when im by myself. Umbrellas and outdoor don't mix well unless someone is holding the stand:o

Yeah, well now i have something a little bigger to sweat. My wedding on Saturday someone picked up a bag of flashes. ALl I had in there was my quantum qflash trio, quantum battery pack, 580ex2 and a YN-560. You know, only about $2k worth. If I dont hear anything by the end of this week (hopefully a guest picked it up unknowingly) I will be filing an insurance claim.

Red Tie Photography wrote in post #14470612
Yeah, well now i have something a little bigger to sweat. My wedding on Saturday someone picked up a bag of flashes. ALl I had in there was my quantum qflash trio, quantum battery pack, 580ex2 and a YN-560. You know, only about $2k worth. If I dont hear anything by the end of this week (hopefully a guest picked it up unknowingly) I will be filing an insurance claim.

Major Bummer, reporting for duty. I guess thats what insurance is for. How big was the wedding and where are the pictures??

That is exactly what insurance is for. Wedding was probably 125-150 guests. It was a busy weekend and I have a LOT of photos to go through, but am really happy with the family formals. I will be excited to show those soon.

Red Tie Photography wrote in post #14470612
Yeah, well now i have something a little bigger to sweat. My wedding on Saturday someone picked up a bag of flashes. ALl I had in there was my quantum qflash trio, quantum battery pack, 580ex2 and a YN-560. You know, only about $2k worth. If I dont hear anything by the end of this week (hopefully a guest picked it up unknowingly) I will be filing an insurance claim.

Are you effing kidding me?!? That just pisses me off.

Red Tie Photography wrote in post #14470612
Yeah, well now i have something a little bigger to sweat. My wedding on Saturday someone picked up a bag of flashes. ALl I had in there was my quantum qflash trio, quantum battery pack, 580ex2 and a YN-560. You know, only about $2k worth. If I dont hear anything by the end of this week (hopefully a guest picked it up unknowingly) I will be filing an insurance claim.

I feel for you, dude. Regardless of whether insurance will cover it, I know your heart must've sank when you found it missing. You still have some of your speedlites, right? What's happening with the E640, btw?

Sorry to hear about your lights Bryan. Hope they all come back in the same condition, soon.