Burnt out, took a break, feeling better..new pics!

04/29/2007 03:27:05 AM · #1

Back in January, I posted about being burnt out on photography. I am feeling a bit better now and have felt the urge to pick up my camera again.

I am beginning to explore natural light portraits since constantly setting up and taking down my studio lights were part of the reason I was getting so sick of photography! After doing a google search, I came across a couple photographers who almost always use natural light with outstanding results. Photographer #1 Photographer #2 I feel my photography is similar in style, but not nearly refined as these two great ladies.

I'd really like to move in this direction so today, I figured I'd give it a try with my boys. These all have minimal editing, and I don't think my monitor is calibrated because we are having major computer issues...LOL!

All were taken with my 24-70 2.8L, at f/2.8. CC greatly appreciated!!!!

04/29/2007 04:32:45 AM · #2

Left comments on the boys. :)

I don't comment on dogs. lol

suemack

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

04/29/2007 04:43:54 AM · #3

^-^ and I do dog comments, not boys LOL

I love where you're heading Jen, and thank you so much for those links.

04/29/2007 04:48:09 AM · #4

I greatly appreciate all the great feedback :) I couldn't fine tune them a ton due to my computer issues. I couldn't even open the RAW versions of them. GRRRRRRRR!

All were taken wide open.....shutter was slower than I like. Most were around 1/80th-1/125th and ISO 400-800. I usually like to use 1/250th for portraits of kids because they more so much...LOL. I tried to have my AF point on the eyes but it's so hard on a moving little bugger :) It is something I want to perfect, though.

I think i might pick up a book on natural light portraits.

Thanks again.....much appreciated :)

04/29/2007 04:50:02 AM · #5

Originally posted by suemack:

^-^ and I do dog comments, not boys LOL

I love where you're heading Jen, and thank you so much for those links.

LOL! I had to throw my pooch in there. She was harder to pin down than the boys...LOL! I appreciate the feedback.

Sounds like I really need to work on nailing down the focus!

04/29/2007 04:50:47 AM · #6

Originally posted by JRalston:

You did extremely well for the conditions. In fact, the softness is nothing that can't *easily* be fixed.. (and, in most of the shots, only needs to be fixed in one specific area AFAIC). Picking up a good book on technique is never a bad thing, but I can tell you.. from these, you already have a nice start.

Good luck with the computer issues.

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

04/29/2007 04:52:09 AM · #7

Originally posted by JRalston:

Sounds like I really need to work on nailing down the focus!

Again.. not so much. It can use work, sure, but these shots are fully workable in post-processing.

Monique64

Canon EOS-30D

04/29/2007 04:58:47 AM · #8

Can someone do some post processing on one so I can see what can be done.? The shots are pretty good by the way.

04/29/2007 05:10:41 AM · #9

Ok, I did a quick edit on the one I liked the best:

On a duplicate layer, I did a Smart Sharpen in PS CS2 at 0.8/55
This can also be done similarily with USM with a radius of 0.3 and an amount of approx. 75 - 85. (maybe a little less strong).. some experimenting might be necessary.

I then pulled back the sharpening on the the photo a bit, and re-painted in the sharpening in the eye area. Then, working on the original background layer, I burned the pupils and the ring around the eyes slightly to bring more life to them. I also darkened the eyelashes a touch and other shadows in the area.

Then, I flattened the image, cloned out the distracting handles in the background (which I just wanted to try, and I found that it improved the image for me), and using Selective Color, darkened the blacks by +3.

Just a couple simple edits, and I think the image is much stronger for it.

Of course, the settings used are for *this* size of photo.. Working on the original size, the settings would have to be much different.

Message edited by author 2007-04-29 05:11:23.

04/29/2007 05:18:05 AM · #10

Thank you for doing that. It is amazing the difference you can see when someone else 'sees' it for you!

Do you think the professionals I linked to do that much post-processing with each photo? I was also getting burned because of the hours I spent post-processing the session. I'd love to knock that time down!

I am sure getting my monitor properly calibrated again will help as well. We are about to restore to it's original configuration and pray that helps. I do NOT want to be purchasing a new computer right now!

04/29/2007 05:25:48 AM · #11

Originally posted by JRalston:

I'm sure the professionals you linked do as much, if not a heck of a lot more, processing than I just did. Heck, *I* do a lot more processing than I just did.

The fact is, DSLRs are not meant to be treated as "Straight from the camera" imaging devices. They are built around the idea that people are going to want to put their own touch on their photos. In film days, this was done in the dark-room (for a lot more cost than Photoshop now, I can tell you. lol). In-camera technique is invaluable, to be certain, in cutting *down* processing time.. but you'll rarely get the looks of those photographers without post-processing.

This doesn't mean that you'll be spending hours per photo working magic... but it does mean that you'll need to focus on learning some important basics vital to any photographer. Basics such as levels, saturation, contrast, sharpening, color balance.. etc.

It might sound like a lot, or overwhelming, but it really isn't when it comes right down to it. Of course, the better you get with understanding lighting and your camera to begin with, the less time and effort processing will be for you as well.

Just keep in mind that keeping up with processing skills can *help* you recover images that didn't go right the first time in many situations. Both camera skills, *and* processing skills are extremely important IMHO.

Message edited by author 2007-04-29 05:27:07.

04/29/2007 05:35:45 AM · #12

That makes me feel much better that you say they didn't achieve their photos without Photoshop...LOL. I use PS quite a bit for retouching photos, but I am always afraid of taking it TOO far. (oversharpening, to much contrast, to much saturation...etc.)

I was pretty happy with these images straight from the camera and with minimal editing but I see what a difference more post processing can do.

Basically, I just want to figure out how those photographers do what they do to get the look of their images!

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

04/29/2007 05:40:40 AM · #13

Originally posted by JRalston:

Join the club.. I've been trying to figure that out for 3 years ;)

Monique64

Canon EOS-30D

04/29/2007 06:03:34 AM · #14

Thanks JRalston.

loriprophoto

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

04/29/2007 08:55:30 AM · #15

I havent had a chance to have a good look and comment on each picture but you may find that a silver, gold or white reflector will help you with the shadows on the sides of their faces. They can be positioned to reflect the amount of light you would like to achieve the result you are looking for. I am sure that most of the photographers you were looking at use them and it will probably cut down on your processing time because you are not working with such a wide contrast in the exposure. If you dont have reflectors, try a white sheet. Hope this helps.

Message edited by author 2007-04-29 08:55:59.