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
jb_browneyes
Goldmember
Avatar
2,107 posts
Joined Jan 2008
Location: New Mexico
     
Mar 03, 2012 14:45 |  #6466

umphotography wrote in post #14013923 (external link)
Two from last night

QUOTED IMAGE

QUOTED IMAGE

Mike For me I love #2. Very "Senior" also the eye light is just right and the hair has movement- Winner, Winner

#1 on the other hand I'm not crazy about because the highlights on her right cheek bone make her face look slightly missculped for lack of a better term.


Jennifer
I only answer to THE highest authority

gear and website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
JWright
Planes, trains and ham radio...
Avatar
18,399 posts
Likes: 29
Joined Dec 2004
     
Mar 03, 2012 16:39 as a reply to  @ jb_browneyes's post |  #6467

Chet wrote in post #14011446 (external link)
What fell off John?

Sidestand... No way to set the bike down to get off.


John

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DinosaurioAllie
Senior Member
Avatar
525 posts
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
     
Mar 03, 2012 17:21 |  #6468

umphotography wrote in post #14013923 (external link)
Two from last night

QUOTED IMAGE

QUOTED IMAGE

Most of your work doesn't really ever appeal to me(Not meant to be an insult in any way) but these are phenomenal. Absolutely love the lighting. I don't honestly quite know what's so different about these than your other portrait work, but I love them.

In the second one, is the background supposed to look realistic? I can't for sure tell what it is supposed to be, but it looks kind of distracting with how un-realistic it looks.

and +1 with the inappropriate word in the logo. I never would have noticed though.

Would anyone with a 1.6 crop body be willing to share their favorite portrait lens? I only have the 100mm f/2.8 lens that's any good quality, and I really need a lens that's not super expensive, but is on the wider end and preferably has a wider aperture.

Something preferably under or around $1000


Canon 7D | Canon 100mm f/2.8 | Canon 40mm f/2.8 | Mamiya RB67 | Mamiya Sekor 90mm f/3.8 | http://www.flickr.com/​mosbeckphotography (external link)
"There's a common misconception that all photographers want to photograph famous people, to be a paparazzi. To me that's like selling my soul. My photographs give thanks to people who have helped me out. Thats not selling my soul, that's gaining it." -Bob Campagna

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KCMO ­ Reefer
Senior Member
301 posts
Joined May 2010
     
Mar 03, 2012 17:23 |  #6469

umphotography wrote in post #14013923 (external link)
Two from last night

QUOTED IMAGE

QUOTED IMAGE

Skin doesn't look right on my monitor on either pic. 2nd pic almost looks like the face is slightly OOF while the hair is sharp. Just what I'm seeing.


Canon 5D MKII gripped | 70-200mm f/2.8 L | 50mm f/1.4 | 580 EXII | AB 800's

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
umphotography
THREAD ­ STARTER
grabbing their Johnson
Avatar
10,882 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 2689
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Gig Harbor, Washington
     
Mar 03, 2012 18:03 as a reply to  @ KCMO Reefer's post |  #6470

You Guys are reading way to much into that logo:lol:..We have this trade marked and have been branding our business with this for 5 yrs..OMG tooo funny,,,,,Logo goes nowhere

Had a bunch of really nice shots with Haley. Took me about 45 minutes to get her to relax so I could get good expressions. Here is another one of the new backdrops......$89.99 Dennys......looks great so grab some 5x7's next time they go on sale

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i195.photobucke​t.com …aby12/A97W7183-Edit-2.jpg (external link)

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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
umphotography
THREAD ­ STARTER
grabbing their Johnson
Avatar
10,882 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 2689
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Gig Harbor, Washington
     
Mar 03, 2012 18:06 |  #6471

KCMO Reefer wrote in post #14016426 (external link)
Skin doesn't look right on my monitor on either pic. 2nd pic almost looks like the face is slightly OOF while the hair is sharp. Just what I'm seeing.

She is just a tad too smooth for my taste as well,,BUT,,she had a fair amount of acne so I had to smooth and move a more skin than I normally would. I also forgot to sharpen the skin on the 2nd shot now that you mention it:cool:

Plus she Lit 4:1 so that could be throwing you off


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
umphotography
THREAD ­ STARTER
grabbing their Johnson
Avatar
10,882 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 2689
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Gig Harbor, Washington
     
Mar 03, 2012 18:08 |  #6472

DinosaurioAllie wrote in post #14016416 (external link)
Most of your work doesn't really ever appeal to me(Not meant to be an insult in any way) but these are phenomenal. Absolutely love the lighting. I don't honestly quite know what's so different about these than your other portrait work, but I love them.

In the second one, is the background supposed to look realistic? I can't for sure tell what it is supposed to be, but it looks kind of distracting with how un-realistic it looks.

and +1 with the inappropriate word in the logo. I never would have noticed though.

Would anyone with a 1.6 crop body be willing to share their favorite portrait lens? I only have the 100mm f/2.8 lens that's any good quality, and I really need a lens that's not super expensive, but is on the wider end and preferably has a wider aperture.

Something preferably under or around $1000

Canon 50MM 1.4 would be excellent and if you can pop for it 50mm 1.2....the 85mm is a bit too long on a crop.


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KCMO ­ Reefer
Senior Member
301 posts
Joined May 2010
     
Mar 03, 2012 18:18 |  #6473

Like the last shot you posted much better, Mike!


Canon 5D MKII gripped | 70-200mm f/2.8 L | 50mm f/1.4 | 580 EXII | AB 800's

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DinosaurioAllie
Senior Member
Avatar
525 posts
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
     
Mar 03, 2012 18:34 |  #6474

umphotography wrote in post #14016631 (external link)
Canon 50MM 1.4 would be excellent and if you can pop for it 50mm 1.2....the 85mm is a bit too long on a crop.

I've used the 50mm f/1.4 and there's just something about it that bugs me. I honestly couldn't put my finger on it when I was using it, and it could be just the fact that I used it for such a short amount of time, but it just didn't seem like a lens that I wanted.

I've definitely considered the 50mm f/1.2. Great hunk of glass. Might be able to convince my parents to pay for half of it. :lol:


Canon 7D | Canon 100mm f/2.8 | Canon 40mm f/2.8 | Mamiya RB67 | Mamiya Sekor 90mm f/3.8 | http://www.flickr.com/​mosbeckphotography (external link)
"There's a common misconception that all photographers want to photograph famous people, to be a paparazzi. To me that's like selling my soul. My photographs give thanks to people who have helped me out. Thats not selling my soul, that's gaining it." -Bob Campagna

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sevillafox
I'm good with pathetic! Really, I am.
Avatar
25,223 posts
Likes: 35
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Southwest Wisconsin
     
Mar 03, 2012 18:35 as a reply to  @ KCMO Reefer's post |  #6475

DinosaurioAllie wrote in post #14016416 (external link)
Most of your work doesn't really ever appeal to me(Not meant to be an insult in any way) but these are phenomenal. Absolutely love the lighting. I don't honestly quite know what's so different about these than your other portrait work, but I love them.

In the second one, is the background supposed to look realistic? I can't for sure tell what it is supposed to be, but it looks kind of distracting with how un-realistic it looks.

and +1 with the inappropriate word in the logo. I never would have noticed though.

Would anyone with a 1.6 crop body be willing to share their favorite portrait lens? I only have the 100mm f/2.8 lens that's any good quality, and I really need a lens that's not super expensive, but is on the wider end and preferably has a wider aperture.

Something preferably under or around $1000

85 1.8 was killer on my crop body....135L is around $1K and my baby....I love that lens. But, I use my 85 1.8 frequently as well.


Tiffany
hopeless smooshoholic......I smoosh!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jsvphoto
Senior Member
Avatar
789 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Great Falls, Montana
     
Mar 03, 2012 18:45 |  #6476

I've used the 85 F1.8 and the 135 F2L. Didn't like the 85 1.8 at all (the lens I rented had a horrible CA problem). Used the 135 for basketball, and it worked great for that. Took it in the studio for about an hour to play with it before returning it. I think it would be fine, but my 70-200 F4 works just as well in studio. I think the 135 would be really nice for outdoors.

I've had very good luck with the 17-55 F2.8 lens, honestly. Didn't like it until I got the 7D and could micro adjust it. And it performs best at F4 and up (not as sharp when it's opened up more). At 55mm, F5.6, it's a fantasic portrait lens. Get physically close to the subject, and it offers good - not great - bokeh. If you have to buy one lens, under $1K, and you want it to be wide, this is the one for you.


Canon 7D Gripped; Canon 7D ii Gripped; Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM; Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L; Canon TS-E 24 f/3.5 L; Sigma 85 f/1.4; Rokinon 8mm f/3.5; various lights & gizmos
Website: www.jsvphotography.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
umphotography
THREAD ­ STARTER
grabbing their Johnson
Avatar
10,882 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 2689
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Gig Harbor, Washington
     
Mar 03, 2012 18:51 |  #6477

jsvphoto wrote in post #14016779 (external link)
I've used the 85 F1.8 and the 135 F2L. Didn't like the 85 1.8 at all (the lens I rented had a horrible CA problem). Used the 135 for basketball, and it worked great for that. Took it in the studio for about an hour to play with it before returning it. I think it would be fine, but my 70-200 F4 works just as well in studio. I think the 135 would be really nice for outdoors.

I've had very good luck with the 17-55 F2.8 lens, honestly. Didn't like it until I got the 7D and could micro adjust it. And it performs best at F4 and up (not as sharp when it's opened up more). At 55mm, F5.6, it's a fantasic portrait lens. Get physically close to the subject, and it offers good - not great - bokeh. If you have to buy one lens, under $1K, and you want it to be wide, this is the one for you.

Man I really agree with the 70-200 F/4 comment:cool::cool:. Its a highly underrated portrait lens,,especially for $550.00 bucks......I'm rarely below F/4 in the studio. Its a really really great lens and its on my camera a lot.


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
umphotography
THREAD ­ STARTER
grabbing their Johnson
Avatar
10,882 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 2689
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Gig Harbor, Washington
     
Mar 03, 2012 19:15 as a reply to  @ umphotography's post |  #6478

Opinions needed

Did a lot of things wrong on this shot and almost tossed it. But after looking at it for a while its growing on me. Short lit her and got the light too hot which created a shadow under the eye. dropped my aperture 1/3 to wash her skin so i might vignette the shot for more affect. But for some reason,,Im liking this shot......am I nuts:lol:

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i195.photobucke​t.com …nbaby12/A97W719​4-Edit.jpg (external link)
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO

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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DinosaurioAllie
Senior Member
Avatar
525 posts
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
     
Mar 03, 2012 19:25 |  #6479

sevillafox wrote in post #14016740 (external link)
85 1.8 was killer on my crop body....135L is around $1K and my baby....I love that lens. But, I use my 85 1.8 frequently as well.

jsvphoto wrote in post #14016779 (external link)
I've used the 85 F1.8 and the 135 F2L. Didn't like the 85 1.8 at all (the lens I rented had a horrible CA problem). Used the 135 for basketball, and it worked great for that. Took it in the studio for about an hour to play with it before returning it. I think it would be fine, but my 70-200 F4 works just as well in studio. I think the 135 would be really nice for outdoors.

I've had very good luck with the 17-55 F2.8 lens, honestly. Didn't like it until I got the 7D and could micro adjust it. And it performs best at F4 and up (not as sharp when it's opened up more). At 55mm, F5.6, it's a fantasic portrait lens. Get physically close to the subject, and it offers good - not great - bokeh. If you have to buy one lens, under $1K, and you want it to be wide, this is the one for you.

umphotography wrote in post #14016812 (external link)
Man I really agree with the 70-200 F/4 comment:cool::cool:. Its a highly underrated portrait lens,,especially for $550.00 bucks......I'm rarely below F/4 in the studio. Its a really really great lens and its on my camera a lot.

I don't have a studio though. :lol:

Thanks for all the input guys.

Does anyone own the 17-40mm f/4L?


Canon 7D | Canon 100mm f/2.8 | Canon 40mm f/2.8 | Mamiya RB67 | Mamiya Sekor 90mm f/3.8 | http://www.flickr.com/​mosbeckphotography (external link)
"There's a common misconception that all photographers want to photograph famous people, to be a paparazzi. To me that's like selling my soul. My photographs give thanks to people who have helped me out. Thats not selling my soul, that's gaining it." -Bob Campagna

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
umphotography
THREAD ­ STARTER
grabbing their Johnson
Avatar
10,882 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 2689
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Gig Harbor, Washington
     
Mar 03, 2012 19:28 |  #6480

DinosaurioAllie wrote in post #14016947 (external link)
I don't have a studio though. :lol:

Thanks for all the input guys.

Does anyone own the 17-40mm f/4L?


Had it. Sold it because i need F/2.8. If you don't need F/2.8...its an awesome lens. If i didn't need shallow depth WA shots,,,i would have kept it...great lens


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

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

2,731,456 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 quadrentau
978 guests, 332 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.