Recently had a photoshoot, and thought I'd share with you all. So after posting a photo in this same location of a couple, and getting some awesome feedback from some people, I went back out on a recent photoshoot to try again. This time, I added a Paul C Buff Einstein in a socked 22" white beauty dish camera left at about half power. Shot with the Fuji X100S at iso 200, f/2.2, 1/1000 shutter speed, with the built in 3 stop ND filter turned on. I tried to hide the sun a little behind her, and was simply amazed at how the Einstein performed at half power, and how the X100S at 1/1000 overpowered the sun with that little leaf shutter. Probably one of my favorite photos I've ever taken. C&C is welcome.
The concept and venue are great, but (as a photographer) the light doesn't work for me. There is an obvious light source (the sun), yet she is lit up. The last one works best IMO, but the double shadows kind of reduce the appeal IMO.
gheller wrote:
The concept and venue are great, but (as a photographer) the light doesn't work for me. There is an obvious light source (the sun), yet she is lit up. The last one works best IMO, but the double shadows kind of reduce the appeal IMO.
HTH
greg
Ok, so would you recommend cloning out the shadows? In the majority of the photos, I realize that the sun is the main light source, but I still chose to light her up. If I wanted natural lighting I would have just stuck with the sun.
Mar 10, 2015 at 11:03 PM
Jonathan Huynh Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Jim Rickards wrote:
As greg says, many are going to realize lights were used, given the sun position and lighting/shadows.
I suppose photographers will notice this quickly and may tend to be bothered by it more than the general public.
I think the viewers will like these shots in spite of the two light sources.
Nice low angle on the last one. (Coincidentally, the only one without the "two light source" 'issue'.)
That's a good point about photographers noticing something versus the general public noticing. As to the issue with the two light sources, I find it hard to imagine how I could have the sun behind her and not blow out the sky. I wanted to overpower the sunlight, and bring down ambient lighting, giving it that dramatic look. I'm not sure what people on this board are expecting to be perfectly honest. Sure, I could shoot completely natural light, but I would have to spot meter and blow out the sky.
I think you had a plan and you executed it as you envisioned. It is a good point that some photographers will notice the double light sources but I doubt anyone else would. My only suggestion might be to warm the strobe with a gel, maybe a 1/2 CTO? It seems to me the light from the Einstein is daylight temp while I expect from the sun angle a bit warmer balance.
I think these are really good. As has been said, non photographers are so used to seeing lighting like this that they wouldn't question it. Nicely done.
Jim Rickards wrote:
...Nice low angle on the last one. (Coincidentally, the only one without the "two light source" 'issue'.)
Actually the last photo does have "two light source" issues. If you look at the shadows of the bike wheels, you will see two sets of shadows, one on each side of the bike.
I like the composition of the first photo the best, but the sun is just too intense.
NCAndy wrote:
I think you had a plan and you executed it as you envisioned. It is a good point that some photographers will notice the double light sources but I doubt anyone else would. My only suggestion might be to warm the strobe with a gel, maybe a 1/2 CTO? It seems to me the light from the Einstein is daylight temp while I expect from the sun angle a bit warmer balance.
Where is a good place to get a gel that big? I'm using the Paul C Buff 22" beauty dish.
Ian Boys wrote:
I think these are really good. As has been said, non photographers are so used to seeing lighting like this that they wouldn't question it. Nicely done.
Thanks man, and I guess that's all that matters. This client and you husband especially loved them.
2ndviolinman wrote:
Personally, I think the two light sources is what gives them the trippy out of context look that makes the pictures. The last is my favorite.
So while the critique that a lot of people at saying is interesting, it seems that most people here want to have a look of natural light. However, I personally don't want that look. If I wanted natural looking light, I'd just shoot natural. As a serious question, do people not like the dramatic look of overpowering the sun?
---------------------------------------------
rw11 wrote:
the lighting is interesting - that makes it involving, tho maybe a bit too hot
lose the electrical wires
a close up of the 2nd to last shot would maybe be the best of the series
I was trying to say, in the post that you quoted, is that I DO like the trippy out of context look that the unnatural lighting gives the picture. Without it, it's just a pretty girl on an oddly out of place bicycle in the middle of nowhere. To me, even the wires trying to lead he eye from the surreal subject into the soft bland background is is a nice touch.
I think people are expecting a "good, professional-looking" photo - i.e. they are conditioned to recognize and like the current fashion in rendering a scene - just like the current penchant for ultra-wide landscapes with overblown coloring...
You did something different (and something that the inexperienced might also do). Thus, the reaction.
Now - how about talking to her and asking her to do a dark, moody series with her hair down - very low key lighting.
