My Last edits of 2017

[Pedro_lopez]

Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

 

[Pedro_lopez]

Okay I don’t know what happened but I posted in the wrong forum instead of people galleries.


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

 

[rosh4u]

Yeah! I liked the shots especially the first one with perfect lights and edits.

 

[limr30 3]

Okay I don’t know what happened but I posted in the wrong forum instead of people galleries.


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

No worries, I moved it for you. If it ever happens again, just contact the moderators (PM us or use the "report" button on the bottom of the post) and we can move it.

 

[Pedro_lopez]

Okay I don’t know what happened but I posted in the wrong forum instead of people galleries.


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

No worries, I moved it to you. If it ever happens again, just contact the moderators (PM us or use the "report" button on the bottom of the post) and we can move it.

That was fast! I was actually looking for how to contact a moderator and here you come swooping in thanks! Anyways Happy New Years Everyone!

 

[Derrel]

Yeah! I liked the shots especially the first one with perfect lights and edits.

Yessssss! The first shot is very sensual,very alluring,and I just love the way you've shot down the length of the window. using a technique that back when I learned it some 20-odd years ago, was called "skimming". The brightness rendering of the blue colors from the neon sign is excellent. The red coloring is very striking. Most definitely, that is a fine picture. The second shot does not have nearly the same degree of excellent, dramatic, and revealing lighting, and the bokeh in the background appears what I call "nervous"; see the bricks on the left side of the frame? Not so pleasant. In shot #2, the face and body appear udner-lighted to me, and it looks like the shot is also a bit under-exposed on her face and body as well.

 

[limr30 3]

Okay I don’t know what happened but I posted in the wrong forum instead of people galleries.


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

No worries, I moved it to you. If it ever happens again, just contact the moderators (PM us or use the "report" button on the bottom of the post) and we can move it.

That was fast! I was actually looking for how to contact a moderator and here you come swooping in thanks! Anyways Happy New Years Everyone!

Good thing I hadn't put my cape away yet Happy New Year!

 

[Pedro_lopez]

Yeah! I liked the shots especially the first one with perfect lights and edits.

Yessssss! The first shot is very sensual,very alluring,and I just love the way you've shot down the length of the window. using a technique that back when I learned it some 20-odd years ago, was called "skimming". The brightness rendering of the blue colors from the neon sign is excellent. The red coloring is very striking. Most definitely, that is a fine picture. The second shot does not have nearly the same degree of excellent, dramatic, and revealing lighting, and the bokeh in the background appears what I call "nervous"; see the bricks on the left side of the frame? Not so pleasant. In shot #2, the face and body appear udner-lighted to me, and it looks like the shot is also a bit under-exposed on her face and body as well.

Yes, i do see what you're saying, although I didn't notice it with the bricks my thought was the bokeh balls shining from the cars looked too unnatural to me. thanks for the info on skimming, I didn't know that way of the shooting had a name. lately, I've just started seeing angles that work better than others. As for the exposure, I can't seem to find a metering mode that fits me for nighttime, and shooting at 1.4 on my fifty makes it hard to nail focus.

 

[Derrel]

Shooting at f/1.4 at this distance range otfen leads to insufficient depth of field to make a really GOOD picture...it's better to stop the lens down to f/3.5 or f/4, and get the doggone subject in crisp,clear focus. Night time metering can be tricky, yes, understood!

 

[Dean_Gretsch]

While the lighting is not as good as the first, I actually prefer the posing of the second. I think it looks spontaneous and more candid. Happy New Year!

 

[Pedro_lopez]

Shooting at f/1.4 at this distance range otfen leads to insufficient depth of field to make a really GOOD picture...it's better to stop the lens down to f/3.5 or f/4, and get the doggone subject in crisp,clear focus. Night time metering can be tricky, yes, understood!

I guess I still need to let go of shooting at the lowest aperture I’m able, definitely will stop down next time.


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

 

[DanOstergren26 1]

Shooting at f/1.4 at this distance range otfen leads to insufficient depth of field to make a really GOOD picture...it's better to stop the lens down to f/3.5 or f/4, and get the doggone subject in crisp,clear focus. Night time metering can be tricky, yes, understood!

I guess I still need to let go of shooting at the lowest aperture I’m able, definitely will stop down next time.


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

That’s not always an easy habit to break.


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

 

[Pedro_lopez]

Shooting at f/1.4 at this distance range otfen leads to insufficient depth of field to make a really GOOD picture...it's better to stop the lens down to f/3.5 or f/4, and get the doggone subject in crisp,clear focus. Night time metering can be tricky, yes, understood!

I guess I still need to let go of shooting at the lowest aperture I’m able, definitely will stop down next time.


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

That’s not always an easy habit to break.


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

Yeah that’s true but I think learning to get out of trying that shallow depth of field look every time will separate me from looking like an amateur. I need to know when it’s needed and when it’s not like in this case. Can’t wait to see what my growth is like this year.


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

 

[Derrel]

If a person starts thinking like a traditionally-trained professional from the film era, "f/5.6" will start coming to mind in many situations...and with electronic flash, "f/8" will start popping into the mind.

I was watching a Creative Live seminar about two years ago, when Lou Freeman made a statement. She said, to paraphrase, "Your job is not to get the shallowest depth of field, but to make the best possible professional pictures, and when you start thinking 'f/5.6', you'll start making the best possible shots, pose after pose after pose, because you won't have a tiny bit of misplaced focus absolutely ruining shots all the time."

Keep in mind, there's a difference between shooting JUST a face, and a group shot, or a family shot, or a full-body pose that might require three to five feet of depth of field; in many a headshot-type shot, all that is needed is a three-inch deep to five inch deep depth of field band; in a seated pose with legs extended, it might be far better to have five full feet of crisp focus, otherwise there will be disturbing out of focus on extended arms or legs, or areas within the picture.

Yes, learning to avoid the desire to fall back onto a cliched "shallow depth of field look" is something that separates the more-experienced shooter from the less-experienced. At times, having MORE depth of field can add impact to a picture, by actually SHOWING detail and information about the setting or the scene or the location the person is shown in; this is especially true when you want to show context, to show the person in the scene.

One of the biggest laments many people have is when they shoot at a wide f/stop, like f/1.8 or f/2 or f/2.8, and then the so-called best shot suffers from insufficient DOF, and is a garbage frame instead of a real winner.

On-line, there is a LOT of information passed along by noobs, on YouTube, and in blogs, advocating shooting wide-open, even at close distances, when in fact, at close range, stopping down to f/3.5 or f/4 will give almost the same overall look to the shot, but will also give a little tiny bit of what I call "focusing leeway", which keeps a tiny mis-placement of the focus point from being a catastrophic error. With longer lenses, like a 200mm or 300mm, the difference between wide-open and f/4 or f/5.6 is often enough to make it totally,totally worthwhile to shoot at f/5.6. Or even f/6.3.

We now have ISO levels, and portable flash gear, that makes older ideas about what f/stop to use outdated. We are no longer limited to color pictures at no higher than ISO 200 or 400! Ergo...there's NO absolute "need" to shoot at f/1.8 or f/2 or f/2.8 these days, in situations where we can boost ISO to 1,600 or 2,400 or even to ISO 5,000 on higher-performance cameras of modern design.