First time photoshoot, comments welcome!

Hey everybody! I'm sure that some of you have a TON of experience with photoshoots, so I am putting these pictures up from my first shoot to see what you would do differently to improve them. Since this shoot, I have purchased a reflector and I may also purchase a LED light panel sometime soon. Equipment used: Rebel XT and a 70-200 2.8 IS....ISO 100[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.32.18/IMG_5F00_0289.jpg[/img][img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.32.18/IMG_5F00_0310.jpg[/img]

Matrix,


They look good! It looks like you did a great job finding naturally diffused soft lighting to avoid under exposed eyes!


The first thing I noticed, is the posing. And posing is TOUGH! It's my weakest point by far! What I would change in the first photo is her eye direction. We can see in the second photo that she has great eyes, so by all means, let us see them. You could still have her head slightly turned to the viewers left, but let's see more of the eyes. Eye contact is a really useful tool for a portrait photographer. Not that every photo has to have eye contact, but I think it would only add to the first photo. The posing and composition of the second photo is good, but I'm distracted by the in focus branches in the foreground as well as the dark spot on the top right corner. Clear those out and there would be less distraction, leading the viewer right to the subject.


If I may ask, why an LED light panel instead of a speedlite?


These are leaps and bounds beyond my first portrait shoot!


-Rodger :)

Well I know very little about lighting, but I think that constant lighting is easier to work with than strobe lighting, especially for somebody whose camera does not have a large screen for live view. Are strobes/speedlights really that much better? Also, I would have guessed that a speedlight ($400ish) is going to be more expensive than constant light. If I am wrong though, please correct me. And thanks for the comments! I normally don't do a bunch of post-processing aside from unsharp mask, vignette, and then work in camera raw. I see what you mean though with the two pictures and I totally agree with you....it's funny how you don't think things look bad until somebody else says how it could look better haha. Are there any items or techniques you would suggest for next time?

This will settle your nerves about off camera lighting. David Hobby runs the Strobist blog at www.strobist.com. His site is simply wonderful and full of off camera lighting tips, tricks, DIY stuff, etc. This is his "Lighting 101" series for the beginner strobist, as well as people on the fence about off camera flash. My Canon 430EXII (plenty strong for most of my needs) was only $250 at Adorama.


I've had alot of photos that I was darn proud of critiqued, and it only helps me think about what to do differently next time! :) Please know I don't think they look bad!


If I was setting up those photos, I would probably just have an off camera flash to pop a little bit of light on her face and bring the background exposure down a bit. It'd also give you some great catch lights in her eyes!

First of all, I agree with all of Roger's points except maybe one--I don't mind the subject looking away from the camera in the first shot. In fact, I tend to like those shots quite a bit. However, the subject needs to have a reason for looking off-camera...they need to look engaged or transfixed on something. I think that's what's missing in the photo. I might add that foreground elements like the leaves can work well with a photo, but usually they work better when they're a bit out of focus. And I, too, was going to ask why in the world you were going to buy an LED light. Now I know why--fear and ignorance (don't take that personally...my first photographic lighting purchase was a 1000 watt continuous light...I know how you're feeling).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by matrixman45054

Are strobes/speedlights really that much better?

---

As a general rule, yes. While you cannot of course see the effects of the strobe until you view it on the LCD screen, you learn quite quickly what to expect at different settings in differing situations. Strobes are better because they are many times more powerful than continuous lights, and therefore, much more useful. Plus, you can put AAs in shoe-mount flashes and take them anywhere--you have to find a place to plug in continuous lights (battery powered continuous lights are too under-powered to be considered).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by matrixman45054

Also, I would have guessed that a speedlight ($400ish) is going to be more expensive than constant light.

---

...depends. It depends on what type of flash you're buying and how expensive your continuous light is. Right now, I have 10 shoe-mount flashes. I have one $450 flash (an original Canon 580EX), one Vivitar 285HV I bought new for $100, another Vivitar DF400MZ flash I bought new for $100, two Vivitar 285s and two Vivitar 285HVs I bought used ranging from $25 to $40 a piece, and 3 Quantaray flashes I bought refurbished for about $30 a piece. Call me crazy, but I'd say some of that is darn near affordable.


Of course, the flash is only the first step. You'd also need a way to trigger the flash off-camera. If you're on a budget, I'd suggest the RF-602 wireless trigger/receiver combination found on ebay. A trigger and two receivers would set you back about $56.


And on top of that, you'd need a light stand, an umbrella swivel, and an umbrella. Why don't you save me the time of explaining my personal suggestions for those items and read my introduction to off-camera flash found here. ;-)


And once you've purchased the right gear and practiced using it a bit, you'll be able to create shots you never dreamed y ou could...






http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2794/...d31bb2f0_m.jpg http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4062/...5f03ef11_m.jpg http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2797/...93a9ba5c_m.jpg



http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2674/...fea0efc8_m.jpg http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2544/...19635260_m.jpg http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2665/...bbed9fc9_m.jpg


And, as a side note, only one subject is looking at the camera. ;-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sean Setters

And, as a side note, only one subject is looking at the camera. ;-)

---

I like to have my subjects not looking at the lens but I think the first shot we are seeing a little too much white and not enough iris.

Hmmmm ok, I will have to check that out. I will be the first to admit that I am rather ignorant when it comes to lighting. Like I know where they should be positioned, but aside from that, I figured that anything that is close to looking natural and diffused is best.


Oh and don't worry, I take all criticism as constructive :) I have done 2 shoots since this one, but I still love the colors that came from this one! I am hoping to start doing cheap portrait photography around here and am slowly building a portfolio...before I got too carried away though, I wanted to focus on the most important part, the actual picture!! I think my biggest shortcomings at the moment are: not knowing much about lighting, and composition. On the first image, I felt kinda weird cropping the image at her calves like I did because it looked unnatural. Where is a good place to crop to if you don't want an image to be full body but also just a shoulder/headshot? You are being a great help to me by the way, I appreciate it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith B

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sean Setters

And, as a side note, only one subject is looking at the camera. ;-)

---

I like to have my subjects not looking at the lens but I think the first shot we are seeing a little too much white and not enough iris.

---

Haha funny Sean =P But a valid point! Keith put into words what I tried to. Perhaps "eye contact" was the wrong term. Maybe "Let's see more of her eyes" would have been better haha. Good stuff good stuff.

I had hoped to use post-processing in place of flash for as long as possible, but it seems like investing into some lighting may be in the near future.......right after the 5DmkII :) Do you guys have any comments on the Canon 270 flash? The bigger flashes look pretty sweet, but I am graduating from college in 2 months and don't have a bunch of money to invest just yet. If the 270 isn't too bad, I may get that and then invest in something with a little more power.


Sean, I must say that I am a huge fan of that last picture you posted...where it was very dark with the strong lighting. I have been wanting to do shots with that style of lighting for a while, but I wasn't sure what technique to use for that. Any tips?

Sean - AMAZING portraits you've got there!!!


matrix - at least you've followed one of Sean's most important rules - take only pictures of beautiful girls [;)]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by matrixman45054

I have been wanting to do shots with that style of lighting for a while, but I wasn't sure what technique to use for that. Any tips?

---

I must admit that photos like that aren't my specialty, but I can tell you how I did that particular shot. I used a collapsible Botero background (black) and a 28" Westcott Apollo softbox. I had to use a softbox because I wanted to restrict the light from hitting the background (which would have highlighted any wrinkles in it and turned the background a lighter shade of gray). The shot was taken indoors in the subject's kitchen. ;-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sean Setters

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by matrixman45054

Are strobes/speedlights really that much better?

---

As a general rule, yes. While you cannot of course see the effects of the strobe until you view it on the LCD screen, you learn quite quickly what to expect at different settings in differing situations. Strobes are better because they are many times more powerful than continuous lights, and therefore, much more useful. Plus, you can put AAs in shoe-mount flashes and take them anywhere--you have to find a place to plug in continuous lights (battery powered continuous lights are too under-powered to be considered).

---

Continuous lights may also constrict pupils in your models' eyes,which sometimes looks odd to say the least. Generaly speaking, larger pupils are moreflattering then small ones.