Video University: Video University Forums: Digital Photography for Videographers: Disappointing tests

VideoUniversity.com
Home	Free Library	Store
Free Catalog Please support VU by making your B&H purchases and links through this B&H ad. Doesn't cost a penny more.

See The New VU Postcard Catalog

To post in the forums see the Forum Guidelines.

Join or Renew Today.
New Benefits for all VU Members

Forum Guidelines and FAQ
Main Index	Search Posts
Who's Online	Log In

Home: Video University Forums: Digital Photography for Videographers:
Disappointing tests

1 2

View All

Postal Boy
Veteran

Oct 2, 2006, 1:02 PM

Post #1 of 26 (1314 views)
Shortcut

Disappointing tests	Can't Post

Ok, I was doing some tests yesterday with my new toy, and am a little disappointed with the results.

Canon 30D with 580EX flash, Tamron 28-75 2.8 lense

I have taken some fabulous pictures with it, but we were trying to take some baby pictures for ourselves and to tell you the truth, we are taking the baby to a studio.

Now, I know that a studio is a completely controlled environment with flashes/lights galore and so forth, but I was hoping for better at home.

What are some of the "secrets" or tips you guys have for getting better exposure on portrait style photos without the studio. I ask because I have been asked by a couple of neighbors to take some outdoor family portraits for blow-ups (21x14 or so) and want to get it right (for free, but a mess up is a mess up).

Here are some examples of my problems (I know...don't shoot 400iso for things you want to blow up)

Problems and complaints: Skin tones, under-exposure, "snapshot" feel/look.

Shot with bounced flash in ambient room lighting, close to subject...combination of no flash compensation up to +1.5 flash compensation.

These are right off of the camera (reduced in size) with brightness increased and white balance slightly adjusted in the RAW files before conversion.

Image 1:

Image 2:

Image 3:

Image 4:

I just want to know if I can get that nice, smooth, refined look like the studios have in a home environment. Is it all about the lighting equipment? I think the cam can take them with the proper environment.

-Postal

Postal Boy
Veteran

Oct 2, 2006, 1:09 PM

Post #2 of 26 (1311 views)
Shortcut

Re: [Postal Boy] Disappointing tests [In reply to]	Can't Post

To be fair, this is one we did like (with some PS tweaks) that we made a crisp, sharp, 8x10 to put on the wall from:

Postal

Colvin ADTR
Enthusiast

Oct 2, 2006, 1:16 PM

Post #3 of 26 (1309 views)
Shortcut

Re: [Postal Boy] Disappointing tests [In reply to]	Can't Post

From what I have read, you need diffused light surrounding the subject, like one of those little light tents. Try the flash at somewhere between -1 to -1.7. Try using the long end of the lens, about 70mm. See if you can find MTF stats for your lens, so you know the sweet spot. Check out ourppa.com, they have some baby portraits up there at the moment.

Colvin ADTR
Enthusiast

Oct 2, 2006, 1:27 PM

Post #4 of 26 (1306 views)
Shortcut

Re: [Colvin ADTR] Disappointing tests [In reply to]	Can't Post

try this

Postal Boy
Veteran

Oct 2, 2006, 2:06 PM

Post #5 of 26 (1301 views)
Shortcut

Re: [Colvin ADTR] Disappointing tests [In reply to]	Can't Post

Thanks...got some good info on that site about what to look at (aperature and lighting, mainly)

-Postal

szerangue
Veteran

Oct 2, 2006, 2:42 PM

Post #6 of 26 (1297 views)
Shortcut

Re: [Postal Boy] Disappointing tests [In reply to]	Can't Post

What I have learned, it seems, that you must start out with at least a good composition and focus and appropriate DOF. Light is obviously an important role. It seems that if you have a good combination of those components, then the studios just make them pop and shine with tweaking using actions and filters in software like PS. This is what it seems to me. So I think that in a couple of those photos that you have there, you could tweak them into very nice photographs. Look around on the internet and I think you will find some pretty nice actions and filters for PS available for free. (Guys, don't beat me up if I am way off base here... I am a newbie at photography)
Miracle Pictures
"If it's a good picture, it's a Miracle!"

"Life Productions, coming out of the dark, into the light"
4EVER GROUP AFFILIATE

Shadow
Veteran

Oct 2, 2006, 4:14 PM

Post #7 of 26 (1289 views)
Shortcut

Re: [Postal Boy] Disappointing tests [In reply to]	Can't Post

Hello,

When I had baby photos done we used quite a few lights, about 3 softboxes and an umbrella reflector light.

What about throwing a soft focus over the photos to take away some of the snap-shot look?

Shadow
Veteran

Oct 2, 2006, 4:15 PM

Post #8 of 26 (1288 views)
Shortcut

Re: [Postal Boy] Disappointing tests [In reply to]	Can't Post

cute baby by the way,
mine is a little red head too.

:)

Postal Boy
Veteran

Oct 2, 2006, 4:23 PM

Post #9 of 26 (1284 views)
Shortcut

Re: [Shadow] Disappointing tests [In reply to]	Can't Post

That looks nice. What filter or action set did you use?

-Postal

Shadow
Veteran

Oct 2, 2006, 4:30 PM

Post #10 of 26 (1281 views)
Shortcut

Re: [Postal Boy] Disappointing tests [In reply to]	Can't Post

This is an easy thing that makes some photos look nice.

Just open the layer pallette and right click, select "duplicate layer"
Then select the copy of the layer and pick filters, blur, gaussian blurr and set your pixels to about 9.
Then reduce the opacity of the top blurred layer until you have the desired effect, I think that was about 50% opacity.

Heidi

Postal Boy
Veteran

Oct 2, 2006, 4:33 PM

Post #11 of 26 (1279 views)
Shortcut

Re: [Shadow] Disappointing tests [In reply to]	Can't Post

Doh! I've used variations of that, but usually more complicated...

I'll give it a shot on the original and see how it looks...

Thanks,

Postal

Xray
Veteran

Oct 2, 2006, 5:48 PM

Post #12 of 26 (1272 views)
Shortcut

Re: [Postal Boy] Disappointing tests [In reply to]	Can't Post

Postal,
Here is my contribution. You could probably play with the skin a little bit to cover up few details. But I really did like this shot.

Marcin
_______________________________________________________________
If it's sent by ship then it's a cargo, if it's sent by road then it's a shipment.

(This post was edited by Xray on Oct 2, 2006, 7:48 PM)

Postal Boy
Veteran

Oct 2, 2006, 7:04 PM

Post #13 of 26 (1256 views)
Shortcut

Re: [Xray] Disappointing tests [In reply to]	Can't Post

Nice. Almost a sepia with the contrast bumped?

-Postal

Xray
Veteran

Oct 2, 2006, 7:41 PM

Post #14 of 26 (1254 views)
Shortcut

Re: [Postal Boy] Disappointing tests [In reply to]	Can't Post

A combo of channel mixer, curves, burn, and vignette.

Marcin
_______________________________________________________________
If it's sent by ship then it's a cargo, if it's sent by road then it's a shipment.

(This post was edited by Xray on Oct 2, 2006, 7:42 PM)

Shadow
Veteran

Oct 2, 2006, 10:33 PM

Post #15 of 26 (1241 views)
Shortcut

Re: [Xray] Disappointing tests [In reply to]	Can't Post

That's so nice. You're very good at that!

I wish there was an easy to follow photoshop book that showed examples then told how to do the look.
ok, someone make that book. I'll buy it.

Xray
Veteran

Oct 3, 2006, 1:27 AM

Post #16 of 26 (1230 views)
Shortcut

Re: [Shadow] Disappointing tests [In reply to]	Can't Post

Thanks Shadow. Most of this you can learn by experimenting and dissecting existing Photoshop actions. After a while you'll start building an inventory of effects that you would be tempted to use on every single image.

Marcin
_______________________________________________________________
If it's sent by ship then it's a cargo, if it's sent by road then it's a shipment.

RenderLight
User

Oct 3, 2006, 2:13 AM

Post #17 of 26 (1221 views)
Shortcut

Re: [Postal Boy] Disappointing tests [In reply to]	Can't Post

Hey,

Most of the time, unless the shot all together bad, it comes down to lighting. Natural lighting, coming from a specific angle really helps draw the eye and give the picture a realistic look.

The one that you posted that you liked the most has much better directional light instead of even light. In a studio, they are able to use multiple light sources, and set them at different intensities to create depth and highlights. That is very difficult in a live fast moving environment or even with a sleeping baby.

The best thing you can do with one flash is to move the your subject to a window, allowing the light to hit her from one side, then use your flash as a fill light. Now you can simulate that same depth they get in studios.

I learned with my 20D that if you place the camera in "shutter" priority or "appeture" priority it allows you to change the balance from back light to flash. For example, you can keep everything at "0" and you will get a subject that is lit well with the sky or background lit bright as well. But, if you lower the flash output by 1/3, 1/2, or 1 full stop you will notice that the camera will allow the background to stay at the same intensity as your first "0" shot but the subject will has less "fill" light creating much more depth.
This is one amazing metering feature on this camera.

Try it you will see what I mean, and just try for the best lighting that allows for at least 2 sources coming from different directions at different intensities.

Hope this helps!

Paul

Postal Boy
Veteran

Oct 3, 2006, 10:34 AM

Post #18 of 26 (1203 views)
Shortcut

Re: [RenderLight] Disappointing tests [In reply to]	Can't Post

Interesting.

And so you know, the "directional light" is a fake (rendered lighting effects), but hanging on the wall it looks like there is one of those "art" lights pointing at it, and we kind of like it.

-Postal

Jenn M
Veteran

Oct 3, 2006, 12:35 PM

Post #19 of 26 (1191 views)
Shortcut

Re: [Postal Boy] Disappointing tests [In reply to]	Can't Post

If I may, those look fantastic! THat first one rocks. Don't go to a studio - hang that on the wall, so when people come into your home and comment on how beautiful of a picture it is, you can proudly say, "Thanks, I did that."

THe only one that looked 'snap-shottish' was the second one and I'm guessing it was a pretty fast shutter speed. Lowering the shutter and FEC can soften the look, but off course, with babies, they like to move, so you may experience some motion blur.

I did read one tip on photographing babies that stated that because their skin is often red and blotchy, b&w often works best. Though on our nephew, we soften the skin with a little blur and it made a nice difference on his complexion, esp in color.

PS Are you disappointed with the 30D, or just frustrated in trying to figure out the lighting thing? I'm in more of the second camp. I've been pleased with my 30D, so I was wondering what you thought...

okspyder
User

Oct 3, 2006, 1:50 PM

Post #20 of 26 (1184 views)
Shortcut

Re: [Shadow] Disappointing tests [In reply to]	Can't Post

In Reply To

That's so nice. You're very good at that!

I wish there was an easy to follow photoshop book that showed examples then told how to do the look.
ok, someone make that book. I'll buy it.

Try this for actions

Anthony

Shadow
Veteran

Oct 3, 2006, 2:25 PM

Post #21 of 26 (1178 views)
Shortcut

Re: [okspyder] Disappointing tests [In reply to]	Can't Post

Thanks Anthony,
I haven't tried using actions yet, just fiddling around with settings. I tried using one that came with the program - the cheesy wood frame. :)

I have more time next week so I'll try to read up on it in my photoshop text.

Cheers
Heidi

Postal Boy
Veteran

Oct 3, 2006, 3:58 PM

Post #22 of 26 (1170 views)
Shortcut

Re: [Jenn M] Disappointing tests [In reply to]	Can't Post

Jenn,

Thanks for the input. Actually, I am thrilled with the 30D, just frustrated with learning the best lighting. My wife took the baby to the studio yesterday. I haven't seen the end results because their computers were down and it may take a week for them to print them out, but from what my wife said ours are as good as any that the studio picked.

Oh...and they charge $15 for an 8x10. I can get an 8x10 at Walmart on good Fujifilm paper for...oh...about $4.50

-Postal

KevinShaw
Veteran

Oct 3, 2006, 4:11 PM

Post #23 of 26 (1165 views)
Shortcut

Re: [Postal Boy] Disappointing tests [In reply to]	Can't Post

In Reply To

My wife took the baby to the studio yesterday. I haven't seen the end results because their computers were down and it may take a week for them to print them out, but from what my wife said ours are as good as any that the studio picked.

Oh...and they charge $15 for an 8x10. I can get an 8x10 at Walmart on good Fujifilm paper for...oh...about $4.50

So how do you like the 30D now after going through that experience? By the way, my wife and I just had a 12x18" enlargement made at Costco for $3...

Postal Boy
Veteran

Oct 3, 2006, 5:22 PM

Post #24 of 26 (1150 views)
Shortcut

Re: [kwshaw1] Disappointing tests [In reply to]	Can't Post

Really the only thing the studios have over us is the experience positioning the babies, and making them smile. And that is a learned thing, not a purchased thing.

I just ordered an 8x10 for around $3 with tax included. And it will be ready in an hour or so. Don't know what it will look like in the end (web views and photoshop views show different coloring Mad

) but we will see. Photoshop is color managing it, and it has the embedded color profile, so I'll see how it works out. If all goes crappy, I'll have to get one of those spyder thingamajigs and hook a CRT back up to the computer.

-Postal

Brackish
Veteran

Oct 3, 2006, 7:10 PM

Post #25 of 26 (1144 views)
Shortcut

Post deleted by Brackish [In reply to]

1 2

View All