Number 2 really works for me; the others are OK. I have to agree that the lighting is not ideal, if not outright distracting. And you neglected to put Rochelle's phone number in the EXIF data.
2ndviolinman wrote:
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.
Thanks man I appreciate it.
---------------------------------------------
rw11 wrote:
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.
What should I have done to make it look less inexperienced?
---------------------------------------------
BauerPower wrote:
I like all of the photos. I would have, however, included one of her actually riding the bike.
I actually did get one of her riding the bike. I'll post that later.
ross.thomas wrote:
Thanks man. Lol I guess I'm just confused by all the artificial flash hate by people. If I wanted on sunlight, I'd use only sunlight lol.
From the original post: "c&c is welcome".
Doesn't seem to be much if any "flash hate" honestly...just some opinions expressed in a pretty respectful manner.
But your reaction seems to be really defensive, almost as if you were unsure of the shots yourself?
Your shots are beyond my experience/expertise/style so take it with a grain of salt. I thought the shots were "cool"-having a great subject and locale didn't hurt lol.
gheller wrote:
I think you are confusing "hate" with "proper artistic use".
Of course, it is highly subjective, as is all art.
Yes, there is no way to get these shots without artificial light. The trick is to make it look less like a blast from OCF in the process.
There are some masters out there (I'm far from one), but can spot those experts... they really put out some stunning work.
greg
Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "hate". All I it just seems like some people tell me what I did wrong, but don't suggest what to do to fix it. And this is what I'm truly asking for.
I gel my alien bee at the light source. Stick the ends of a gel through the hole of the BD and then put the light through. Slit some holes for heat to get out and fire away. Obviously, if youre at high power and shooting fast, you might melt the gel but, gels are cheap.
ross.thomas wrote:
Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "hate". All I it just seems like some people tell me what I did wrong, but don't suggest what to do to fix it. And this is what I'm truly asking for.
I'll admit that I don't personally take "overpower the sun" flashy photos, although I work with some photogs that do and have picked up a few tips along the way. One of the most practical ones is to shoot your OCF from the side where the sun is wrapping around your subject, not directly opposite (creating cross-lighting which often leaves untrained viewers somewhat confused as to where light is coming from that isn't the sun but is brighter than the sun...). So in your case you could have positioned you light camera right, pretty much in front of the models bike. The effect is that the light looks more like the sun is wrapping around her body more than it actually could. Of course balancing the power and the colour of the light to the sun as best as possible makes this wrap even more seamless. You kind of managed this in the last shot because your flash was probably less then 90 degrees from the sun. When you start getting beyond 90 degrees and heading toward 180 degrees, that's where you get the cross-lit look which confuses the untrained eye. Yes, it's art. Yes, it's subjective. Yes, you can break as many rules or ways of shooting something that there are...but you'll have people that don't like it.
The lighting was the first thing I noticed but didn't care that much about it. This however might one of the reasons why many fashion shots with strobes and sun behind model are shot from a low angle.
Yes, there are things you can do to "fix" the image - use less fill, make the source larger & more diffuse, make sure the fill source is above her face, add an additional fill light. Alter the angle to the sun, etc.
Will the image be "better"?? I dunno, but it will better fit the conventions of the day.
To my eyes, the lighting ratio between the flash and the sun/background does not feel right. To me, the sun and background should be a couple of stops darker - an that would have given a better "reason" for the flash. Maybe the flash should have been at full power and the sock removed from the beauty dish (it both absorbs light and spreads the lighting pattern). That might give (what I think would be) a better foreground/background lighting ratio.
I think there should be a declaration of the intent of the photos -- for personal, artistic use or commercial or whatever. If it's a stylistic choice, then the critiques would simply be "like it" or "don't like it." From a technical standpoint, the lighting itself has become a subject of the images -- since it's obviously unnatural -- so viewers will wonder what the purpose is. The artificial lighting isn't something that only photographers would notice; even laypeople have a built-in reference for real-world lighting. The question becomes: does the lighting lend itself to the images, or is it a distraction?
Inga wrote:
I'll admit that I don't personally take "overpower the sun" flashy photos, although I work with some photogs that do and have picked up a few tips along the way. One of the most practical ones is to shoot your OCF from the side where the sun is wrapping around your subject, not directly opposite (creating cross-lighting which often leaves untrained viewers somewhat confused as to where light is coming from that isn't the sun but is brighter than the sun...). So in your case you could have positioned you light camera right, pretty much in front of the models bike. The effect is that the light looks more like the sun is wrapping around her body more than it actually could. Of course balancing the power and the colour of the light to the sun as best as possible makes this wrap even more seamless. You kind of managed this in the last shot because your flash was probably less then 90 degrees from the sun. When you start getting beyond 90 degrees and heading toward 180 degrees, that's where you get the cross-lit look which confuses the untrained eye. Yes, it's art. Yes, it's subjective. Yes, you can break as many rules or ways of shooting something that there are...but you'll have people that don't like it.
That is really good advice. Thanks you.
---------------------------------------------
sasho_p wrote:
The lighting was the first thing I noticed but didn't care that much about it. This however might one of the reasons why many fashion shots with strobes and sun behind model are shot from a low angle.
Yeah very true. Just sucks because I wanted to get her feet and the tires in there also.
---------------------------------------------
tonyfield wrote:
Nice idea ... I think the concept is excellent.
To my eyes, the lighting ratio between the flash and the sun/background does not feel right. To me, the sun and background should be a couple of stops darker - an that would have given a better "reason" for the flash. Maybe the flash should have been at full power and the sock removed from the beauty dish (it both absorbs light and spreads the lighting pattern). That might give (what I think would be) a better foreground/background lighting ratio.
Do you think that the light would have been too hard without the sock?
ross.thomas wrote:
Do you think that the light would have been too hard without the sock?
The hardness of the light is only dependent upon the distance between the lamp and the subject. This determines the sharpness (hardness) of the shadows - it does not matter if the sock is used or not. Effectively, with or without the sock, the light is only a 22 inch source. However, with the sock. the light is spread out on a wider basis. Without the sock, the beauty dish has a (according to the specs) a 130 degree spread. With the sock, the spread is 150 degrees. However, the sock absorbs possibly 1.5 stops of light. With the sock, the beauty dish effectively becomes a 22 inch diameter soft box.
I am assuming that you are using the bright white dish. If you are using the bright silver dish, the basic beam width is 45 degrees without sock and 150 with sock .
tonyfield wrote:
The hardness of the light is only dependent upon the distance between the lamp and the subject. This determines the sharpness (hardness) of the shadows - it does not matter if the sock is used or not. Effectively, with or without the sock, the light is only a 22 inch source. However, with the sock. the light is spread out on a wider basis. Without the sock, the beauty dish has a (according to the specs) a 130 degree spread. With the sock, the spread is 150 degrees. However, the sock absorbs possibly 1.5 stops of light. With the sock, the beauty dish effectively becomes a 22 inch diameter soft box.
I am assuming that you are using the bright white dish. If you are using the bright silver dish, the basic beam width is 45 degrees without sock and 150 with sock .
ross.thomas wrote:
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.
Nice shootings! The model is beautiful and the location is nice. I got into the same situation before but I did some study about shooting into the sun before my actual shoot and I also used Einstein 640 and a 64" Parabolic umbrella. I was told by a known pro who specifically shoots with a beauty dish that I always aim the beauty dish( or light modifier) toward the direction of light.
I thought that was a good advice.
Like you did, I wanted to shoot near wide open so that I could get a good bokeh but the sun was behind the model so the only way I could do was to use a ND filter ( like you did) and I had already purchased a Sigh-Ray Veri ND ( 9 stop) filter for this purpose. Expensive but it was a very good investment. From my experience,3 stop ND filter isn't good enough to diffuse the sun especially when you use quite wide aperture like f2.2. With your set up,I think you need to stop down more or you'll need a stronger ND filter.
The last one is my favorite but I think you should reshoot the first one with a different approach. I'm sure you'll get a better result.
