Looking for technical CC

[JeffieLove]

Not really looking for comments on composition, posing, etc. I'm going back to basics as far as exposure and technical things go... Composition and posing not included... So, here's a few shots from my recent engagement session.

I would like to know what I could have done different to get better lighting, focus, etc. I do seem to still be missing focus on the eyes somehow still even if I set the focus (using the one shot setting). I read back through my manual and I had been using AI Focus but then realized that if I want the eyes to be in focus, I need the focus to not change when I move the camera around. I need to focus on the eyes and have the focus locked on the eyes. So if I push the button down half way with the eyes in focus, and then move the camera down in order to adjust the crop, the eyes should still be in focus. If I'm wrong in that train of thought, let me know PLEASE! If anyone has any suggestions for nailing eye focus in EVERY shot, please let me know! I'm under the impression that better lighting alone will help with that.

So, all of these photos were taken 100% natural light unless otherwise specified. The Exif Data for each image will be posted in full with it's respective image. If there is any other information you need for any individual picture, please ask! I might not remember everything!

1. Used Vivitar Flash on lowest power to light them in the alley type thing they are in.
SOOC:

Edit:

Exif Data:
ISO 400
F/1.8
1/200
Aperture Priority
Focal Length 50mm
Natural light was not sufficient in this location so the primary light source on the couple is my flash with a diffuser directly next to the camera.
2. Note: This is probably my least favorite pose of the entire session. I'm still not sure if I like this or not, but figured it would be a good one to ask for this help on
SOOC:

Edit:

Exif Data:
ISO 400
F/1.8
1/2000
Aperture Priority
Focal Length 50mm
This was natural light. Sun was directly to the right of us but was obscured by buildings and trees.
3.
SOOC:

Edit:

Exif Data:
ISO 400
F/4
1/250
Aperture Priority
Focal Length 50mm
Sun was directly to the right of us but obscured by buildings and trees.

 

[DerekSalem]

Overall not bad pictures...but 2 and 3 are fairly underexposed (sooc). You fixed both of them in PP fairly well, but they don't really pop out of the backgrounds...

For one, I'm not sure why you're at 1/2000s shutter speed in the second shot. Maybe that's a typo (in which case I'm guessing 1/200?), but either way you can lower the shutter speeds in these shots. Handheld and with a flash available you can drop the ISO to 200 and lower the shutter speed to 1/100 or so. You'd get a slightly cleaner image (it doesn't matter for the shots themselves, but if you want to do a lot of PP you'll want the cleanest image possible. Since you have a flash available you can drop the ISO as low as you want) and grab plenty of light.

Either way, you should try Spot metering in these cases. What you want is for the people to be properly exposed and the background to be just that...background. If the background is as bright or brighter than the subjects your eyes won't focus on the subjects quickly because they'll just kind of blend in. I understand some people are against using external lighting sources or are somewhat afraid of trying it out...but for some cases there's no way around it. I did poke around a little on your facebook page and I've just kind of noticed the same thing with most of the shots. Although the exposure is usually pretty good, it doesn't help to make the subject stand out.

A lot of it you can do in PP if you have no other option, but since you have a flash unit you have all the tools you need to do it on site and the results will be much cleaner that way. In the first shot the lighting is pretty acceptable but there's not near enough on their heads. Their bodies are perfectly lit, but when you're standing next to someone talking to them...what are you looking at? The face and head are pretty important if you're trying to show who's in the picture. The second one they blend in perfectly to the background...and it's not because of his ACUs. The lighting is almost completely even throughout the entire picture and nothing makes the subjects stand out. In the third shot it was just underexposed but you did a good job lightening the entire picture up in PP. His face is still a bit dark...but overall it looks pretty good.

The point is to make as much of that as possible happen in the camera before you even put the files on your computer. Stronger flash settings, bigger reflectors/softboxes for even lighting, or multiple flashes. It's very easy to fix too much light (just turn up the settings on your camera) but it's usually pretty tough to fix not enough light. Without enough light the natural light in the picture can overtake it...and with 2 different temperature light sources in a picture it gets tough to make it all look great for the end product.

 

[Juice]

Why the hell would you do an engagement shoot in BDUs?

Darek already trumped anything I would say. The only other thing I would add is that in your edits of 1&2 the pink part of her dress seems a little overwhelming in the pic. That could be my laptop monitor though.

 

[JeffieLove]

Thanks both of you

Juice, I can see what you're saying in #2, but in #2 it's pretty much the exact color it actually was... It was a pretty bold magenta color.

As far as the BDU's for the engagement shoot thing, we only did half of it in BDU's and that was what they wanted. She has seen a couple of the photos and she's pretty happy with them

 

[Robin Usagani]

Don't get stuck with aperture wide open. 2nd one does nothing but making your subject not as sharp. It is not like you need or want the shallow depth of field

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

Most everything has been said already but I will add something. They also make cheap little slave flashes ( about $40 ) that are just small squares with angled corners so you can aim them up at a 45 degree to light a background (the alley) or use as fill like on the soldiers face in #2. They are easy to hide or keep out of the scene also. Just an idea.
Morris Midi Slave DC Flash (Black) 11275 B&H Photo Video

 

[JeffieLove]

I'm interested. But how would that work as fill light if I'm not already using a flash? wouldn't using my flash that I have be sufficient? is that slave better used as a background light rather than a fill light?

 

[tirediron]

C&C per req: Most of the issues regarding the lighting have been addressed, however there are some other things which I view as technical - you may or may not.

My biggest concern with these is composition and posing. #1, 2: "Up the nose shots" are rarely attractive. Elevating yourself another 12 - 18" here would have really helped. As well, note the crop on his left hand. ALWAYS try and avoid cropping off little bits of limbs.

#3,4: This is a classic case of "Discuss wardrobe with the clients ahead of time". I don't think the BDUs are appropriate, however if that's what they want, then the girl needs to ajust her wardrobe. Bright pink, dark grey and black are not helping the image. Additionally, being a fuller-figured lady, this pose and this outfit REALLY do not work. Try and have her at more of an angle so as to minimize the emphasis on her attributes.

As well, in general, watch your perspective, ESPECIALLY when you have so many horizontal/verical lines.

Just my $00.02 worth - your mileage may vary.

~John

 

[JeffieLove]

#1, I was on the same level as them, I'm just shorter I completely understand what you're saying though... Maybe I should start bringing a wagon of "supplies" with me and include a small stool in there for photo shoots LOL I totally didn't notice the chopped fingers and that is something that I'm quick to point out to others! Wow! LOL Thanks again!

#2, Just in case I ever get another client who wants to do some BDU photos, what would you suggest the other person wears? They wanted these to kind of be their "formal" engagement shots where as the others that I took of them both in casual clothes were more fun

Thank you all so far for your very detailed CC

 

[mwcfarms]

Im thinking that those little slaves would give you nice seperation of the subject from the background while still allowing you to use your flash as key light. I could be wrong though.

 

[mwcfarms]

Question for you, how the heck do you trigger them?

 

[tirediron]

#1, I was on the same level as them, I'm just shorter I completely understand what you're saying though... Maybe I should start bringing a wagon of "supplies" with me and include a small stool in there for photo shoots

Do just that. I'm tall enough that it's not a huge problem for me, but I have a really cool little folding step-ladder/dolly. It's been invaluable on more than one occasion I can tell you!

#2, Just in case I ever get another client who wants to do some BDU photos, what would you suggest the other person wears? They wanted these to kind of be their "formal" engagement shots

To be honest, these don't say 'formal' to me at all. His says, "Every day at work" and hers says "Night at the bar with girl friends". I would suggest that he wears a more formal order of dress, and suggest to her something perhaps a little more conservative and colour-appropriate. In this case I would think perhaps a longer dress (say just below the knee) in a darker colour (blue?) would have worked well. Granted clients won't always listen, but I have the feeling that in ten years, this girl is going to think, "I wish I had worn..."

 

[KmH]

Stop the lens down a couple of stops from wide open. That's part of your sharpness issue.

What metering mode are you using?

Why did you use ISO 400 in all 3?

#1 you used strobed light (what model Vivitar strobe?). Why did you use ISO 400? Do you know how to calculate the correct lens aperture based on the light's GN number and the subject distance?

In #2, because they are so close to the background (and there is plenty of light), there was no way to do selective focus (shallow DOF), so there was no need for f/1.8. Why did you use that aperture?

In #3 you used f/4, but your subjects eyes are at different distances from the image sensor. Consequently they girls eyes are not as sharply focused as his eyes are because even at f/4 the DOF is so shallow (mostly because the subjects are so close to the image sensor) there was no way to have both sets of eyes sharply focused. That's a common mistake made trying to use shallow DOF and a 50 mm prime.

For a 50 mm focal length and a Canon crop sensor camera and the focal point distance 5 ft from the image sensor: http://dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

Depth of field

Near limit 4.79 ft
Far limit 5.23 ft
Total - 0.45 ft (5.4 inches)

In front of focal point - 0.21 ft (48%) (2.5 inches)
Behind focal point - 0.23 ft (52%) (2.76 inches)

Hyperfocal distance 108.1 ft
Circle of confusion 0.019 mm

 

[tirediron]

Question for you, how the heck do you trigger them?

Radio triggers; Pocket Wizards, Radio Popper, Cactus, etc.

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

They have a sensor that senses when your main flash fires. I like them just for background lighting if nothing else. By fill light, I meant to fill in the shadows that the other flash didnt get due to blockage/angles, or your main flash caused them. Thats why many people use multiple flashes/reflectors. Somethings you just cant do with one flash especially on camera. The slaves are small, cheap and can help out in a pinch. There are many kinds/brands though.