Developing a Style

[mcflickr]

Hi Everyone,

Wanting to refine my "style" so to speak, and establish some consistency with my workflow to better represent myself as a photographer. While I don't necessarily want to copy anyone, I really like the look and feel of photojournalism (as a style).

My question is how to best achieve this look in my photos and refine my ability. I'm particularly interested in capturing family life (indoors), but find that lighting is always a huge challenge. Any suggestions? I shoot with a Nikon D7000 - and have a 50mm 1.4, and 80-200 2.8 in addition to a SB-600 speedlight.

I'd sincerely appreciate any tips or feedback you might have to best capture "natural" looking family moments indoors.

Hope that makes sense.

Thanks!

Mike

 

[SoulfulRecover]

I would think shooting indoors for family life, a wide angle lens would be beneficial. Maybe something in the 16mm range? just a thought.

 

[dennybeall]

Part of developing a style is what lighting you usually decided to use. Photojournalism would infer perhaps always using natural light and reproducing the actual scene in a photo.

 

[paigew]

I consider myself to take "natural looking" family photos. I use mostly available light and a wide angle lens. But a 50 should do just fine too

 

[mcflickr]

I also have a Tokina 12-24 f/4.0 - Do you think it would be better to use this lens for indoor work?

 

[paigew]

Yes I think you have plenty equipment to take great photos

 

[dennybeall]

The 50mm 1.4 on a crop sensor camera is about a 75mm to the camera and that's about a good portrait lens so a lot of inside shots with that and cover more area with the zoom, sounds good. Years ago a 90mm was considered "The portrait Lens" That zoom is a bit long for my taste for indoor work though. An 18-140 or so would be useful to you

 

[rexbobcat]

I'm not sure photojournalism is a good way to describe a style. You could take a photojournalistic approach, but (and this might just be semantics) photojournalism is a field of photography and it doesn't have many characteristics that are universal across the genre .

Style is a culmination of your approach, intent, aesthetic sensibilities etc...

In my opinion of course.

 

[Derrel]

There are many styles. A good deal of photojournalism is done in a very safe, proven, boring-as-hell way with a wide-angle lens that has about an 84 degree diagonal angle of view (24mm on FF or FX), or even wider, such as with a 20mm to 17mm setting. Or even 16mm. BIG, looming, close-up objects and tiny, tiny, boring, small, meaningless stuff that's 15 feet away.

Focal length comparison tool, Tamron USA

There's also "realistic" 35mm to 50mm stuff, shot with semi-normal to normal; lenses, where things look very "real", and distances and near/far distance relationships are not distorted and are not either 1) artificially increased or 2) exaggeratedly "compressed" as with a telephoto lens.

There is also telephoto work, done with 75,85,90,100, or 105mm lens lengths.

These three basic ways of taking photos have been around for decades ad decades. You can make one your own personal style, or move from one to the other. it takes a bit of work to learn exactly HOW to use a wide-angle lens or a telephoto lens, or even a normal lens. Lenses are what actually MAKE the image; the lens forms the image, focuses it, regulates it, and determines what can or cannot be imaged in some situations. If you larn how to use a little bit of flash, you can shoot a lot of stuff even with slower aperture zoom lenses, although getting the exact, right focusing can be a challenge in dim light a lot of the time.

 

[runnah]

I have the missed focus/exposure style on lock down!

Email me if you want tips.

 

[mcflickr]

Appreciate the feedback thus far. I guess what I'm really looking for is tips to master a more natural, candid feel to my portraits. Particularly when shooting indoors. I understand the need for supplemental light, but really like to stay away from cookie-cutter portrait sessions offered by every person with a camera on Facebook. Any helpful tips in this regard would be appreciated.

 

[runnah]

Appreciate the feedback thus far. I guess what I'm really looking for is tips to master a more natural, candid feel to my portraits. Particularly when shooting indoors. I understand the need for supplemental light, but really like to stay away from cookie-cutter portrait sessions offered by every person with a camera on Facebook. Any helpful tips in this regard would be appreciated.

Well the first step is to learn the cookie cutter methods then improve upon that. Learn to walk before your run.

The other approach is to only use natural light.

 

[paigew]

Maybe post an example of your best work for critique.

 

[Derrel]

Appreciate the feedback thus far. I guess what I'm really looking for is tips to master a more natural, candid feel to my portraits. Particularly when shooting indoors. I understand the need for supplemental light, but really like to stay away from cookie-cutter portrait sessions offered by every person with a camera on Facebook. Any helpful tips in this regard would be appreciated.

Well, then you had better learn how to use flash, and buy a good lens or two; NOT an 18-55, and NOT a slow 55-200 zoom lens. Buying one of the big "posing guides" would be a big step away from the Facebook mold as well.

But if you want a more natural, candid feel when shooting indoors, you want to have access to some GOOD equipment, and you want to understand how and when to add supplemental lighting. Bounced flash can look a LOT like natural light when done at a higher-than-noob level. A lot of what people assume is "natural light" is the product of amazing equipment, used with AMAZING software, done by EXPERIENCED post-processing people, who have years' worth of study and experience. They make it look easy. Some of the newer camera offer indoor lower light capabilities we could only dream about five years ago, especially when one slaps a $500 to $1699 prime lens on such a camera. There are people who have blogs and websites all over the web, and they shoot this kind of stuff, and write about it. About 50% their picture quality is strictly GEAR capability; these are people using PREMIUM cameras and PREMIUM-grade optics...things like 85mm f/1.4 lenses, and 24mm f/1.4 lenses, and 35mm f/1.4 lenses...really HIGH-end optics that have the best performance and which allow them to focus better, and shoot better images; for example, a $99 18-55mm f/3.5~5.6 lens is at f/5.6 at 40mm and longer, and has poor focusing performance in b ad light, compared to a high-end 50/1.4. The lens and camera are what actually RECORD the image. Better lenses have huge upside to them.

When you buy a high-speed prime, like a 35/1.4 or 50/1.4 or 85/1.8 or 135/2, you move into a whole 'nother level of possibilities, the second you click it onto the lens mount. After you have owned it for a year, you'll know how to really leverage it. This entire beginner-class of f/3.5~5.6 lenses that is sold these days is fine for bright light, outdoors, but it has severe limits with a beginning shooter running the show and shooting indoor, candid pictures.

 

[Derrel]

So...you have basically ZERO normal lens ability, and ZERO wide-angle capability. You have a 50mm which functionss as a 75mm angle of view telephoto, and an 80-200/

You desperately need a wide-angle lens!!!! And a semi-wide angle lens. And a normal lens. You're totally hamstrung in any room that's not 50 feet wide or long. Look at one of the third-party lenses like the 17-50mm f/2.8 Sigma.

30 years ago, a beginner like you would have had BETTER equipment for not all that much money; A $45 generic 28mm f/2.8 wide, a $49 35mm /2.8, and a $39 135mm f/2.8 prime... as well as a 50mm f/1.8. Each of these old-school lenses would be considerdd purpose-built tools that have well-understood niches.

Get the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 as soon as you can.