Bad Portrait Session

[Mach0]

Oh, and as to how to attach a cto gel to your speed light. Leave an extra two inches on the left and right when you cut it out and just use good old rubber bands. Ie put the rubber band around the flash head, and tuck the extra on both sides in between the rubber bands and speed light.

I bought the strips ------- I don't like them as much. I don't find them that long but they work. I would rather get sheets next time

 

[fjrabon]

I bought the strips ------- I don't like them as much. I don't find them that long but they work. I would rather get sheets next time

Yeah, I like sheets because they're so much more versatile. And I use a lot of cto gel and very little of anything else, so buying the sample packs makes no sense. I can buy 4-5 sheets of cto and be set for a looooong time. I have one of the packs with strips of everything and that keeps me mostly set for everything but cto.

 

[Robin_Usagani]

The only reason it looks warm is because he used video light. I think he wont need a gel.

 

[Trever1t]

OP: I am sorry, but you did not have bad luck, you undertook a commission for which you did not have the skill and/or resources to discharge properly. The "problems" here are very basic ones which could have been overcome with two speedlights. A reshoot is definitely in order, no ifs ands, or buts!

Somebody said it! Yeah...have to agree on that one.

 

[fjrabon]

The only reason it looks warm is because he used video light. I think he wont need a gel.

In most old hockey arenas, the ambient lights are warmer than speed light flash. And if anything not using a gel would make the subjects colder, not warmer. CTO gel will keep the subject right and make the background neutral to slightly cool. For hockey you want neutral to slightly cool backgrounds. It's better to have cto than not.

If he shots the reshoot up against a backdrop he won't need cto. If he shoots with the ice in the background, he probably will.

 

[Robin_Usagani]

Sure.. but you dont know that. The OP is the only one who knows. It could be all fluorescent light. Plus OP shoots in JPEG.. Who knows.. maybe he will even set his camera to the wrong WB. Maybe he will only need half CTO?

The only reason it looks warm is because he used video light. I think he wont need a gel.

In most old hockey arenas, the ambient lights are warmer than speed light flash. And if anything not using a gel would make the subjects colder, not warmer. CTO gel will keep the subject right and make the background neutral to slightly cool. For hockey you want neutral to slightly cool backgrounds. It's better to have cto than not.

If he shots the reshoot up against a backdrop he won't need cto. If he shoots with the ice in the background, he probably will.

 

[fjrabon]

Sure.. but you dont know that. The OP is the only one who knows. It could be all fluorescent light. Plus OP shoots in JPEG.. Who knows.. maybe he will even set his camera to the wrong WB. Maybe he will only need half CTO?

But he should have cto with him. 90% of these old smallish arenas have warm lights. Anybody who shoots in old basketball/hockey arenas can tell you the lights are warmer than flash light 90% of the time. And if you're going to err, you'd rather have warm skin and cool ice than the reverse.

 

[brian_f2.8]

Well I am on my way to redemption with the help of fjrabon and mach0 who have given me guidance. If these photos suck its because of them! No just kidding, these members have been great at helping me and giving me some advice. Anyways I went n bought some umbrellas to start with. I was playing around with some hired help tonight. I'm learning about this stuff. My set up is just two flashes and two umbrellas at various angles. Id love to get a mono light but very expensive for one shoot but who knows what the future may hold.
1- I know a little warm n dark but I changed the color in aperture
2- I know hand is cropped but original shot I didn't get her whole hand so I cut it here - thoughts?

 

[fjrabon]

If you can get your light any closer, it would be a lot softer.

 

[brian_f2.8]

Well she was sitting on a couch so the depth was hard to work with. I think a player sitting on a bench would be great or against the wall. That's my intention for the room.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

If the pictures of the little girl are an indication of getting "better", than just hire an assistant to set up your lights and dial it in for you, while you pose everyone and just hit the shutter because I have no idea how you could screw it up more than you did...What a disaster.




And WTF are you doing paid work for when you're bumbling around with JPEG like a amateurish fool?

 

[Robin_Usagani]

Yeah man.. slow the fk down. Do it as a hobby first. Doing a whole hockey team is a BIG DEAL. Stick with small family first (paid or not). AND STOP TEACHING for now anyway!
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...teaching-photography-question.html?highlight=

If the pictures of the little girl are an indication of getting "better", than just hire an assistant to set up your lights and dial it in for you, while you pose everyone and just hit the shutter because I have no idea how you could screw it up more than you did...What a disaster.




And WTF are you doing paid work for when you're bumbling around with JPEG like a amateurish fool?

 

[JAC526]

If the pictures of the little girl are an indication of getting "better", than just hire an assistant to set up your lights and dial it in for you, while you pose everyone and just hit the shutter because I have no idea how you could screw it up more than you did...What a disaster.




And WTF are you doing paid work for when you're bumbling around with JPEG like a amateurish fool?

Ouch.

 

[Trever1t]

LOL, yes, they suck. The color is whacked. The compositions aren't up to snuff either. I don't know what you are doing but perhaps starting from the beginning with a single light. Perhaps you are really over-thinking all this.

Now a comment about JPG: If you have everything perfect in studio....give me one reason to shoot raw! None! That is, if you can get light just right, color balance just right, etc. SO blanket statements that shooting in jpg is ameteurish is out of line. I have a good friend, a portrait shooter who's work is top-notch, magazine work....has no idea how to process a raw file.

 

[John27]

LOL, yes, they suck. The color is whacked. The compositions aren't up to snuff either. I don't know what you are doing but perhaps starting from the beginning with a single light. Perhaps you are really over-thinking all this.

Now a comment about JPG: If you have everything perfect in studio....give me one reason to shoot raw! None! That is, if you can get light just right, color balance just right, etc. SO blanket statements that shooting in jpg is ameteurish is out of line. I have a good friend, a portrait shooter who's work is top-notch, magazine work....has no idea how to process a raw file.

My grandfather has been a photographer all his life, using SLR camera most of it, and worked semi-professionally (He worked in marketing, and did a lot of his own shoots). He just got his very first DSLR last year and has ditched film. He shoots in JPEG, wouldn't have any idea how to deal with RAW. He has to call me on the phone half the time because he can't remember how to take the pictures off the camera! He takes extraordinary photos, and that's what a t1i with a kit lens...

BUT, I've never seen him take a shoot, look at it, adjust it, and shoot again either. He can look at ANYTHING and INSTANLY tell you what the settings should be. Years of shooting film, even before good metering tools or automatic SLR cameras, will do that for ya. His exposures are spot on because he has the experience to do it! The only exception is white balance, which he has been reading up on. He will look at a shot and say "No that won't work, it'll turn out orange", so he simply won't shoot where Auto White Balance won't work. But, that is the only key difference for him between film and digital, is the ability to manipulate the white balance. When he figures out how to consistently turn on the computer without having a problem, maybe he can teach me a bit about composition and I can teach him to use lightroom and a grey card for white balance!

That said, I shoot in RAW. 100% of the time. Because I am not the experienced shooter, or a professional. I'm a cruddy amateur hobbyist. My grandpa, however, is experienced and can look at a shot and make it beautiful in the camera. I need those couple stops of exposure and infinitely adjustable white balance. I've had many a scenario where it looked good on the camera, but once it hit the calibrated monitor.. YUCK! (Which brings me to another point, Brian, is your monitor calibrated? You can ballpark it pretty easily without any special tools. It occurred to me that, with as orange as your pictures are, perhaps they look okay on your screen and that's why there seems to be a miscommunication between you and everyone else? Another option would be to use a grey card)

RAW is an excellent tool for the amateur, OR for the professional who is not using an extremely sterile, controlled environment. In Brians case, it sounds like he is neither experienced, nor in a sterile controlled environment. I think that RAW is the only choice for someone in his situation.