Digital Camera & Photoshop tips

[K9]

I think you should photograph the druid; while you do it, ask him to do some shots in Bear Form 

[apocrypha]

   

[Ookii]

Since there's nobody new to shoot, I'm redoing old pictures.

[Bunk]

Hmm, I'm not sure what to think of that. Just something disturbing about her expression. Lighting is good, and the color is beautiful, but its just such an unsettling expression.

[Furiously]

It's a total, "you want me to do what??" look.

[Ookii]

Here's two more.




Do you think they work? I would remove the out of focus branch on the first, but not the leaves.

[apocrypha]

I prefer the 2nd one, which is really nice. First one I find the background a bit distracting and the foreground is *too* out of focus and not obvious enough - at first glance it looks like flare or something.

I had a really good shoot on Wednesday, got about 20 images that I'd consider good enough to use! Here's the first few I've processed. Will process some non-nude ones from the shoot next. Links probably don't work unless you have a Model Mayhem account 'cos they're flagged 18+.

NSFW!

[K9]

Oh bravo, those are some fantastic shots. The model looks nice and relaxed too, and the lighting is superb.

[Merusk]

Yeah those are great.  Did you use a flash to freeze her hair like that, because I didn't think it'd be captured so well at 1/160.

[apocrypha]

Thankyou, the model was great, really easy to work with :)

And yeah Merusk, it's all flash. In that one there's 2 strobes with shoot-through brollies to the right, one above the other, forming a big soft bank of light and then 2 strobes in mini-softboxes (about A4 size) to the left and back giving a slightly harder edge light.

[Khaldun]

So I think I'm getting a fairly good handle on manual setting work with my new Nikon. Next tough choice: a better, more specialized lens. I've done some insect and flora work even with my old P&S and I'd like to have a good macro lens to do far better stuff with this camera. But for some related reasons, I'd love to have a very good zoom lens for nature photography as well as city-life shots of the kind that it's best to take from a distance. Was just out on a hike in some CA tidepools and I simply couldn't get a really compelling shot of some harbor seals that were in fact quite close to me in relative terms.

The variety of lenses is a bit dizzying, particularly when I consider the full range of manufacturers.

[apocrypha]

Didn't actually see a question there... 

Lens choice is really hard to advise on. Lenses are fucking expensive and how much value you get out of a lens purchase depends on how much you end up using it! I've got a macro lens that cost me something daft like £700 which rarely gets used. When I *do* need it then it's great and I'm really glad I have it.... but could I have got more value out of a £700 wide zoom or some softboxes? Possibly... no way of knowing.

I also think that high-end Nikon/Canon lenses don't give nearly as good a bang-for-your-buck as the best of the cheaper makes, eg. the Sigma ones etc. Depends on the lens and your needs, but often you pay double the price for a pro Nikon lens when a similar Sigma could have done 95% as good a job most of the time. Definitely check lens reviews when you narrow your choices down though. DPreview and DxOMarks have very detailed lens reviews.

[Bunk]

What he said.

Also, don't be afraid of primes if they will fit what you are planning on using them for. They tend to be both sharper and cheaper than similar range zooms.

[Mosesandstick]

Also, macro zooms pretty much don't exist anymore. And street shooting is generally done with a prime lens (fast and small).

[Khaldun]

Forgive the noobulosity of how to think about all of this--the learning curve beyond a P&S approach is pretty steep. You guys are suggesting a prime telephoto lens, maybe a 105mm focal length, would be the way to go for something like street shots where you're trying to quietly shoot candid or slice-of-life shots from a distance, and that would also do for something like getting a good shot of resting or slow-moving animals that are also at a distance? Maybe a Sigma or Tamron if I'm hoping to save a bit of money?

The one photo type I don't have that much interest in at the moment is action shooting of various kinds. I'm interested in getting good shots of insects/flowers/flora; long-distance street candids or nature shots. Some interest but less in landscape and portrait photography. It's clear to me that the 55m zoom lens that came w/the d3100 is a good middle-of-the-road lens but it is going to impede me from making progress on some of these fronts. Just don't know whether all I need is one prime lens at another focal length, a couple of specialist lenses, or what.

[Mosesandstick]

There are some lenses that can double as macros and fast lenses. 105 is quite long for street-shooting, have you tried seeing what focal lengths you try and take shots at?

The lens I think that would be most suitable is the Tamron 60mm f/2, which is a fast macro lens, cheap(ish) and has good reviews. Generally people prefer taking street shots with wider focal lengths, but I don't do and ymmv!

[Merusk]

He said candid street shots though, Moose. If he feels the 55mm isn't close enough I don't think the 60mm will be, either.

I've got a Nikon 70-300 f4.5-5.6 that doesn't do macro and it worked well in D.C. but DC isn't a really closed-in city with lots of shadows.  If I were in downtown Manhattan or any kind of similar heavy shadow I'd have to up the iso to expose properly.  On my D60 that means I'm starting to get a lot of noise* but I'm not sure what the prime iso range for your 3100 is. Tamron and Sigma sell 70-300 macros that have the same f-stop range as my lens, though they lack the VR of the Nikon lens they're also about 1/3 the price.

My sister has this one which is what prompted me to get a 70-300. I liked it a lot and it took some pretty sharp photos of the marathon my daughter ran but I felt I needed the extra zoom for building details.  While I do use the 300 end a lot it means I'm going to have to buy another lens if I want to do Macro.  (if you REALLY want to splurge, Nikon also makes an f2.0 70-200 that's "only" $2,100)

*Which has made me want to invest in a better body next.  You guys were right this gets expensive fast, but it's damn fun.

[Khaldun]

I'm thinking of the "yeah, here I am sitting in this park and that homeless guy down the block would make a compelling picture but I don't want to have to walk up to him and be obviously taking his picture" kind of shot. I guess I don't really have a sense other than looking at other people's photos and lens demo shots of the physical difference between 70 and 105 in terms of my own aspirations. I probably ought to go to one of the few remaining good camera stores in the city and get a real world sense of the difference between the two.

[K9]

The sort of lens that's going to let you get good photos of people without them being able to see you obviously photographing them isn't going to be the sort you want to lug around all day 

Just man up and give the hobo $5 for a picture. 

[Khaldun]

Yeah, I suppose so. Plus that kind of lens is apparently $$$$$. I dunno. I'd settle for something that would have let me get good pictures of these seals I was relatively near to. They wouldn't need $5, just a better lens.

[Bunk]

It's fun trying to figure this stuff out and how the hell you are going to pay for it!

Currently in my bag I carry a Canon F1.8 50mm, a Canon 70-200mm L series, a Tamron F2.8 28-75mm, and a Sigma 10-20mm.

The Tamron and the Sigma get the majority of use when I'm just doing walkaround stuff. I love the 50mm for portraits, and mainly use the L for long range stuff like animals and birds.

[K9]

An interesting thing I read today. Apparently, while filming Cate Blanchett as Galadriel in the Lord of the Rings movies, the crew set up a bank of fairy lights behind the camera, so she would have multiple sources of light reflecting from her eyes. This was done to make her look more ethereal.

It has a nice effect.

[TripleDES]

You can achieve a pretty much same effect using a ring light. It's a circular panel lens with lights arranged the way you want them to reflect them from the eyes. I figure you can DYI an el-cheapo version with plywood and some LED diodes or small CFL tubes. Obviously, the ring light adds to the overall lighting. You can either make it big and free standing (and shoot through the hole in it), or create a more mobile version and attach it to your camera.

[apocrypha]

That's a really nice idea, I may have to give that a go if I can find some fairy lights that are bright enough.

[Ookii]

Yea or nay? I'm resisting the urge to futz with it more.

[Merusk]

I don't like the way her left (our right) shoulder, hand, bicep and forearm are blending into the background.  Something about her right arm tricep, too.  It makes her elbow look really big, like a knee.  Maybe you can darken the one side and lighten the other.

[Engels]

Could it be your monitor, Merusk? On mine, the left arm is clearly defined against the background.

[Merusk]

Yep, it was. Forgotten I was in gaming mode and had turned up my gamma a lot. Whoops.  The shoulder still looks to be blending, but the arm is defined now.

[Ookii]

Yep, it was. Forgotten I was in gaming mode and had turned up my gamma a lot. Whoops.  The shoulder still looks to be blending, but the arm is defined now.

Yeah that shoulder needs a bit of work, I'll have to fix that. Upon closer examination, her wrinkled dress also bugs the hell out of me. Also, she recently lost a ton of weight, so she still has chubby arms (thus the elbow-knee), so I wonder if I should just go with one of these:



I lean towards the left one, but I'm not sure if having her look up like that is too goofy to everyone else.

[Merusk]

I'm partial to the left one as well. It's the light in her eyes and the composition and pose tell more of a story.  She's thinking about something or looking up at something and you wonder what.  It's a little cliched, but it works.  Even if you could get that light into the right pic she'd need more expression than the standard bored gothic look.   Any where she's smiling?

On a personal note;  It's been cloudy and overcast here for a few days now. I wish I'd gone out to get the stream pictures I want when it was nice and bright, 12 degree temps be damned.  Anyone got advice for shooting in really cold weather? I'm worried about possibly damaging my camera.

[Ookii]

On a personal note;  It's been cloudy and overcast here for a few days now. I wish I'd gone out to get the stream pictures I want when it was nice and bright, 12 degree temps be damned.  Anyone got advice for shooting in really cold weather? I'm worried about possibly damaging my camera.

I was curious so I did a google search, this seems to be a good thread:

http://forums.steves-digicams.com/general-discussion/164961-hints-tricks-extremely-cold-weather-dslr-use.html

Mostly from that Norwegian's post. Other threads mention using silica packets to help control moisture when coming in from the cold, as in you put your camera into a ziploc bag with a silica packet.

And the girl in the picture doesn't smile! She had a really hard time posing and changing her expression, then again she's really pretty so she can get away with it for the most part.

[Mosesandstick]

Ziplocks the main thing in my experience. Condensation is a PITA and takes time to get rid off. If stuff stops working you can always try warming it up manually and then starting it again.

[apocrypha]

Ookii they're nice, but I think you've already pointed out yourself what their weak points are - it's not the posing, expression or lighting, it's the attention to detail. Photoshopping those creases out of the dress is a difficult and time-consuming process, several hours work to get a good result. Ironing the dress beforehand takes 5 mins.

I'm finding more and more that it's my ability to spot these details during a shoot that makes the difference between an OK image and a really good one. I pay particular attention to hair and make-up. A stray lock of hair across an eye or sticking out of the top of a head isn't a huge cleanup job but to notice it at the time does 2 things - it makes that cleanup much easier and it demonstrates to your subject that you've got an eye for detail that's a cut above the average and thus gives them confidence in your skills, which in turn leads to better interaction and expressions etc.

The thing that I say multiple times to models before a photoshoot is "don't forget to bring a hairbrush!". It's the most commonly forgotten thing, nobody likes using someone else's hairbrush and a 10 second brush before a shot makes a massive difference.

The other thing that I strongly recommend is, if possible, to take a 5 min break after 20-30 mins shooting and look at what you've got so far on a monitor. Show the model too. You spot all sorts of things (like clothing issues, smudged eyeliner, wayward hairs etc) and get a much better idea of what's working and what isn't.

In terms of processing on those images, personally I'd amp it up a bit. More contrast, more glow on the skin, lighten and colour up the eyes a bit. More saturation (carefully layered & blended) on the hair and lips, make the eyes pop a bit more - put some fake catchlights in maybe. But that's just me, you've seen my stuff, you know I have a tendency to go overboard on the processing! 

[tgr]

I lean towards the left one, but I'm not sure if having her look up like that is too goofy to everyone else.

Of those two I would lean towards a modified/improved right. The left strikes me as too facebookish "I'm trying to be cool". The only thing I would do to the picture on the right (if this was going to be in some sort of profile) is maybe lower the ambient light a bit from above and raise it slightly from the front/towards the eyes to make the eyecolor easier to see. But that's more me, because I like to see the eyecolor someone has, I've never actually taken portraits (nor do I really desire to do so). vOv

[Ookii]

The other thing that I strongly recommend is, if possible, to take a 5 min break after 20-30 mins shooting and look at what you've got so far on a monitor. Show the model too. You spot all sorts of things (like clothing issues, smudged eyeliner, wayward hairs etc) and get a much better idea of what's working and what isn't.

Really, you know I've never done this. Most of the models I work with are new, and I thought showing them the pictures during the shoot makes them more self conscious (in a bad way). I'll have to give it a shot for the next shoot though.

Generally I'm better about catching the wrinkles, I think in this case my lighting brought them out more. In this instance, she has a 60" bounce umbrella directly overhead, just like you'd use if it were raining. I'll have to chimp during every look in the future to make sure everything is okay.

To each their own tgr, what do you like to shoot? Do you have it online anywhere?