One from today's session, trying to learn new lens

[Bossy]

Wes, she's trying to shoot with about 150 watts total of continuous light, that's why she needed 800 ISO.

 

[Vtec44]

The ratio of new photographers getting defective lenses is just amazingly high. There must be something in the water. Seriously, I have no clue. I don't want to bring up the aperture issue as she's EXTREMELY sensitive about it. I have PM's to prove it!

 

[MTVision]

The ratio of new photographers getting defective lenses is just amazingly high. There must be something in the water. Seriously, I have no clue. I don't want to bring up the aperture issue as she's EXTREMELY sensitive about it. I have PM's to prove it!

 

[MTVision]

Wes, she's trying to shoot with about 150 watts total of continuous light, that's why she needed 800 ISO.

BOSSY!!! Hi!

 

[Bossy]

Hi Megan!!

 

[LightSpeed]

Wes, she's trying to shoot with about 150 watts total of continuous light, that's why she needed 800 ISO.

BOSSY!!! Hi!

 

[LightSpeed]

Hi Megan!!

Oh boy,

 

[Bossy]

You should try Rogaine LS. Your head is a bit shiny. And holy **** its 4am so I'm going to sleep.

 

[LightSpeed]

You should try Rogaine LS. Your head is a bit shiny. And holy **** its 4am so I'm going to sleep.

Wonderful.
A hit and run.
lol

 

[gsgary]

This might be stupid questions but...

Why would one shoot with an ISO of 800? Don't you typically want to shoot with as low an ISO as possible to reduce noise? (Not that noise is really a problem in this picture).

Secondly, why the large aperture? I mean, that gives you a very small DOF, which I'd think is another reason she's out of focus.

And of course the lighting has already been discussed...

Because she has crappy continuos lighting

 

[luvmyfamily]

I am not going to say much, or get defensive to anything anyone said, however, this was a quick edit and the highlights are blown out due to a quick edit in curves. Also, I didn't realize you were a Fauxtographer if you took portraits outside?? I don't care, i'm going to do it anyway.

 

[luvmyfamily]

I think it's more her technique and that's something she has to figure it out on her own. I was at a much closer distance using wider aperture but didn't have focus issues at all. Maybe Nikon equipment are just that good. lol

No - it is technique but that's what I meant by practicing. It's harder to nail focus at shallow DOF's versus a depth of field of 4ft+. It is far from impossible to get sharp focus at wide apertures but more than likely it wouldn't happen after having the lens a couple days.

I shoot at wide apertures a lot but I did practice at it.

Horrible old picture but it's in focus! F/2.0 and really close

This was taken outdoors!! This is not at you Megan but to CGipsons comment about natural light photography. Why are you considered a fauxtographer if you choose to do portraits outdoors?

 

[luvmyfamily]

Wow, you all saw one photo how of the 100 I took, did a tired, quick edit on the one i was having trouble with and I get PM'd on how to pose children lol. Once again, someone please tell me why are you considered a fauxtographer as CGipson says if you choose to take portraits outdoors?? At least I've give this indoor stuff a try.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

So was that PM helpfull, or stuff you already mastered?

 

[analog.universe]

Once again, someone please tell me why are you considered a fauxtographer as CGipson says if you choose to take portraits outdoors?? At least I've give this indoor stuff a try.

Because this is the internet, and being judgemental and calling people made up words is the name of the game. If I see people use words like "fauxtographer" and "MWAC", I assume they've run out of actual photographic conversation and just want to make a fuss...

Just worry about your technique, not some condescending made up words.