Digital SLR / DSLR Camera Question / DSLR Thread 2

[Joebar4000]

I'm picking up a Canon 70-200mm f/4 and a 50mm f1.8 today to go along with the 28-135mm kit lens. I really appreciate all the great advice I got from you guys and I was really close to going for the 70-200mm 2.8 but a friend suggested I first spend a few months taking lots of shot and figure out what type of lenses are best for the type of photos I'm taking. If the f/4 becomes a limiting factor I can always sell it and buy a 2.8. I'm also going to take a closer look at prime lenses. Seems Canon used to make a 300mm f/2.8 (non-IS) and that might be a nice lens too, especially if I find myself looking for more than the 200mm telephoto. The really inexpensive 50mm f1.8 will also help me decide if I really like that type of prime lens and then I can maybe decide to step up to the 1.4 or the 1.2 L lens. Mostly I'm just looking forward to taking lots and lots of pics with my kids, my family, our 3 dogs and all the outdoors activities I enjoy so much.

My learning curve with DSLR photography has been like drinking from a fire hose but it's really starting to click in my head. Thanks again to all you guys who shared your knowledge.

Hey Alex!

My friend Scott has the 300mm f/2.8L. Not sure if he's parting with it, he just sold his other long L lenses.

The nifty-fifty is great, the downside is the aperture is only 5 blades, to the out-of-focus stuff looks odd if the background has a lot of contrast. That said, just shove it on Av mode, set the aperture to 1.8-2.2 and you can take some lovely portraits.

On another topic, got the chance to use the 5D Mk2 in the studio again for an impromptu 50's themed shoot. Feedback appreciated. Links are not nude, but arguably NSFW:


http://www.yahphoto.biz/hosted/2009_12_27 Lisa Reilly 124.jpg

http://www.yahphoto.biz/hosted/2009_12_27 Lisa Reilly 139bw.jpg

http://www.yahphoto.biz/hosted/2009_12_27 Lisa Reilly 197.jpg

http://www.yahphoto.biz/hosted/2009_12_27 Lisa Reilly 206bw.jpg

http://www.yahphoto.biz/hosted/2009_12_27 Lisa Reilly 235bw.jpg

http://www.yahphoto.biz/hosted/2009_12_27 Lisa Reilly 247.jpg

http://www.yahphoto.biz/hosted/2009_12_27 Lisa Reilly 258.jpg

http://www.yahphoto.biz/hosted/2009_12_27 Lisa Reilly 278vg.jpg

http://www.yahphoto.biz/hosted/2009_12_27 Lisa Reilly 306.jpg

 

[BrassPremier]

few from other day, still working on batch of photos. any comments/tips?

 

[Joebar4000]

1st pic looks over-shot, but easily saved with the addition of some contrast, or just pulling the blacks down.

Both are too close to the backdrop, and you could probably use a bigger aperture to help disconnect even more.

Personally, I'd have the main light higher up or not at an angle where the left (her right) side of her face is losing contrast so much. She has fantastically strong bone structure, but it's kinda lost on that side.

Overall tho, I like them - her pose is balanced nicely, especially in the 2nd one - the tilt of her pelvis flows well with the lines made by her arms. IMO, anyway.

 

[wannabe]

I disagree with Ian. I dig the subject lighting and pose in the first pic. It actually kinda rawks. The only thing is that I would have cranked the background lights a bit. But, that's just my taste with the white background. If you meant to have that gray, then that works too.

I don't think that the second pic is as flattering to the model. I would have tried to work more angles with her posing instead of a straight on pose.

But, I just keep going back to the first pic. I like it. Good job!

 

[Joebar4000]

OK, lemme clarify

I think the light on her face on the first pic is better than in the second, probably all pose? Just that in the second, the fine muscles around her mouth create a lot of detail that's at odds with the other side of her face - in the first, both sides are relatively smooth.

And I do like the pose in the first, I just prefer the one in the second - it has tension - it's confrontational and inviting all at once.

The first has a nice flowing quality to it, but the barriers of crossed legs and arms is less inviting.

But these are subjective - technically, I think the first picture is better lit, or should I say, more appropriate to the pose.

That said, you could argue the confusion of the detail on the second is helpful to the flirty/confrontation dichotomy.

And now I'm starting to sound like a waffly pretentious art critic spouting utter bollox

FYI, I did a very quick-n-dirty magic-wand mask on the first, applied a hooge gaussian blur to the backdrop and pushed the blacks down on just the subject and it really helped it pop. I won't post it because pushing the blacks down made her skin too contrasty, and while I could fix that, I'll let you do it if you want to

 

[afmotorsports]

And now I'm starting to sound like a waffly pretentious art critic spouting utter bollox

Bloody hell, this can't possibly be the Ian I met through G-Force... What's next, sipping turkish coffee while puffing on Dunhills through hand carved Meerschaum holders and debating whether Pablo Picasso was ever called an a$$hole?? (I know you remember that song, we're both old...)

Let me know about your friend's 300mm - I spent the afternoon playing with the 70-200mm f/4 and all I can say as a photography n00b is "I'm not worthy". I feel like a 16 year old who just walked out of the DMV after passing the test and got handed the keys to an Aston Martin in the parking lot. I have a lot to learn...

 

[BrassPremier]

Cool, thanks for the ideas.

If I had the room, I'd have had the subject farther from the backdrop. It was cold as shit outside, and the garage was already pretty chilly, so I left it closed to keep whatever heat in. I'll have to remember to try shooting at larger aperture, I just automatically go to F/9 or so for sharpness wasn't even thinking about background. I even have a 0.6 ND filter just for that idea.

Both shots were done with softbox on camera left and reflector with grid on camera right, no backdrop lights were used. A lot of the shoot was just experimental/practice for me, and if any shots came out good, that's just a bonus.

 

[Joebar4000]

Bloody hell, this can't possibly be the Ian I met through G-Force... What's next, sipping turkish coffee while puffing on Dunhills through hand carved Meerschaum holders and debating whether Pablo Picasso was ever called an a$$hole?? (I know you remember that song, we're both old...)

Let me know about your friend's 300mm - I spent the afternoon playing with the 70-200mm f/4 and all I can say as a photography n00b is "I'm not worthy". I feel like a 16 year old who just walked out of the DMV after passing the test and got handed the keys to an Aston Martin in the parking lot. I have a lot to learn...

Hey Alex Yes, one and the same. Still have some pics of you entering turn 2 at Sears on that monstrous CRF 450 you used to race in the singles series

Repo Man - there's a movie I haven't seen in, er, a while. Yes, we're old. I'm officially over the hill now.

:|

Will have a chat with Scott. I'm itching to use it myself as I haven't tried any L glass on the new camera yet. Want to see how much it's holding me back. Though I can already tell the chromatic aberration is going to be a pain with the cheapie lens I have to keep me moving. Ho hum. Dunno when I can scrape together $1500 for the one I want. Need to get a real job, or book a lot more shoots.

Steve, now you have a full set of grids (ya bastidge! That's next on my wish-list...), try using them on the backdrop. FYI, I usually shoot around 7.1 or 6.3 in the studio, with the subject about 10ft or more from the backdrop, with a focal length of ~70mm. Much longer than that, and I do have to stop it down some more or the depth of field is less than the depth of a face, as I'm finding out...

I think you probably have a *lot* more strobe power than I do, so at least you have the flexibility to shoot at higher apertures without going into high ISO's. Thankfully the 5D puts up with ISO 800 and the noise is still acceptable! Could never do that on the Rebel.

Ok, am waffling, but also wanted to suggest this:

http://www.homedepot.com/h_d1/N-5yc...splay?langId=-1&storeId=10051&catalogId=10053

It was enough, when paired with a 1500w electric, to heat a 20x40 garage to 70F when ambient was 45F. Took about an hour, but I had it on for 5 hours and it only used about an inch of propane (there was frost on the tank so I could see the level).

In a small space, I imagine it would work *very* quickly.

 

[BrassPremier]

hmm good idea. we tried using a space heater, but with the lights going off, the fuse would go off every 10 minutes. Plus, it didn't really work all too well

 

[Mr Pepsi]

I have a Pentax DSLR for sale if anyone is interested.
http://www.bayarearidersforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5527691#post5527691

 

[wannabe]

hmm good idea. we tried using a space heater, but with the lights going off, the fuse would go off every 10 minutes. Plus, it didn't really work all too well

Since you're going to Home Depot anyway, you might want to pick up some white tileboard. (You just need 2 sheets.) It'll make the floor in your shots slightly reflective giving you a more grounded feel to your pics. Plus, you save money because you won't be throwing away paper after every photo shoot from footprints.

You want to get this stuff: (Get the smooth kind not the kind with the texture on it.)

 

[BrassPremier]

already have it. the shoots i have done in my studio all have been on those tileboards. like i said, i was mainly trying out new things during my recent shoot, so no tileboard, and no backdrop lighting. i've been having trouble getting that seamless white look to work without crap loads of photoshop work on every photo, so i just tried to keep it simple this time around.

 

[Joebar4000]

Hey Steve,

What's the main issue? My earliest problem was simply ensuring the backdrop lights were sufficiently isolated from the main subject.

EDIT - and to fix that, I went to - wait for it - Home Depot, got some aluminum roofing flashing, and made some huge barndoors for the reflectors, then taped the blades together so no gaps on the edges. Not remotely adjustable, but does the trick.

Now the power I have to light the backdrop is actually a bigger issue than anything else, at 100ISO I'm pretty much stuck at 8.0 as my smallest aperture. It would be nice to have the flexibility to stop down - especially with a longer lens. I *kinda* do by upping the ISO - and can get away with it with the new camera, but it's hardly ideal.

If you have low spots on it, might be worth getting some of those non-adjustable Edison strobes? I was thinking of getting a couple more for the bottom edge, so the floor was better lit by reflected light. My floors are almost always gray-looking, unless I go down to 6.3 or up the ISO.

 

[BrassPremier]

i can never seem to get the ground, subject, and backdrop all exposed correctly. usually backdrop and subject are good, but the tile board isn't very white, pretty grey, and trying to dodge it out leaves a faint blueish tint, and i end up having to just use erase tool which is a pain

 

[TylerW]

I'm picking up a Canon 70-200mm f/4 and a 50mm f1.8 today to go along with the 28-135mm kit lens. I really appreciate all the great advice I got from you guys and I was really close to going for the 70-200mm 2.8 but a friend suggested I first spend a few months taking lots of shot and figure out what type of lenses are best for the type of photos I'm taking. If the f/4 becomes a limiting factor I can always sell it and buy a 2.8. I'm also going to take a closer look at prime lenses. Seems Canon used to make a 300mm f/2.8 (non-IS) and that might be a nice lens too, especially if I find myself looking for more than the 200mm telephoto. The really inexpensive 50mm f1.8 will also help me decide if I really like that type of prime lens and then I can maybe decide to step up to the 1.4 or the 1.2 L lens. Mostly I'm just looking forward to taking lots and lots of pics with my kids, my family, our 3 dogs and all the outdoors activities I enjoy so much.

My learning curve with DSLR photography has been like drinking from a fire hose but it's really starting to click in my head. Thanks again to all you guys who shared your knowledge.

I'll just take a bit of time to say that the 70-200mm is an exceptional lens and you've made a good choice with it. Its cheap, exceptional build quality, and produces excellent results. Its easily my favorite lens I own. While its focal length isn't one I often shoot in, it consistently produces stonking results, and the highest keeper-to-tosser ratio of any other piece of kit I own.


Oh yeah, I shot some stuff recently, a benefit event for Child's Play, a charity for children's hospitals around the world to buy them games, books, DVDs and the like to help make the kids time there a little more bearable. Here, people were playing money to get a taste of the rock star experience, to pley rock band on stage at the DNA lounge, with costumes, lighting, etc.

Not bad for pictures of adults playing video games. It was a fun shoot.

 

[Joebar4000]

i can never seem to get the ground, subject, and backdrop all exposed correctly. usually backdrop and subject are good, but the tile board isn't very white, pretty grey, and trying to dodge it out leaves a faint blueish tint, and i end up having to just use erase tool which is a pain

Did you uncheck the 'preserve tones' on the Dodge tool?

Try using the hotspot display on the camera, and get the backdrop/floor to go close to solid white before bringing the subject in.

Your subject should be almost a sillouhette (sp?) with just the backdrop lights on. If not, then you have either leakage from the lights, or too much bounce from the walls. You should fix those first otherwise you're just chasing your tail.



Tyler, I hate you

Talented bastidge...

 

[wannabe]

So, I finally got off my ass and made some real progress on my photo website. Man, I had no clue it would be that hard to whittle down the number of pics. I can problbly shave down the number even further, but decided to just go with it for now. Take a look and let me know what y'all think:

www.arisbernales.com

it's not officially launched yet, but y'all should be able to look at it.

I hate writing about myself, so I left out the 'about Aris' page. I might tack it on later. I nned to do a self portrait too, but I figure nobody wants to see my ugly mug.

 

[BrassPremier]

Ya man reason my site taking forever is cause I can't pick any shots I like, can't write an about me, and can't figure out a design.

 

[wannabe]

Ya man reason my site taking forever is cause I can't pick any shots I like, can't write an about me, and can't figure out a design.

As for design, I just went with one of the cheapest templates on bludomain.com.

As for not having any shots you like, I can't help you there. Trying to put up my website is one of the biggest reasons why I really began to shoot more. Once I sat down and tried to piece together a portfolio, I realized that I didn't have anywhere close to enough stuff to justify a separate website. So, the website kinda kicked things into gear for me.

I actually have quite a bit more 'portfolio-quality' stuff, but they don't fit into the two categories that I'm focusing on right now so I just left them out.

My main goal for the website was not necessarily to bring in more clients. I actually set it up to help open some doors for me. I figured that it would be easier for me to show that I wasn't just some random guy with a camera if I had a site up. I'm hoping the it'll make it easier to get access to some subjects if I could point them to a website with my portfolio instead of telling them to just add me on Facebook.

I guess the next few months will tell me if I guessed right.

 

[BrassPremier]

yea exactly. i could always just show people my flickr, but that has some personal photos, which includes shots that aren't really all that great.