Night Strobist Portraits. 2 for CC

[Geaux]

Had my "new to photography" Nephew in town from Dallas this week and he's been wanting me to shoot him for a new fb profile pic lol, so I did. Any thoughts or comments would be greatly appreciated. Both shots were with D90 + Sigma 10/20 and sb600 off camera.

1. I've gotten mixed reviews on the editing style of this shot, he seemed to love it along with other family (figures), but I've also heard from others who hate the 'vintage' editing style of today. Personally, I think both have their plus and minuses. Strobist information: sb600 with stofen, hand held camera left slightly above the subject. It's also a 30 second exposure with rear curtain flash.

Original w/o Vintage look

2. Strobist info: SB600 in 14" DIY beauty dish on boom held above/front of subject (about 2 foot above).

Still new to OCF and first time I've done a long exposure with rear curtain strobe portrait, had a blast learning though.

 

[reznap]

#1: not sure why the long exposure? If there were headlight trails from cars on a nearby street or something or even more dramatic water spouts from the fountain, it might have given the shot more impact.

#2's awesome.. square crop works here as well I think. I like the lighting and the background.. basically everything about it.

 

[Derrel]

#2 is very nice!!! Like reznap said above, everything about it is agreeable. Way to go! Such simplicity.

 

[Geaux]

#1: not sure why the long exposure? If there were headlight trails from cars on a nearby street or something or even more dramatic water spouts from the fountain, it might have given the shot more impact.

The reason I chose the long exposure is because the fountain is tucked under trees with no lighting around it and I wanted to get some of the background/foreground lighted. The one strobe wasn't enough light to light the subject and surrounding area or get the feel that I wanted in the shot. It was either, short exposure and only have him and the rim of the fountain lit or let the shutter run to get the ambiant lighting the way I wanted. Keep in mind, this was shot after midnight.


@Derrel, thanks man. One thing I worried about with this image was his eyes not looking at the camera and a bit off to the side. I was iffy on if I liked it or not (the facial expression, not the shot lol)

 

[IgsEMT]

GREAT JOB!!!
30s exposure, that's something... my wedding party can't stand still for 5 seconds and you got this kid standing for 30
I love number 3. Wide angle + square + distorted back ground = GREAT COMBO!!!

 

[cnutco]

The last is great! I need to make that dish I have been putting off...


Thanks for sharing.

 

[e.rose]

I'm gonna go against the grain of everyone here, and say, I actually really like the way you edited #1.

 

[Geaux]

^Thanks E.Rose I'm leaning in the same direction, personally. I know it's not for everyone, but I dig it.

@Cnutco: Seriously, if you get a chance to make one, do it. Overall an easy project, imo. I did it in about 6 hours, made custom bracket for flash etc. I'll post a picture when I get home later.

 

[Robin Usagani]

dude.. 1600 posts and you still post in the beginners section? You must be a slow learner.

 

[Geaux]

I am. I have A LOT to learn still.

 

[jwbryson1]

With all due respect to everybody in this thread, I want to understand something because I am confused by the responses you have received on these photos. I've seen a lot of pics slammed as "snapshots" and I don't understand how these supposed "snapshots" are any worse than these photos that you put here for review.

The first 2 shots just look like a kid standing in a garden (?) and the last looks like a kid standing in a street. I see nothing interesting about these photos. Not good, not bad, just neutral to me.

Derrel, Schwettylens, you each have a lot of posts and seem to know what you are talking about. Can you tell me specifically what you like about these pictures? How are these not snapshots? What is appealing about these photos?

 

[Robin Usagani]

I do like #2. The first one I didnt like it as much.

For me snap shot means: poorly planned shot. Distracting background, bad lighting, etc. and these shots are definitely not snapshots.

With all due respect to everybody in this thread, I want to understand something because I am confused by the responses you have received on these photos. I've seen a lot of pics slammed as "snapshots" and I don't understand how these supposed "snapshots" are any worse than these photos that you put here for review.

The first 2 shots just look like a kid standing in a garden (?) and the last looks like a kid standing in a street. I see nothing interesting about these photos. Not good, not bad, just neutral to me.

Derrel, Schwettylens, you each have a lot of posts and seem to know what you are talking about. Can you tell me specifically what you like about these pictures? How are these not snapshots? What is appealing about these photos?

 

[Robin Usagani]

actually i take that back. I like #1 but not so much with the PP.

 

[jwbryson1]

Okay, well, to my **untrained** eye, and I have only been shooting for 3 years and consider myself fairly "new" to photography, it was my understanding that a "good" photo takes you to the subject and focuses your eye there. In the first shot above, however, I find myself completely uninterested in the kid (who is supposed to be the subject) and instead I'm looking intently at the light through the trees trying to decide if that's the Lincoln Memorial through the trees. In the last shot, there is nothing to look at besides the kid, but I find him uninteresting because he's not connecting with the viewer at all by looking away from the lens.

Meh, I dunno. Not much here for me but I'm just one person with an opinion. Take it or leave it.

 

[Geaux]

I've only been doing this for a year and a half, so if you're fairly new to photography, I'm a baby at this stuff. I respect your opinion on the shots, thanks for your input, but I'd disagree with them looking "snapshotish" though.

I've seen a lot of pics slammed as "snapshots" and I don't understand how these supposed "snapshots" are any worse than these photos that you put here for review.

^ this is the only thing that aggravates me about your opinion...I take offense to these shots being compared to the shots being called snapshots lol.