Pic of my wife

[Evertking]

Just playing around with my light today.

 

[Derrel]

Damn!!!! What a fine shot. So pleasant a rendition. Not much else to say.

 

[tirediron]

Agree; this goes to show that relatively flat light can also be beautiful light! My only nit with the image is her left hand... I'd either like to see all of it, or none of it, but the "little bit" is visually irritating.

 

[terri34 6]

You did a great job with this light! It's even throughout the frame, nothing harsh anywhere. I have no issue with the hand; since it's out of focus but can be seen tugging a bit on the hair, it serves a subtle purpose in the frame and isn't a distraction for me.

She's cute as can be, too! Nice one.

 

[Evertking]

Dang y'all are good lol... The light is flat now looking at the catchlights. I had a hard time with that today.. moved to to far and I had no catchlights and then I had to pull the modified all the way around to get light in her eyes, that and I tried jacking the light stand up high and angling the octa down at her. In stead of the 45 and 45°
Here are a couple more and I'm still trying to get consistent with the colors from image to image. Any advice on how to do that?

Lol.. can't wait to tell my wife her appendages are visually irritating!! Wonder how that will go?
I do appreciate all the feedback, No kidding. I take it with me when I go practice, Thanks.

 

[snowbear115 46]

Nice set and she is lovely.

I can't say much about the lighting as this is way out of my area, but for the colors (WB), I typically look for a black, mid-grey or white area and use the WB eyedropper in Lightroom. You might want to think about a grey card - just shoot an extra frame with it visible, each tie the light changes significantly.

 

[Derrel]

Just a comment...an extra two stops' worth of depth of field on these would have brought that far eye into better focus. I cannot figure out why you're shooting at f/2, when f/3.5 or f/4 would create almost perfect DOF for the face and eyes, yet still would "blow out" the background from such a close camera-to-subject distance. My opinion is that the 135/2 L is almost perfect at f/4 to f/5.6, and at close-up range, the backdrop in such distances as was in these will still remain mostly un-recognizable.

Consistent color image to imag is usually down to setting a fixed white balance and keeping the exposure and lighting more or less consistent. If the software or camera is allowed to process/analyze the image, moving the light closer or father changes the lighting, and if the f/stop changes, then the background lighting can change.

I used to work at a studio where we used a color checker "slate" shot, and used the same lights all the time, and things are consistent when the amount of flash applied matches the f/stop and film ISO used, and consistency is the key when the film or RAWs are "developed" automatically, to like say a gray card type of 18% average value.

Again...if the overall "scene" is automatedly analyzed, if the light is moved close to the person, the backdrop might change in value...if the f/stop is varied, then things can change too.

 

[Gary A.]

Well done ... being lazy ... I basically echo Derrel (on this one). The first shot is my fav even though I find the hand distracting.

 

[Derrel]

The hand in the first shot is a "hair play" hand...that's a flirting gesture, centuries-recognized in western cultures...not having the hand twirling the hair would ruin the gesture and the expression she is conveying. The first shot has the expression and 'look' and the gesture that men world-wide recognize...the other expressions are forced by comparison and lack the genuine expression and lack the hair-twisting, flirty gesture that is just hinted at in shot #1.

 

[tirediron]

The hand in the first shot is a "hair play" hand...that's a flirting gesture, centuries-recognized in western cultures...not having the hand twirling the hair would ruin the gesture and the expression she is conveying. ..

I would agree 100% IF there was a bit more of the hand visible; IMO, it's so small in the frame as to appear accidental.

 

[Evertking]

You know, I am not sure why I shoot at f2..I told myself today when I went out that I was not going to shoot at F2 cause of the amount of missed focus that I get. I think it comes from the YouTube videos that I see and they shoot at 1.8 and 2.0 and it being the "thing to do" I even was about to calibrate my lens and it was fine. But I get a lot of nice pics just to open them up and they are not in focus!

 

[Derrel]

You know, I am not sure why I shoot at f2..I told myself today when I went out that I was not going to shoot at F2 cause of the amount of missed focus that I get. I think it comes from the YouTube videos that I see and they shoot at 1.8 and 2.0 and it being the "thing to do" I even was about to calibrate my lens and it was fine. But I get a lot of nice pics just to open them up and they are not in focus!

Don't let videos made by noobs influence you! Those who advocate that a person should, "Shoot wide open!" all the time...especially with a 135mm lens are often not very sophisticated shooters, in my estimation. The thing is...shallow DOF is one thing with a 50mm lens, but with a 135mm lens and its higher magnification, it's possible that the out of focus eyeballs and eyelashes,etc. may become a distraction from the **reality** of the scene; the ability to render "reality" in a gorgeous manner is what the 135/2-L does...espcially when stopped down a bit.

Take a look at Dan Ostergren's fine portaiture work with a full-frame camera and an 85mm lens, most often used closed down to at least f/3.5. I almost NEVER shoot a 135mm lens at f/2...the YouTubers that advocate shooting at f/1.8 or f/2 are, IMHO, inexperienced shooters who are enamored of a cannard...in my opinion, shooting wide-open often makes a photo look "affected".

Shallow depth of field on a face close-up shot may detract from reality, and may become more of a look how clever I am type of lenswork trick. Of course, this is all my opinion. Again...50mm vs. 135mm...f/2 on a 50 is one thing, another on a 135.

 

[Evertking]

Thank you, thank all of you. This place has been VERY helpful. I will go out and shoot again tomorrow and try the lens stopped down and come share what i get.

 

[Derrel]

I can hardly wait to see what you can come up with at f/4.5 or f/4.8. The Canon 135mm f/2-L is a superb imager, one of the finest lenses I've ever owned. It was one of the Canon lenses I held onto the longest. It has an almost magical image quality to its pictures.

 

[rosh4u]

Great job. I must say that the shot which you took of your wife who is playing with her hair seems so natural and expressive.