Group Photography

[Jacki]

Now, can someone please comment with tips on how to capture candid moments without making people uncomfortable, and therefore ruining a candid moment? Also, what sort of things do you (you being plural, as a generalization for whoever is reading this) say to people to ask them to pose for you?

With all due respect... I think you are asking people to take years, if not decades of repeated failure and learning from mistakes trying to earn a living for themselves... and asking you to simply disclose that information in an Internet post.

Its not going to happen.

Trying to learn from the work of others is commendable... trying to profit off of it is not.

I think people will be far more willing to help you out if you take what you've learned thus far.... apply it, and then come back and ask what you could have done differently. People will be glad to help as long as you demonstrate that you are willing to do the leg work...

How is my asking NOT trying to learn? I am not new to photography, just because I don't have a DSLR. I don't post very many pictures, because I am not comfortable with putting a bunch of pictures of my son on the internet. I don't want to sound conceited, but I am pretty decent at what I do, and I have learned a lot from my own mistakes. This forum was made to share experiences and tips, no?

Also, I didn't say that I didn't like the way flash LOOKS, I just don't like it. I don't want to start a debate, but I believe that it is not good for anyone's eyes, especially babies and young children. Babies and young children happen to be the subjects I photograph the most. I get great pictures without flash. When it comes to object without eyeballs, I do sometimes use flash, in varying degrees, depending on what is needed.

I've searched and seen many other threads with people asking for tips on how to shoot certain things, and they weren't bashed for asking...so again, why is it an issue that I wanted some tips? I'm not asking anyone to tell me in detail how to take photographs, I'm just nervous and was wondering if anyone had any little tips to share. Jeezies.

 

[gsgary]

I would say the opposite flash if used well will bring out the eyes better, you cannot compare the pop up flash to a dedicated flash used off camera

 

[JBLoudG20]

I think the difference comes from that fact that you are asking basic questions for a PAID shoot.

Don't get me wrong, I certainly don't know much, but I'm not getting paid, either.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Jacki, it's pretty difficult for anyone to give you tips for this. There is not enough information, we don't know anything about the location, time of day, weather conditions...

You say you are "unsure what to do about composition". That comes from you as an artist, and is entirely dependant on the surroundings.

Your OP doesn't say what your client is expecting from you for this event. I highly suggest a contract. Perhaps you should be talking more to the client about what they want, than asking here.

Would love to see your work, though.

 

[Jacki]

I think the difference comes from that fact that you are asking basic questions for a PAID shoot.

Don't get me wrong, I certainly don't know much, but I'm not getting paid, either.

Well, I have taken many pictures of just a few people - never more than 3 or 4 at a time though. I have a lot of social anxiety - I stay away from large crowds, and prefer my small group of friends and spending my free time in nature, not in parties. So, does this explain why I am nervous? I know that I'm going to get great pictures no matter what, but I know that a lot of you on here frequently take pictures around large groups of people, and I was hoping to get some tips. I feel like I shouldn't have to explain myself so much and reword my question over and over. I thought when I asked this question I would get answers a long the line of "I noticed if you tell a group to say 'cheese' it makes their faces look funny in the picture" Or, "It's good to show up right before the festivites and get pictures of the decorations before they are messed up" Or "I've gotten some stunning photographs when I take a photo of two people at a reunion saying 'hello' for the first time in years"

...weird examples, but know what I mean?

 

[Boomn4x4]

I think the difference comes from that fact that you are asking basic questions for a PAID shoot.

Don't get me wrong, I certainly don't know much, but I'm not getting paid, either.

What he said.... This goes with ANY job out there.

I am a computer programer by trade... and if another computer programmer asked me for tips on how to write a computer program, I would be offended and very unlikely to offer any advice.

On the other hand... I have given a TON of help to college students, and have absolutly no problem what-so-ever telling them anything they need to know.

If you are doing the work to get paid... then you do the work, learn from your own mistakes, and leave me out of it.

 

[Jacki]

Jacki, it's pretty difficult for anyone to give you tips for this. There is not enough information, we don't know anything about the location, time of day, weather conditions...

You say you are "unsure what to do about composition". That comes from you as an artist, and is entirely dependant on the surroundings.

Your OP doesn't say what your client is expecting from you for this event. I highly suggest a contract. Perhaps you should be talking more to the client about what they want, than asking here.

Would love to see your work, though.

I want to share my pictures of my son so bad - but there's this little voice inside of me keeping me from posting them on a public board. I feel weird for being so paranoid about it, but I am! :blushing:

I have asked the person who is paying me what they hope to have captured, and all I got was "a bit of everything." Looking on the bright side, it does give me a lot of creative control, but what may seem like great moments to me, might not be the same for the client. I really should talk to them more, so thank you for that.

 

[gsgary]

Are you only using the G11 ? will that cut it indoors with high ISO's and big aperture's because as soon as you zoom you will loose your wide aperture and get camera shake or blur from movement

 

[Jacki]

Are you only using the G11 ? will that cut it indoors with high ISO's and big aperture's because as soon as you zoom you will loose your wide aperture and get camera shake or blur from movement

Very good point, and thank you for pointing it out. Yes, I am using my G11 only, and it will work just fine for the location and the time of day. Before I accepted the offer to photograph the party, I took all of that into consideration. I have had to turn down a job that I knew exceeded my capabilities. It bummed me out, but I would rather be honest than charge someone for ****ty pictures. I was told to learn the limits of my camera, and learn how to work with them, and since I have done that, my photography has gotten, much, much better.

 

[KmH]

I didn't say that I didn't like the way flash LOOKS, I just don't like it. I don't want to start a debate, but I believe that it is not good for anyone's eyes, especially babies and young children.

There is no room for debate about the issue.

It's not a true statement, but persists as an oft reapeated Urban Legend on photography forums.

There is no empirical evidence to suggest strobed photographic lighting is harmful to anyones eyesight in the long term.

Of course, the way the human eye works it is possible to temporarily overload the rods and cones on the retinea, but they recover in just a few minutes.

Exposing the eye to wavelengths outside the range of visible light could be harmful in great enough intensities, but our eyes are exposed to most of those frequencies on a daily basis with no ill effects.

At any rate, it seems you have most of the answers to doing photography already and are well able to deflect any advice sent your way with one platitude or another.

Good luck with your paid shoot. :thumbup:

 

[gsgary]

I didn't say that I didn't like the way flash LOOKS, I just don't like it. I don't want to start a debate, but I believe that it is not good for anyone's eyes, especially babies and young children.

There is no room for debate about the issue.

It's not a true statement, but persists as an oft reapeated Urban Legend on photography forums.

There is no empirical evidence to suggest strobed photographic lighting is harmful to anyones eyesight in the long term.

Of course, the way the human eye works it is possible to temporarily overload the rods and cones on the retinea, but they recover in just a few minutes.

Exposing the eye to wavelengths outside the range of visible light could be harmful in great enough intensities, but our eyes are exposed to most of those frequencies on a daily basis with no ill effects.

Lets keep them indoors where nothing can harm them, because they could breathe dirty city air, get skin cancer from the sun they could even look at the sun

 

[ifi]

come back and tell how it worked out

+1

 

[o hey tyler]

Keith says it best, you are choosing to ignore the combined wisdom of the members of the forum. Not only ignoring it, but refusing to even admit that using a flash would only positively effect your work. If kids can be out in SIGNIFICANTLY more dangerous UV rays while you are taking photos in natural light, I am sure they can handle a strobe or two.

Keep making excuses, maybe you can use some of them when you're explaining your underexposed photos.

 

[MGY]

well, to her credit flash photography is "harsh" on kids' eyes compared to adults. By harsh, I mean that kids have less rhodopsin (about 33% in infants) than adults and therefore a equivalent intensity light will deplete a larger percentage. However, unless you are constantly flashing them, they should be fine.

But in this particular job, you are photographing young adults who have a higher quantity of rhodopsin so they will be able to take more flashes before damage occurs. Therefore, your argument that flash is harmful is invalidated.

 

[Jacki]

well, to her credit flash photography is "harsh" on kids' eyes compared to adults. By harsh, I mean that kids have less rhodopsin (about 33% in infants) than adults and therefore a equivalent intensity light will deplete a larger percentage. However, unless you are constantly flashing them, they should be fine.

But in this particular job, you are photographing young adults who have a higher quantity of rhodopsin so they will be able to take more flashes before damage occurs. Therefore, your argument that flash is harmful is invalidated.

I don't see my argument as "invalidated," because there was no argument. I stated that I believe that flash is too harsh to use on babies, and made the parental decision not to use flash on my son. This has forced me to learn how to work better with the light available, and I usually have no problems getting very good photos without the flash. It was a statement, not an argument.

I said I am going to try to use the flash as little as possible. If it will benefit a certain shot, I will know this ahead of time and I will use it...I mean, if that's okay with you. :hug::