Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Shooting people  (Read 2218 times)

tq-g

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 42
Shooting people
« on: October 15, 2011, 06:15:07 am »

Yes, pun intended... ;)
Aside from an attempt at street photography, with so-so results, I haven't really shot alot of people before. A few weeks ago though, I was at my brothers wedding... camera ready and loaded with a 50mm and 100mm lense. I think a few of the shots turned out pretty well. I'm especially happy about the first one here:







Logged

fotometria gr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 568
    • www.fotometria.gr
Re: Shooting people
« Reply #1 on: October 15, 2011, 10:02:02 am »

Yes, pun intended... ;)
Aside from an attempt at street photography, with so-so results, I haven't really shot alot of people before. A few weeks ago though, I was at my brothers wedding... camera ready and loaded with a 50mm and 100mm lense. I think a few of the shots turned out pretty well. I'm especially happy about the first one here:

Pretty good.., pretty good! nice bockeh, good choice of focal length, good focus, correct lighting, timing at the expression peak (most important), correct position relative to the background and nice choice of it too..., IMO some of the frames are (a little) tighter than they should and perhaps some frames {like the first one) would be better shot vertically.., otherwise, well done... I like them! Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Shooting people
« Reply #2 on: October 15, 2011, 11:15:12 am »

tq, Good shots. You're all ready to go into business doing weddings. Arrrrgggggg....
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

tq-g

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 42
Re: Shooting people
« Reply #3 on: October 16, 2011, 04:50:32 am »

Thanks guys! :)

Regarding the tight framing, that was due to a bit of a tough challenge. I was either in cramped conditions, like inside the church, or there were people everywhere. It was hard to find the right spot, and then finding the right moment on top of that. But I guess that's one of those things you learn to handle better with experience.

Another problem I had was shooting indoors in dim light. I think I was really stretching my cameras capabilities here. The third photo from the top shows how it looks at ISO1600, I think. It works for web sizes, but going to higher ISO's deteriorates the images too much for my taste.

I've actually thought about trying to get some wedding gigs. It would be a fun way to get a little extra income. However, i'm unsure if my D90 would perform sufficiently. I'm concerned about the high ISO capabilities, and that clients would expect rather clean and noise free images.
Logged

JohnKoerner

  • Guest
Re: Shooting people
« Reply #4 on: October 16, 2011, 12:06:05 pm »

I agree with Theodoros' observations: you have a good eye for "the moment," and yet almost every shot you made was too tight. Here are my comments:

Photo 1: The best of the bunch. Great facial expression and hand positioning, yet you cut-off the boy's hands and the top of his head.

Photo 2: Nice thoughtful moment captured, and yet you did the same thing here again (cut-off part of the head and hands).

Photo 3. Decent, but not very compelling shot.

Photo 4: Nice moment captured, and at least you left the woman's hands intact. But you composed your shot to get more of the man's back than the woman's head.

Photo 5. Decent shot.

Photo 6. Again, to me you spoiled the shot by cutting-off the woman's hands.


Again, I would like to say that I think you have a natural eye for capturing "the moment," but I completely agree with Theodoros that you are composing just about every single shot you do way too tight.

Best of luck to you,

Jack



.
Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Shooting people
« Reply #5 on: October 16, 2011, 01:45:38 pm »

I've actually thought about trying to get some wedding gigs. It would be a fun way to get a little extra income. However, i'm unsure if my D90 would perform sufficiently. I'm concerned about the high ISO capabilities, and that clients would expect rather clean and noise free images.

TQ, A few years ago a good friend of mine who was a professional with fifty years experience doing weddings gave a lecture to a photo club in Florida. Subject of the lecture was "Doing Weddings." It was a one-word lecture. He got up and said, "don't!" And then went on to explain why no amateur should take on a wedding. Another pro photographer friend who had an office down the hall from mine in Colorado Springs once told me what happened in film days when the photo lab screwed up his negatives from a huge wedding held at The Broadmoor hotel. Having to explain the problem to his clients was not conducive to long life and good health.

I did a few weddings in the sixties, hated doing them, and quit doing them. My final pro gig was a debutante coming-out ball at the Peterson AFB officers' club. (You apostrophe folks take note.) I've told this story on LuLa before, but I'll bore the old-timers by telling it again. I went to a dress rehearsal a few days before the ball so I could find out where the debs would stand when they curtsied to the general, and see what the lighting conditions would be. There were about fifty women milling around, and every one of them was independently in charge. Nobody could tell me anything with any real authority. The night of the ball I had to wing it. I had the right stuff with me, it came out all right in the end, and I made a nice chunk of change on the job. But at that point I swore off "professional" work.

Doing a wedding is like walking a high wire without a net. If something screws up there's no going back and doing it again. Both the pro friends I mentioned can tell stories about cameras and lights that failed, and a host of horror stories about some of the people you'll meet, and have to photograph without making them look like gibbering idiots, at the average wedding and reception -- especially if there's booze at the reception, which is normal.

No, your D90 won't even begin to do the job by itself. If you're going to do a wedding you need to shoot with at least two pro-level cameras. One may crap out on you. You also may find, when you pull the card from your single camera, that the pics on the card are scrambled, or failed to record properly. If it hasn't happened to you yet and you keep on shooting, sooner or later it will. And you can be sure that if it happens, it'll surely happen when you're on that high-wire.

Sorry. Couldn't help it. Just had to unload. If you don't believe me, go have a chat with a local pro who does weddings. That kind of pro work is nothing like amateur shooting where you can choose your own times and your own subjects. Fine art work is Heaven. Weddings are Hell. Doing weddings most emphatically is not "a fun way to get a little extra income."
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

Guillermo Luijk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2005
    • http://www.guillermoluijk.com
Re: Shooting people
« Reply #6 on: October 16, 2011, 02:12:52 pm »

I like 1 and 5. 1 could have been better moving a bit the framing to the right, and perhaps with a bit lower point of view (kids and dogs require lowering your point of view).

louoates

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 836
    • Lou Oates Photography
Re: Shooting people
« Reply #7 on: October 16, 2011, 04:24:10 pm »

High ISO numbers and weddings should never be seen in the same sentence. Repeat after me, "I will learn how to use all kinds of flash equipment beginning today."

Do your homework and an apprenticeship or two and you may have a long and happy career as a wedding photographer. I would rather eat ten pounds of unwrapped razor blades.
Logged

tq-g

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 42
Re: Shooting people
« Reply #8 on: October 17, 2011, 03:34:45 pm »

Thanks for your comments guys!
Yep, I hear you regarding the framing. That's something i'll work on the next time(wedding or otherwise). I'll have to pay more attention to my positioning so I can be ready and shoot at the right moment, without the need to move and recompose.

Speaking of which, I found it really fun to try and anticipate the moment. At times it felt like trying to decipher and read peoples movements in order to predict what was coming next. Perhaps I should try to do more street photography...

Russ: I think I owe you one. I had not even considered the potential for utter failure. Now that you mentioned it, if I had the choice between crossing a lake full of hungry crocs or telling the newlyweds that I screwed up their photos, I think i'll rather take my chances with the crocs. For most people getting married is kind of a big deal, so messing up their memories from that very special event is just not an option.

I think the wedding photographer my brother hired had something like two 5D MkII's, and lenses worth quite a bit more than that. My D90 felt rather inadequate...

louoates: There are a few things I truly hate; brussels prouts, cold weather, taxes and flash lights. I'm sure they can be improved upon with the right equipment and know-how, it's just that i've never seen them not suck. They just seem lifeless and unatural to me.

On the other hand, in some situations I don't know if there's any other alternative than getting a pro-body and a Leica Noctilux.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up