really raw

I think it needs more contrast, if the darker areas of the clouds were really dark it would give it more depth.

Switch tell me something do you like that crop now that you have seen it outside the camera. I'm more curious than anything else. Looks to me to be a bit topheavy to make a print from. But then I don't know what youi had in mind. One thing though it is great fill lighting. I do love strobe lights. Not only the exposure but the contrast on the subject is right on for me. the only think stopping the subject for being perfect is the two hot spots on his glass and I say SO F'n WHAT. Mama would love it just like it is.

It is very off balanced, but I just wanted to illustrate something that demonstrated the use of strobes at high noon to counteract the sun. I've been telling people that they should do it, but haven't shown any examples of it at work. I didn't use any fancy lights or umbrellas or reflectors, I just put my SB-600 up top of two buckets, set it to slave, turned off TTL, put my camera up on a tripod, did a little math for my exposure, and let'er rip. As for the composition, meh, whatever. I wasn't going for anythign GREAT, just as long as I had something bright that was darker than the subject. And the glare on my glasses, exactly, "whatever".
 
Yep i had a feeling it was a strobe thing. I picked up on that right away cause I'm a strobe kinds guy. Most of the people here think strobe is a dirty word.... I made a living with them for years. you can use a strobe anytime at all. When i make portraits outside in dayling I usually expose for the strobe if i cant get it up past the sunlight.

You are right about the cloud thing but since this is a camera only thing it is still nice but it needs the contrast way up,
 
YOu know I didn't know for sure what it may need. I may play with contrast before my photoshop trial runs out, but for now it remains in my file 13 (which is a HUGE file right now). I think I have four shots of that cloud. I shoot the sky a lot just to see what the different settings get me. I've been pretty shy of photoshop, not just for the money issue but I feel like I'm cheating if I do a whole lot (and I know that's not always true but where's the line?).

With that pic I didn't do anything because it was just sky and I wasn't sure if it was interesting enough without any foreground (which was a parking lot btw). I'd love to be able to get that umph I want without having to change levels or colors or whatever after the fact.

What I do most often is crop. My old camera shoots some weird aspect ratio almost square, close to 8X10 but even that shaves a little off and I lost a great deal of my composition if I wanted 4X6 prints, so I would often compose for the crop on purpose. The Nikon I think is shooting straight 4X6 ratio, which is great if all I want is 4X6 prints, but if I want to get anything bigger, I either have to lose a portion of the sides or I have to place some sort of top and bottom border, so I am having to learn a new way to compose so I can later decide if I want bigger prints without losing the feeling of the picture. Does any of that make sense?
 
OK, you teased me enough.....I'm dusting off the F3 and going for a shoot tomorow. You have thrown down the guanlet and I'm picking it up.

Rule: shots from only tomorrow, you and me Charlie, film only!We let the the members pick the winner......

What say?
 

Most reactions

Back
Top