A recent event

Thought I'd share a few from a recent event we covered... it was a fundraiser for mentally challenged adults. There actually weren't but a few actual mentally challenged adults in attendance, ironically.

It was really fun attending... we donated our time, of course. The light was very challenging; it was incredibly dark in the place and it was very crowded, and we were running around quite a bit. There was also a mixture of lighting. I tried to light the subjects without disturbing too much the mood of the existing light, which was kind of moody.

Fortunately, everyone was wearing a white nametag, which made whitebalance pretty much a snap! Lol.

1:

The flash has been nicely balanced. Your exposure and PP simple and appropriate.
You have a number of unconventional crops that don't lend themselves to printing standards.

Also hard to critique your post of a photograph of someone elses photo in 7.

Image 2's focus has missed the face and hit the hands effectively focusing on her disability and not her as a person. Likely not intentional. Just something to look out for.

Your DOF on a number of these images is really nice and the contrast is very pleasing.

Simeon

Visual Bride wrote in post #11609543
The flash has been nicely balanced. Your exposure and

Hi,

Thanks for posting both positive an negative comments on your critique; that's how I like to do them too!

I have to tell you, it's obvious to me on my 24" monitor that in #2, the focus is not on her hands, but her face. Her face is very sharp. If you'd like, I can blow up areas of her to prove this. As for the crops, I have the originals and shoot an 18mpx 1ds2 and can crop a variety of ways...

Thanks for the comments

#2 face is out of focus or camera shake.

Ken, how are you determining that?

By looking at it

Ken_Rockwell wrote in post #11612243
By looking at it

Too subjective.

How else am I to determine OOF? By magic dust?

To my eyes, they look OOF. Apparently someone else agrees.

Sorry, but to me #2 looks like the focus caught her hand too. Maybe it was focus and recompose that goofed it up. Using your other photos as reference shows me what in focus images look like, but to me this just looks like a goof - probably due to your camera struggling in low light situations like all of ours do.

I think #7 would have looked great backed off a little so you can see the screen, and depending on the amount of light in the room possibly spectators too. They already have that image somewhere, so most likely do not need a photo of it, but showing more of the scene may give insight into the event.

Red Tie Photography wrote in post #11614674
Sorry, but to me #2 looks like the focus caught her hand too.

I went back and looked at the shot and blew up her face and hand - I stand corrected! I had been trying to "catch" a shot of this girl throughout the night, it was REEALLY difficult because this was a long, thin rectangular room and it seemed like EVERY time I locked focus on someone, some goof would walk right in front of us! Lol.

Red Tie Photography wrote in post #11614674
Maybe it was focus and recompose that goofed it up.

I don't usually use that technique... I use a 1ds2 with 45 AF points so I don't use that technique, chances are by the time I "recompose" at fast-paced event like this, my shot would be good and gone...

Red Tie Photography wrote in post #11614674
Using your other photos as reference shows me what in focus images look like, but to me this just looks like a goof - probably due to your camera struggling in low light situations like all of ours do.

I think it was just a slight mistake; my camera doesn' struggle at all in low light. It has to be basically dark for it to "hunt", lol. I think my "keeper" rate with the 1 series shot up dramatically due to the unbelievaable AF system alone (all things being equal that is)

Red Tie Photography wrote in post #11614674
I think #7 would have looked great backed off a little so you can see the screen,

I actually have about 15 images like you described; but posted that one because I liked it. Again, the silly and pointless 8 image limit thing Here's a link to one (handheld at 1/40! Gotta love IS): http://farm6.static.fl​ickr.com …44931863_370283​a76e_b.jpg

Thanks for the comments guys! This was a really fun event... and again the lighting was quite challenging. I think we did a good job of not disturbing the "mood" of the natural light, while at the same time being able to expose properly in this dark, challenging room and provide enough DOF.

Also, these have almost zero post-processing, just white balance and stuff.

Thanks again

Ken_Rockwell wrote in post #11614527
How else am I to determine OOF? By magic dust?

To my eyes, they look OOF. Apparently someone else agrees.

LMFAO!!

I do think that there is some movement in #2 and I find the strobe a bit harsh (would have softened that) and I would have gelled for to match the ambient and balanced the strobe intensity a bit better with the ambient. The backgrounds I find a bit dark.

kurt_cobain wrote in post #11615276
I went back and looked at the shot and blew up her face and hand - I stand corrected!

You are forgiven Kurt. When you do this stuff day in day out and cull through images as quickly as we have too, we get quite good at spotting these things.

Thats why you post to get a critique. Because most here are more experienced than you. Thats why this forum is so useful.

Humbly accept critique. We can all learn. Even those of us who are experienced. Your comment on the Catchlights on my image. Blunt, but spot on.

Visual Bride wrote in post #11631249
You are forgiven Kurt. When you do this stuff day in day out and cull through images as quickly as we have too, we get quite good at spotting these things. Thats why you post to get a critique. Because most here are more experienced than you.

Admittedly, photography isn't my primary source of income, true. But while I'm pretty new to event photography, I've been doing portraiture for years on a paid basis. My background is in studio work (my wife and I have been running a part-time studio for years) I kind of resent the assumption that "most people here are more experienced than you" - I haven't even posted my best work here. If you'd like to post your best 5 portraits, I'll post mine And I've seen your web site so I know what your best work is - and I do like it. I'm just saying. feel free if you want and I'll post my top 5 images. I've done work for modeling agencies, had photos published, etc., so I wouldn't assume things about people's background and experience across the internet... I certainly wouldn't say that "most" people on this particular forum are "more experienced" than I am - in fact I would say the oppostie, I've only seen a few I was impressed with.

From a "technical perspective", #2 isn't the best in the series - I posted it because I liked the actual subject material. Ask any top pro and they'll always say they'll take content over technical characteristics any day. I posted that one because this girl was very sweet, and very talkative and didn't seem to even notice her disability at all. She's also the girl that is in the shot I posted that was up on their screen.

I'll try and post some more of these on flickr and send a link, since we can only post 8 here

Visual Bride wrote in post #11631249
Humbly accept critique.

I accept critique that is valid - if someone says my image is blue when it's really red, I'm going to respond.

Visual Bride wrote in post #11631249
We can all learn. Even those of us who are experienced. Your comment on the Catchlights on my image. Blunt, but spot on.

Thanks... to me, catchlights are photography 101 - no offense. An image being just slightly soft, that can happen to anyone - just ask airfrogusmc

airfrogusmc - I know your comments here are motivated by my critique of your other images, and I've seen your work - so I won't even respond to your comments...

kurt_cobain wrote in post #11632006
Admittedly, photography isn't my primary source of income, true. But while I'm pretty new to event photography, I've been doing portraiture for years on a paid basis. My background is in studio work (my wife and I have been running a part-time studio for years) I kind of resent the assumption that "most people here are more experienced than you" - I haven't even posted my best work here. If you'd like to post your best 5 portraits, I'll post mine And I've seen your web site so I know what your best work is - and I do like it. I'm just saying. feel free if you want and I'll post my top 5 images. I've done work for modeling agencies, had photos published, etc., so I wouldn't assume things about people's background and experience across the internet... I certainly wouldn't say that "most" people on this particular forum are "more experienced" than I am - in fact I would say the oppostie, I've only seen a few I was impressed with.

From a "technical perspective", #2 isn't the best in the series - I posted it because I liked the actual subject material. Ask any top pro and they'll always say they'll take content over technical characteristics any day. I posted that one because this girl was very sweet, and very talkative and didn't seem to even notice her disability at all. She's also the girl that is in the shot I posted that was up on their screen.

I'll try and post some more of these on flickr and send a link, since we can only post 8 here

I accept critique that is valid - if someone says my image is blue when it's really red, I'm going to respond.

Thanks... to me, catchlights are photography 101 - no offense. An image being just slightly soft, that can happen to anyone - just ask airfrogusmc

airfrogusmc - I know your comments here are motivated by my critique of your other images, and I've seen your work - so I won't even respond to your comments...

Well ya should. Also, my work as you clearly saw was not soft. Just an adjustment in PB was all that was needed. My comments are that the your flash is harsh and you would be better served to gel to match the ambient. Seems like you can dish it out but can't take it huh? The candids you posted are average at best.