WHO SAID I NEVER POST PICTURES????

bace · Dec 19, 2006

:mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:

Some of these pics aren't perfect but this is the gallery I made for all those involved...

http://www.bacemedia.com/myspace/shoot.html

I know they're not numbered but I didn't wanna do a whole page on here with numbers cause i'm mad lazy.

Any C+C welcome!!!

Luv U!!!

Nurd · Dec 20, 2006

Actually I like them ALOT. I love the way you use the natural light (I'm assuming natural because your outside) and just your lighting all together. Can you tell me what gallery viewer your using because I can't seem to find one. Or..well if its free that is.

Unimaxium · Dec 20, 2006

Whoa. You take pictures? Since when! :lol:

Nice shots... I like 5 and 17 especially.

Big Mike · Dec 20, 2006

I'd look at them....but I'm lazy too. :lol:

bace · Dec 20, 2006

Big Mike said:
I'd look at them....but I'm lazy too.

Damnit...foiled again!!!!

*see avatar and title*

terri · Dec 20, 2006

You done good!

One suggestion: if you don't have a portrait lens for your camera, get one. It will help with shots like the ones where your model is leaning back with her legs crossed. You clearly see the distortion of the legs in the foreground (looking oversized) using a normal lens here. (or whatever you used)

But it doesn't matter on the others. I like your use of natural light, too. Overall, a really nice job. :thumbup:

bace · Dec 20, 2006

terri said:
You done good!

One suggestion: if you don't have a portrait lens for your camera, get one. It will help with shots like the ones where your model is leaning back with her legs crossed. You clearly see the distortion of the legs in the foreground (looking oversized) using a normal lens here. (or whatever you used)

:thumbup: But it doesn't matter on the others. I like your use of natural light, too. Overall, a really nice job.

Portrait lens?

I used my 17-55mm for that shoot. I have a 50mm, but I don't like how I have to stand so far away to get the full body shots that I want.

Is there something else I should use?

Arch · Dec 20, 2006

i think you did good.... she's pretty... and you did well capturing her... but has base managed to capture her? :lol:

oh and the ones of the guy are good too... he makes a good model :thumbup:

terri · Dec 20, 2006

bace said:
Portrait lens?

I used my 17-55mm for that shoot. I have a 50mm, but I don't like how I have to stand so far away to get the full body shots that I want.

Is there something else I should use?

Maybe!

You have a DSLR, right? There should be an array of lenses available for it, or at best an non-name brand that will fit it. Find the one that calls itself the portrait lens. I don't do digicams, but here's the 35mm cam equivalent for my Pentax MZ-S: 50mm = *normal* lens, 85mm = portrait lens, 135mm = moderate telephoto, etc. Anything under 50mm starts to be wide angle, above 85 or 90, telephoto. (Generalized, but you get the drift.)

Point being, there is a better or best focal length for whatever job you want to do. In the instance of your model with her legs in the foreground, the focal length in relation to her head in the image may be correct, but it left her legs looking disproportionately large in the way they were captured and laid out in the image. I'm not sure that bungled explanation is making sense, I don't explain this stuff overly well. You used a zoom lens so you may not really know what mm you shot this at, but a smallish telephoto prime lens eliminates this kind of distortion.

Bottom line: if you want to shoot portraits, you may get more uniform results by using that kind of lens - not a zoom lens, and not a 50mm - to guard against this kind of thing.

bace · Dec 20, 2006

Archangel said:
i think you did good.... she's pretty... and you did well capturing her... but has base managed to capture her?

:thumbup: oh and the ones of the guy are good too... he makes a good model

We're going out for beers sometime soon.

And the guy WAS actually a model. It was hard to get a lot of really good shots of him though. With a girl it's EASY to see good shots because when I see something hot I snap it. When it's with a dude it's a bit harder, but as long as the guy is attractive, it's something I can probably get. But for him it was weird because I didn't think he was even remotely attractive as a dude.

I couldn't really direct him to do things that were "sexy"...cause like...I don't know what sexy looks like for a man that looks like a girl?

bace · Dec 20, 2006

terri said:
Maybe! You have a DSLR, right? There should be an array of lenses available for it, or at best an non-name brand that will fit it. Find the one that calls itself the portrait lens. I don't do digicams, but here's the 35mm cam equivalent for my Pentax MZ-S: 50mm = *normal* lens, 85mm = portrait lens, 135mm = moderate telephoto, etc. Anything under 50mm starts to be wide angle, above 85 or 90, telephoto. (Generalized, but you get the drift.)

Point being, there is a better or best focal length for whatever job you want to do. In the instance of your model with her legs in the foreground, the focal length in relation to her head in the image may be correct, but it left her legs looking disproportionately large in the way they were captured and laid out in the image. I'm not sure that bungled explanation is making sense, I don't explain this stuff overly well. You used a zoom lens so you may not really know what mm you shot this at, but a smallish telephoto prime lens eliminates this kind of distortion.

Bottom line: if you want to shoot portraits, you may get more uniform results by using that kind of lens - not a zoom lens, and not a 50mm - to guard against this kind of thing.

85mm would mean i'd have to be pretty far away from the subject though right?

I just got really used to using that 17mm-55mm because when it's zoomed out I can get right up close and sometimes direct them to do certain things. Like head this way, that way.

I mean, it makes sense that the lens be specific to portraits, I just didn't know there was such a thing.

Thanks terri.
Luv u.

bace · Dec 20, 2006

Also I like a little distortion. If I had a fisheye i'd be using it all the time.

That picture with the leg certainly isn't a favourite and I wouldn't even be showing it if it wasn't for the fact that both the girl and the make up artist liked it.

So weird how they like crappy pictures.

terri · Dec 20, 2006

bace said:
85mm would mean i'd have to be pretty far away from the subject though right?

I just got really used to using that 17mm-55mm because when it's zoomed out I can get right up close and sometimes direct them to do certain things. Like head this way, that way.

I mean, it makes sense that the lens be specific to portraits, I just didn't know there was such a thing.

Thanks terri.
Luv u.

Yes it would, but darling you must realize where you stand physically and how close they appear in the viewfinder are two different things....and it is the latter that makes the difference in the quality of the shot. So...you know....get over it. :mrgreen:

There are lenses that are broadly considered *specific* to portraiture, as there are lenses specific to macro. You wouldn't swap one for the other. Of course rules are made to be broken and it's all relative to what makes people happy (and you said you think they like the *crappier* shots). So that part will always remain subjective.

Just keep in mind that zoom lenses are meant to be an aid when stopping to change primes isn't always practical, ie: street photography. Which is sort of what you do. But if you are going to walk around with people with the aim of capturing their portraits, you're better off with a telephoto. Don't let a zoom lens make you lazy.