Night Strobist Portraits. 2 for CC

jwbryson1 · Aug 9, 2011

Geaux, no offense, not really. At least none intended. I'm hardly one to "review" photos. Having said that, Schwettylens says a "snapshot" is a photo with a distracting background---that's how I see the first 2 shots. The background distracts my eye and pulls it from the subject. The last photo I just find uninteresting, but that's just my opinion. Keep shooting and don't listen to me. I'm just a guy with a camera. My shots that I think are decent are called snapshots on occasion and I keep trudging along.

Geaux · Aug 9, 2011

I've noticed you got railed with the 'snapshot' thing in one of your most recent threads. I now see why the topic was brought up

Here's my thing with the 'snapshot' phenomena. I don't understand how you can call something a snapshot if it's a thought out shot with off camera flashes lol. I also don't understand how you say that the first photo is a snapshot b/c it has a cluttered background, yet call the second one a snapshot b/c it's just a kid and no background. Sort of contradictory eh?

Derrel · Aug 9, 2011

A snapshot is not "lighted" with a beauty dish, outside, at night, as part of a photo shoot...when one goes to a fair amount of effort like this, the resulting images are not snapshots...they are the results from a "photo shoot". Or a "test session". A snapshot is just a quick snap, made as a memory place-holder, or a simple recording of something seen. A very simple photograph, without a lot of props or a complicated set, such as the second image, is not automatically classified as a snapshot. The intent and effort the photographer put into the shot is what separates a simple, direct photograph from a snapshot.

Geaux · Aug 10, 2011

Whoa Derrel, thanks for having my back on this. I was racking my brain, thinking I was crazy for not thinking these were snapshots lol.

shortpants · Aug 10, 2011

I really don't want to go off on a rant about snapshots again, but I hate how the word is thrown around like it's dirty. There are GOOD snapshots. It's a legitimate part of photography. It's about capturing a moment that happens in a split second. Henri Cartier Bresson is rolling over in his grave right now. ANYWAY! :lol:

These are not snapshots, because they're set up. There's controlled lighting, posing, etc.

OP I'm loving the second one, same reasons people have said. I especially like the background lights leading to him, and also I like the way he looks. Like a typical bored teenager without being awkward.

BekahAura · Aug 10, 2011

I like the unedited version of the first one. Specifically because in the edited version the background is too dark. I like the unedited version because of the eerie look of the green forest to the left.

The second one is great. His expression isn't incredible, but the composition and lighting are very nice. =)

Geaux · Aug 11, 2011

shortpants said:
OP I'm loving the second one, same reasons people have said. I especially like the background lights leading to him, and also I like the way he looks. Like a typical bored teenager without being awkward.

BekahAura said:
I like the unedited version of the first one. Specifically because in the edited version the background is too dark. I like the unedited version because of the eerie look of the green forest to the left.

The second one is great. His expression isn't incredible, but the composition and lighting are very nice. =)

This is exactly why photography is an art, everyone has their opinions. I love it. Thanks for your input again.

@bokeh - I love the green'ness of the forest in my unedited version too. Truthfully, I like both edits equally lol.

DiskoJoe · Aug 11, 2011

only suggestion i would make is choose your locations better. that lighting is to help light the model from the front. the locations you chose make make it very obvious that you are using artificial lighting and also make the images look unnatural due to there being bright lighting coming from no where. try to shoot closer to some other lights so your flash will blend with them and not stick out so much.

Geaux · Aug 11, 2011

Thanks for the suggestion DiskoJoe, never really thought of the idea of blending the lighting with a strobe. I've always liked the strobist idea of making the subject stand out b/c of the lighting along with the background. I also sort of like that strobed effect where the source of light doesn't seem to come from a natural or manmade object in the frame. I could be the minority in that thought though haha.

I appreciate it though, might have to try it out next time.

e.rose · Aug 11, 2011

Geaux said:
Thanks for the suggestion DiskoJoe, never really thought of the idea of blending the lighting with a strobe. I've always liked the strobist idea of making the subject stand out b/c of the lighting along with the background. I also sort of like that strobed effect where the source of light doesn't seem to come from a natural or manmade object in the frame. I could be the minority in that thought though haha.

I appreciate it though, might have to try it out next time.

No, I agree with you too. :lol:

That's part of the reason why I like this image... feels kind of mystic to me. Camoflauging the strobe certainly has it's applications... but so does what you did here, in my opinion... and I dig it. :biggrin: