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 Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 06 Dec 2014 (Saturday) 04:52
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Home studio

 
Bgill1215
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
72 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jul 2014
Location: PA
     
Dec 17, 2014 04:15 |  #31

2 more of my Dalmatian...BTW anyone know how to upload more than 2 images per post? I know these aren't perfect shots. still a littleunder exposed, but we are getting there.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Alveric
Goldmember
Avatar
4,598 posts
Gallery: 38 photos
Likes: 1053
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Canada
     
Dec 17, 2014 13:04 |  #32
bannedPermanent ban

Your background is too close to the subjects and the wrinkles ruin the shots. :-(


'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
Bgill1215
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
72 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jul 2014
Location: PA
     
Dec 17, 2014 13:22 |  #33

The background wrinkles wouldn't be there. I just threw it up quick to get some shots of my dogs (:




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Alveric
Goldmember
Avatar
4,598 posts
Gallery: 38 photos
Likes: 1053
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Canada
     
Dec 17, 2014 13:24 |  #34
bannedPermanent ban

Ooo, test shots. Alright.

I've a few comments, but I'd like to ask what lights you got first.


'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
Bgill1215
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
72 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jul 2014
Location: PA
     
Dec 17, 2014 13:53 |  #35

Husband got me 3 continuous florescent lights. But these photos were only taken with 2. Also have a flash and strobe that were not used with theses shots.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,254 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Likes: 1541
Joined Dec 2006
     
Dec 17, 2014 13:54 as a reply to  @ Bgill1215's post |  #36

Return them and get flashes asap. These are going to be dreadful for pet photos.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Alveric
Goldmember
Avatar
4,598 posts
Gallery: 38 photos
Likes: 1053
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Canada
Post edited over 5 years ago by Alveric.
     
Dec 17, 2014 14:10 |  #37
bannedPermanent ban

Which fluorescents? Brand? Model?

Sorry to ask too many questions, but it's easier to give advice if one knows what in the wise of light formers you can use with your lights.

What I find about your test shots is that they are flat, which makes me think you were using both lights at the same power levels and at the same distance from the subject: a copy lighting setup. For portraiture, you need to work with ratios, so that you get the shadows that define the subject and gives the tridimensionality to a 2D image.

I'll share one pic with you, here:

IMAGE: http://diamantstudios.ca/Gemeines/bilder/Examples/Persian_cats.jpg

That one was made with two lights: main was a softbox to the left and the rim light was a bowl reflector behind the subjects and to the right. No fill was used. You can see how punchy the image is thanks to the high contrast and the interplay of highlights and shadows.

'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
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

4,910 views & 0 likes for this thread
Home studio
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
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 CoolGuy5Million
1142 guests, 242 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.