Self portraits (C&C)

cgipson1 · Jul 11, 2012

Sbuxo said:
And I'm going to buy a Lamborghini Murcielago because it will make me a better driver. :roll: What I see with most people is their illusion that their level of skill (or lack thereof) is going to change because of the acquisition of an expensive lens. I didn't say not to ever buy it, but given his photos, an L lens is pretty over the top. But sure, if mommy and daddy have money, why not? :thumbup:

All in all, just keep shooting, kid. And be inspired to learn by all means, not just dropping cash for expensive lenses. &#55357;&#56842;

I see that more with bodies.. than lenses. But AUTO is AUTO no matter what, right?

All the MWAC PROS want a pro camera to replace their entry level camera, thinking that will improve their mediocre shots! LOL!

Sbuxo · Jul 11, 2012

:roll: oh shooting on auto? Yea I'll let you guys keep it at c&c..:lmao:

o hey tyler · Jul 11, 2012

janineh said:
Why do you take self portraits? Dont think you learn much doing that. Take photos of other ppl or things. You seem to have a weird blue light in your face, must be your computer screen. Especially in # 1.

Nice positive reinforcement, grandma. Why don't you give him constructive criticism rather than telling him what he should be shooting "in your opinion."

Self portraits can be challenging exercise in composition and posing. I think you did pretty well overall, Ken. However an outdoor setting would have been pleasing.

TheKenTurner · Jul 11, 2012

Sbuxo said:
:roll: oh shooting on auto? Yea I'll let you guys keep it at c&c..:lmao:

Yes, I was using that auto mode where you adjust the aperture, shutter speed, and ISO and also put it into Lightroom. Full auto.

-Ken Turner

TheKenTurner · Jul 11, 2012

o hey tyler said:
Nice positive reinforcement, grandma. Why don't you give him constructive criticism rather than telling him what he should be shooting "in your opinion."

Self portraits can be challenging exercise in composition and posing. I think you did pretty well overall, Ken. However an outdoor setting would have been pleasing.

Outdoor backgrounds sound tricky. I have a small backyard that's got a wood fence and plants everywhere, but I'm just not sure how I would execute an outdoor portrait. I can barely do one of me in front of a blank background

thanks though, I'll consider some outdoor portraits later down the road

-Ken Turner

o hey tyler · Jul 11, 2012

Large aperture, f/2.5 will work. Head and shoulders should be an ideal working distance while still allowing you to isolate yourself from the background, especially outdoors.

kundalini · Jul 11, 2012

janineh said:
Why do you take self portraits? Dont think you learn much doing that. Take photos of other ppl or things.

You know not
of what you speak.

jowensphoto · Jul 11, 2012

I can't imagine how difficult a self portrait would be... I've done quick ones, but nothing serious.

While I haven't much experience, I'm my own worst critic. I'd go to serious lengths to make myself look my best. That experience and gained technique would translate over to portraits of others.

So yeah, completely pointless

TheKenTurner · Jul 12, 2012

o hey tyler said:
Large aperture, f/2.5 will work. Head and shoulders should be an ideal working distance while still allowing you to isolate yourself from the background, especially outdoors.

I just find that on the 50 1.8, the background starts to look weird after about f/2 because there's only 5 aperture blades, so everything starts looking like weird rounded hexagons... Maybe if I make a round custom bokeh shape for my lens?

-Ken Turner

o hey tyler · Jul 12, 2012

TheKenTurner said:
o hey tyler said:

Large aperture, f/2.5 will work. Head and shoulders should be an ideal working distance while still allowing you to isolate yourself from the background, especially outdoors.

Click to expand...

I just find that on the 50 1.8, the background starts to look weird after about f/2 because there's only 5 aperture blades, so everything starts looking like weird rounded hexagons... Maybe if I make a round custom bokeh shape for my lens?

-Ken Turner

OH right, the 50/1.8. Yeah. Sh!itty bokeh happens with that lens. You could try f/1.8, or f/2 for head and shoulders, but the DoF will be slim. I wouldn't try a round custom bokeh shape though, just my opinion.

TheKenTurner · Jul 12, 2012

o hey tyler said:
OH right, the 50/1.8. Yeah. Sh!itty bokeh happens with that lens. You could try f/1.8, or f/2 for head and shoulders, but the DoF will be slim. I wouldn't try a round custom bokeh shape though, just my opinion.

Yeah, I was using 1.8 for this pictures... I'm surprised there wasn't more blur in the background. It was 3 or 4 feet behind me and the camera was 3 or 4 feet away! But along with other, more important lenses, the 50 1.4 is on my list of lenses I want and could actually eventually get.

Also a kind of random thought, canon's cheapest L lens should be a 50 f/2.8 for $500 or something...

-Ken Turner

JohnTrav · Jul 12, 2012

As a word of advise as far as lenses go. If you are serious about photography and the sharpness and clarity of your pictures. I would save up and just buy the L lenses you want and not waste your money or time on cheaper "budget" lenses. Don't get me wrong. They are still decent and you can still get good images out of them. But from my own experience, I think you should just get what you really want.

I bought the 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS lens for like 200$ at the time and ended up selling it because I want the 70-200L. And those cheaper lenses don't seem to hold as much value as the L lenses.

That's just my opinion on lenses if you are planning on purchasing more in the near future.

Other than that keep snapping away. Looks like your on the right path to creating nice photos.

o hey tyler · Jul 12, 2012

TheKenTurner said:
Also a kind of random thought, canon's cheapest L lens should be a 50 f/2.8 for $500 or something...

-Ken Turner

Haha. What purpose would that serve? They've already got a 50/1.2, 1.4, and 1.8? What would be different about a 50/2.8 other than the fact that it would be the slowest 50mm available, and cost almost twice as much as the 50/1.4. The only plus side would be the optical quality of the glass, but even then it would natively be slower than all the other 50's.

I just don't see the logic, homie.

TheKenTurner · Jul 12, 2012

o hey tyler said:
Haha. What purpose would that serve? They've already got a 50/1.2, 1.4, and 1.8? What would be different about a 50/2.8 other than the fact that it would be the slowest 50mm available, and cost almost twice as much as the 50/1.4. The only plus side would be the optical quality of the glass, but even then it would natively be slower than all the other 50's.

I just don't see the logic, homie.

It would be "slow", but not too bad considering right now of I want to take a picture at 85mm, then it has to be at 5.6... AND IT WOULD BE AN L LENS! It would also fit in nice with the low priced 17-40 and 70-200 L lenses. But probably not gonna happen. Or at least especially not when I can barely pay for lenses.

-Ken Turner

TheKenTurner · Jul 12, 2012

JohnTrav said:
As a word of advise as far as lenses go. If you are serious about photography and the sharpness and clarity of your pictures. I would save up and just buy the L lenses you want and not waste your money or time on cheaper "budget" lenses. Don't get me wrong. They are still decent and you can still get good images out of them. But from my own experience, I think you should just get what you really want.

I bought the 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS lens for like 200$ at the time and ended up selling it because I want the 70-200L. And those cheaper lenses don't seem to hold as much value as the L lenses.

That's just my opinion on lenses if you are planning on purchasing more in the near future.

Other than that keep snapping away. Looks like your on the right path to creating nice photos.

Trust me, I would do it if I could afford it.

-Ken Turner