I'm not happy, but the mom is?

[matt62485]

^ im with him

 

[Taylor510ce]

LOL what style is that?

The style where you completely blow out the background and insist that the client is happy. Ultimately the (your) client hasn't a clue on properly exposed images.

Not that this is a properly exposed image, but it is closer than you've been able to assimulate. A bit more play and I would have nailed it..... probably, maybe not, who knows. The point is that you can keep the background in range and still have a close facsimile of the scene. You may have to compromise on the DoF. If so, whatcha gonna do? If the background is bad and you have to increase DoF, whatcha gonna do? You, on the other hand, continue to completly ignore all the advice of exposing for the ambient and flash for the subject. Futhermore, you insist to espouse upon us that the "client" is happy with the results.

B0LL0CKS! They are ignorant and it is your mission to educate them. If you are not capable at this time to accomplish such a task, then it is your duty to educate yourself. Test and practice and ask questions and read books.

You give the airs of accomplishment, even though you also side with humility, but I suspct that to be with reservation. No one here wants more out of you than yourself, but some of the advice given has been golden.

Even the ones on this thread that state adulations, are not your friends. None of the photos are decent. All would find the recycle bin on my computer.

That not to say pack it in. Far from it. Be your worst critic. Show your best once you are satisfied. It is and it's not a numbers game. The more you shoot, the more comfortable you'll become with the camera. On the flip side, you have admirer's. They will be on your side. They are valuable..... to some extent. What would you rather have? I think the truth is nice.

WTF crawled up this guys a**? How are you going to crush someone with a picture that you say "Not that this is a properly exposed image, but it is closer than you've been able to assimulate" What kind of half-a**ed C+C is that? Come down off of your high horse. We get it, you like stuffed monkeys.

The pics aren't great, but they aren't terrible. This is the beginners forum after all. This clearly was a rushed shoot, whether it was their fault or yours. Definately need to work on the exposure and the framing/composure. I would also work more on locations for your shoot. With that said, if this is all you were given in terms of location, attire, and time of day. You mainly need to work on the first two things obviously.

The wide angle/distance from subject is what made that foot look so large. Try a different focal length or lens, even if it means that you have to move back further.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[matt62485]

LOL what style is that?

The style where you completely blow out the background and insist that the client is happy. Ultimately the (your) client hasn't a clue on properly exposed images.

Not that this is a properly exposed image, but it is closer than you've been able to assimulate. A bit more play and I would have nailed it..... probably, maybe not, who knows. The point is that you can keep the background in range and still have a close facsimile of the scene. You may have to compromise on the DoF. If so, whatcha gonna do? If the background is bad and you have to increase DoF, whatcha gonna do? You, on the other hand, continue to completly ignore all the advice of exposing for the ambient and flash for the subject. Futhermore, you insist to espouse upon us that the "client" is happy with the results.

B0LL0CKS! They are ignorant and it is your mission to educate them. If you are not capable at this time to accomplish such a task, then it is your duty to educate yourself. Test and practice and ask questions and read books.

You give the airs of accomplishment, even though you also side with humility, but I suspct that to be with reservation. No one here wants more out of you than yourself, but some of the advice given has been golden.

Even the ones on this thread that state adulations, are not your friends. None of the photos are decent. All would find the recycle bin on my computer.

That not to say pack it in. Far from it. Be your worst critic. Show your best once you are satisfied. It is and it's not a numbers game. The more you shoot, the more comfortable you'll become with the camera. On the flip side, you have admirer's. They will be on your side. They are valuable..... to some extent. What would you rather have? I think the truth is nice.

WTF crawled up this guys a**? How are you going to crush someone with a picture that you say "Not that this is a properly exposed image, but it is closer than you've been able to assimulate" What kind of half-a**ed C+C is that? Come down off of your high horse. We get it, you like stuffed monkeys.

The pics aren't great, but they aren't terrible. This is the beginners forum after all. This clearly was a rushed shoot, whether it was their fault or yours. Definately need to work on the exposure and the framing/composure. I would also work more on locations for your shoot. With that said, if this is all you were given in terms of location, attire, and time of day. You mainly need to work on the first two things obviously.

The wide angle/distance from subject is what made that foot look so large. Try a different focal length or lens, even if it means that you have to move back further.

Just my 2 cents.

dont worry, he called mine just snapshots. i guess the stuff animals were mean to him today

 

[kundalini]

Kundalini...so, was the post you made around noon today sarcastic??? The one where you said her style was, " coming on fabulously"; that was sarcasm, right? Or have you just had a couple of drinks tonight? lol.

Perhaps a bit of both Derrel, perhaps a bit of both.

...what Kundalini is offering as a properly-exposed or almost properly-exposed shot is at odds with the actual situation you were shooting in....his shot shows strong SUNLIGHT, with distinct hard shadows on the ground...your shot shows strong SKY-LIGHT in open shade, which are two very different lighting scenarios.

#3 was what I was shooting for only. Sorry dude, look at the shadows, as faint as they are on hers. I'm guessing the sun to be in the neighborhood of 17:00-19:00 hrs. I waited until late afternoon today (and for the sun to break the heavy cloud cover here) to replicate the scenerio. Not perfect, but one is in Florida (Sunshine state) and the other is further north (Tar Heel state).[/quote]

The shot of the kids seated and the parents in the background is not even close to the lighting scenario Kundalini is showing in his example; in your shot there are no shadows on the ground....because your family is posed in open, late afternoon shade,with some skylight present, and the way that "renders" is vastly different that his sun-lighted shot in an open field.

See above. Just checked.... shot was taken at 17:46 to be exact.

 

[kundalini]

WTF crawled up this guys a**? How are you going to crush someone with a picture that you say "Not that this is a properly exposed image, but it is closer than you've been able to assimulate" What kind of half-a**ed C+C is that? Come down off of your high horse. We get it, you like stuffed monkeys.

Do you know the history? I didn't think so. Now, you are cordially invited to STFU.

Crystal knows, you obviously don't. This critique was not meant for you.

I like my monkey, he likes me. Winston, Bruce and Noname are part of my entourage. Ocassionally though, Winston is bad........ and I have to spank my monkey.

Do you have a monkey to spank?

 

[Derrel]

Nope, sorry, you're incorrect. Her shot is done in open shade, with slight sunlight dappling through the trees, from behind. She is shooting in a mostly sky-lighted situation, with backlight. Your open field shot has DIRECT SUN-LIGHT.


The time of day has absolutely nothing to do with it; in her shot, the sun is coming from behind, and is filtered by the trees. In your shot, the sun is coming from camera right, and is DIRECTLY illuminating you,the trees, and the ground. Time of day has nothing to do with it: her photo has sky-light,and indirect,filtered, back-lighting. Your photo has direct rays from the SUN, casting HARD, black shadows...

All you need to do is do what I did to prove it: pull her image into PS,and pull the exposure down...the mom and dad are not casting any shadows...because her shot is done in mostly OPEN SHADE....with backlight, from weak, evening sunlight as about 10-15 percent of the exposure component...no matter what the time stamp says.

The two lighting scenarios are vastly different. One is strong sidelight in SUN-light, with direct sun rays illuminating everything. Her scenario is indirect, backlighting, in open shade, with weak shadows.

Just as an aside: the lighting in both these scenarios could be handled best by a Fuji S3 Pro or S5 Pro d-slr...the only d-slr that really can handle these types of extreme dynamic range without fill-flash...

 

[JasonLambert]

IMO... #1 Eh... Hair and bushes just kinda merge into one, #2 THROW IT AWAY!!! You can't start off with a bad image and expect that taking away the color will make it any better.

Nowww.... #3.... I Love It! I love this style... The blown sky is actually a good thing in this image... I know, I know.... Using flash or filters would have helped this be more "properly" exposed, but who gives a rats ass what could have been done to make things "proper"! It's artistic... it's pleasing to the eye... I say.... GOOD JOB! Now run an delete those other two from your hard drive before anyone sees them

 

[kundalini]

Nope, sorry, you're incorrect. Her shot is done in open shade, with slight sunlight dappling through the trees, from behind. She is shooting in a mostly sky-lighted situation, with backlight. Your open field shot has DIRECT SUN-LIGHT....

Okay dammit Derrel...... Uncle. But that wasn't the point at all. But it is worth noting. And the TOD is close enough for government work.

And I think you know in which corner I sit. This is not an isolated case. This is an ongoing situation.

But the client is happy!!!!!

 

[Robin Usagani]

The example that kundalini showed, isn't that pretty much almost the same thing as the one I tried to do on the family pictures? Not many people liked it.

 

[kundalini]

The example that kundalini showed, isn't that pretty much almost the same thing as the one I tried to do on the family pictures? Not many people liked it

.

No. First off, look at the black. There is absolutely no definition...... okay, very little definition..... in your blacks on the guys shirt.

Secondly, your lighting is completely flat. There is a bit of nose shadow on the girl, but it doesn't translate.

Not meaning to sound demeaning, but your image could easily be interpretated as a cut and paste.

Please, I am not defending myself or boasting myself. But the two are apples and oranges.

 

[matt62485]

who cares if the client is happy! as long as kundy is happy! :lmao:

imho, if the client is happy... those who pay for the work, who cares? some clients like some styles, some don't. most won't know the nitpick crap you're pickin about.

 

[Robin Usagani]

So if I keep everytthing the same (including flash power) and just move the flash off the camera, it will make the image much better? I probably need to lower the speed a little?

 

[kundalini]

who cares if the client is happy! as long as kundy is happy! :lmao:.

Nice try to call out, but a complete failure in execution.

Are you happy? Would you like to stroke my monkey?

 

[Taylor510ce]

who cares if the client is happy! as long as kundy is happy! :lmao:.

Nice try to call out, but a complete failure in execution.

Are you happy? Would you like to stroke my monkey?

Dude "spanking the monkey" was funny.....when I was like 12. I don't need to know the history. I know the history of you being a douche. Is that enough? I don't have a monkey......I have a gorilla......ask yo mama.:lmao:

 

[JasonLambert]

Dude "spanking the monkey" was funny.....when I was like 12. I don't need to know the history. I know the history of you being a douche. Is that enough? I don't have a monkey......I have a gorilla......ask yo mama.:lmao:

If this were Facebook... I'd "Like" that comment!