STICKY:  How to photograph a high school Senior

shankarhokie wrote in post #14289491
so.. No ambient light influencing the shot... right?

correct. but not solely because of the camera settings.... because the shot was taken in a studio.

aaron.dunlap wrote in post #14289542
correct. but not solely because of the camera settings.... because the shot was taken in a studio.

Thanks.. That as well... I am looking for that Adorama video that showed that the only way to arrest motion with a strobe is to completely eliminate the ambient light... unless you have a strobe to kill the ambient.. be it the sun or whatever...

Well, unless Mike has one bright ass studio, there wouldnt be an ambient at F7 and ISO100 at 1/125th. just like anything else in photography, there are always variable that affect an image.

Now, with all this said, Mike. Do you have einsteins or alien bees? I cant remember but I know you were playing with the hyper sync stuff.

tired of this, but

yep... you took the ambient down almost two stops and then fired light at it which lasted for way less than 1/250 of a second. we've covered this already.

here's the real question, for the first frame you showed, do you really believe that if you had fired a strobe at that with the *exact same settings* that there would have been *no* motion blur? does that make sense?

Originally Posted by wamerritt
He is not talking about a studio portrait. It was a girl in the woods.

Originally posted by aaron.dunlap
then unless it was in the middle of the night, the flash isn't going to freeze the subject at all....

Quote:
Originally Posted by wamerritt
If your subject is underexposed by at least two stops you can use a flash to freeze them pretty effectively. It will not freeze the background obviously. This is where an IS lens helps to steady the camera shake. This is done at pretty much every wedding reception in the world. (slight stretch)

Originally posted by aaron.dunlap
Dragging the shutter at a wedding reception for effect is a far different thing from a professional looking portrait.

Originally posted by aaron.dunlap
The topic at hand was the comment that the flash would freeze the subject at slower shutter speeds.
1/200 or 1/60... doesn't matter if you're using flash or not... you can still get motion blur when shooting outside during the day. In this situation, then only thing that will allow you to freeze your subject better is to use a camera with a higher sync speed, or completely eliminate the ambient light entering the camera and use higher powered strobes (that have very short flash duration).


You need to make up your mind. I'm wrong then I'm right? I'm done. I know how it works. I along with others was trying to help someone. You just want to argue.

aaron.dunlap wrote in post #14289978
here's the real question, for the first frame you showed, do you really believe that if you had fired a strobe at that with the *exact same settings* that there would have been *no* motion blur? does that make sense?

Not once has that even been suggested. The original shot was lit with flash. The woods behind the girl were dark. It was suggested not by me that the shutter could have been slowed to let in a little more light on the background without introducing camera shake blur on the subject. (not a moving subject at all) This is and was entirely true based on looking at the photo. He was shooting with a 24-70 and lighting his subject with flash. He should be able to hand hold at 1/50 and still get a sharp portrait, and yes the flash in this situation would have helped to increase the sharpness of the subject.

Do you really believe that it has to be in a studio or the middle of the night to freeze motion with a flash? That is what you said earlier.

Don't remember arguing with you about that. I told you exactly what I thought you were talking about. I also never said you were wrong. The point that I'm arguing is that ambient light exposes the sensor. Using a flash does not equal freezing motion. Thats the only point I'm trying to make. It was stated earlier that using a flash freezes your subject, which is simply not always true. Especially in an outdoor, daytime setting.

And yes, it was implied by your drawing a distinction between your two photographs that the flash in the second photo was responsible for freezing the water, and the lack of flash in the first was responsible for the motion blur... which also is not true.

Also, those shots were taken in the evening, and your slowest shutter speed was 1/250. Are you saying that you could have hand held a shot in that environment at 1/50 and not gotten motion blur?

I'm playing around with Lr4's white balance brush. I didn't gel my flash, but I think this result may be acceptable. Definitely easier than needing to go into photoshop to use layers to do the same thing.

Very nice shot!

White balance brush would be awesome for club shots with so many light types. Might be time to read up on LR4.

Wammeritt, that looks fantastic! I havent seen/worked on LR4. Why is it easier than doing it in PS?

Looks great, Wammeritt. Purchased LR4 a few weeks ago but have yet to load it. Need to get that done.

Honestly guys, I dont have the time nor the inclination to argue back and forth about flash affects and what it does or does not do. I Know what it does for my shooting style, in studio, and outside and i dont have any problems freezing motion. This shot was taken outside in total black out conditions with 2 lights.

I flash lit the water coming out of the fountain at an estimated speed that exceeds 70 mph. Its pretty dam fast. The water froze instantly. The light on the subject was 1 light and was actually the fill light. The main light lit the water. My brain does not compute the technical or Mathmatic side of things. I am very much a visual person and thats how my brain works. In real world shooting conditions, I can see what a flash can do when it comes to freezing motion. If you asked me to explain it to you in a technical sort of way,,I could not do it.

JakAHearts wrote in post #14291580
Wammeritt, that looks fantastic! I havent seen/worked on LR4. Why is it easier than doing it in PS?

My workflow is in Lr so this is one less reason I need to bring an image into Ps.

It is 100% non destructive if I stay in Lr.
I don't have to create another copy of the file to manage.
It's faster since I already have the Lr develop module open. (hit k, brush it on, move slider, done)

I only use Ps for;
sharpening in extreme cases,
text,
very heavy retouching(headshot of someone with poor skin),
removing large elements (cloning),
occasional need to swap a head or composite some images.

Ah ok. Cool. Ive been thinking about cashing in on my wife being a teacher and using the discount but I havent yet found a need for LR over ACR. I dont know how Id live without layers and opacities.