Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

I rock my 200mm to compensate for the [PHOTO]

1356784

Posts

  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    In my continuing quest to suck less at other types of photography, I have tried to do some tongue in cheek set of photos called:

    Things You Normally Don't Drop In Water:
    watercollage.jpg

    and a slightly more serious / close up thing of a pistachio being dropped in water:
    pistacho.jpg

    I let the items pile up at the bottom because I thought that would be a little more satirical than if I did each item individually.
    I'm still not greatly pleased with the results but I think next time I need to shoot closer in so you get more of the object dropping in the water filling the frame. Also it would have been nice if my skyport triggers could go over 1/200th of a second but they can't. Also I will try and pump up the strobe power and shoot at a higher fstop because things were still a little out of focus at f/13.

    Crits and stuff?

    7521745260_e8e0fc52b8_o.jpg
    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • needOpticneedOptic Registered User
    edited April 2010
    I like the idea, but I think a darker background and a side kicker would bring out the water bubbles more.
    You also might want a little more negative space around the glass.

    The concept I like.

    I got some Heineken tonight because I liked the bottle design...

    4540050268_dc9ee2c198.jpg

  • mtsmts Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    was playing around with some new toys, a set of nikon close up filters

    DSC_2855.jpg

    DSC_2853.jpg

    camo_sig.png
  • needOpticneedOptic Registered User
    edited April 2010
    Really? Do you need critique on those?

  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    nO I really like that last shot, especially the way some of the bottles have a dark side and a light side. Would you mind taking pictures of the setup when you do those sorts of things? I think that would be really helpful to me to get at least a vague idea on what I'm doing.

    Also does anyone know of any good product lighting tutorials?

    Edit: Just for reference on the water shots I had a bare strobe up really high aimed down at the background behind the glass (which was just about 8 sheets of computer paper taped together and then taped to the wall). I then had a strobe into a silver umbrella at camera left about 20-30 degrees from camera axis. I will try and take pictures of my setup next time too.

    Edit2: mts the filters don't look like they worked if they are supposed to allow you to focus closer because most of that is out of focus.

    7521745260_e8e0fc52b8_o.jpg
    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • erisian popeerisian pope Registered User
    edited April 2010
    Today:
    4540518023_8dca987595.jpg
    for a larger copy, click image to go to its flickr page then click "all sizes"

    @ CC - Strobist.clogspot.com has some good stuff.

    EDIT: PS - that's all natural light for anyone that cares.



    Edit2: mts the filters don't look like they worked if they are supposed to allow you to focus closer because most of that is out of focus.

    In my experience the closeup filters give you a miniscule DOF, moreso than a macro lens does. I'm not certain, but I think the wick in the second pic is pretty much in focus. Note the double-edge on the "rim" of the candle in the second shot - there's motion blur in effect, too.

  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    @ CC - Strobist.clogspot.com has some good stuff.

    Bah! I forgot he had a few tutorials on product shots since most of his stuff is shooting people.

    7521745260_e8e0fc52b8_o.jpg
    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • Dark MoonDark Moon Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Hey, new photo thread!

    CC, even spacing around the glasses and a bit more negative space (as mentioned) would do a lot for those photos. A cleaner glass, either through cleaning between frames or a bit of PS work, would also help. Definitely lose the vignetting - an entirely white background really doesn't suit it.

    Pope, you've inspired me to schedule a photo excursion with some friends to a few locations out of town known for their endangered orchids. I've never taken a flower photo, and that's a terrible shame.

    I haven't shot all that much, outside of the puppies. I won't subject anyone here to more puppy photos other than saying that there are more on my flickr, and I'd like to think they're getting better. I did manage to score one candid portrait I was happy with at a friend's birthday get-together.

    4530787198_7977e9dabd.jpg

    Please criticize, as something doesn't feel quite right about it now that it's been exported from my editing machine to my laptop - but I've never been entirely sure about the crop.

    Oh, and I've scored a job tending to captive burrowing owls and then subsequently releasing them for my summer gig. Very excited, as photographing the processes and eventually the birdies is highly encouraged by the masters student I'm working for. Considering a 400mm f/5.6 as the new lens for the year, but we'll see what I can do with the 70-200 and my 5D. Really wishing I had kept my 1DMkII, but at least I got essentially a free 6 month rental out of it.

    3072973561_de17a80845_o.jpg
  • anableanable Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Dark Moon wrote: »

    Please criticize, as something doesn't feel quite right about it now that it's been exported from my editing machine to my laptop - but I've never been entirely sure about the crop.

    The glare on the left lens is pretty intense considering most people jump to the eyes first. But I'm not big on portraits so that's all I've got...

  • mullymully Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    CC: I love the concept - I wish some of these photos had something other than a white background - maybe darker - because it's hard to focus in on the details of the water displacement. I don't know that a darker background would help this because I know nothing (mostly) of photography. Just a thought.

    #canadian #sorry
  • EggyToastEggyToast Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Dark Moon wrote: »
    Please criticize, as something doesn't feel quite right about it now that it's been exported from my editing machine to my laptop - but I've never been entirely sure about the crop.

    I feel like she should be a little higher in the crop, with a little more body. I almost feel like the horizontal line from the chair should be right in the center.

    I snagged this candid portrait last weekend (at my own birthday party) and kind of dig it, despite having John dead centered. The symmetry works for the type of picture and I like that I caught him mid-bite (although I'm not sure if he's smiling because he likes the rib or because he's smiling for the picture).

    john-1.jpg

    I think the background helps offset the symmetry of the subject, since it's candid. It's one of the few good shots I got, unfortunately (my wife took some shots but bumped the focus point, so for hers the wall is in focus instead of the person. whoops).

    || Flickr — || PSN: EggyToast
  • erisian popeerisian pope Registered User
    edited April 2010
    CC - here are some general thoughts that might help you expand on the water idea. These aren't crits per se, but just ramblings that you may or may not find value in (all based on stuff I've read - I've never done a shot like this):
    • some people use carbonated water to get more bubbles - this seems potentially expensive
    • some people use a small fishtank - this gives them a flat surface to the glass that's parallel to the lens/sensor which makes it easier to avoid glare/reflections; it also gives them more space for the shot; it also means more water (if you use carbonated then oy vey!)
    • you might try a colored background to make the items pop more (if using a fishtank you can tape a piece of colored fabric or paper to the back side of the tank)
    • you could shoot outdoors in bright light (or use non-strobes ... floods I guess?) to get faster shutter speeds than the flash binds you to using
    • the other way to improve DOF over narrowing the aperture would be to move the camera away from the subject - this actually has more immediate impact on DOF (the degree of adjustment to aperture needed is pretty high to really impact DOF) - but this would really only work with a larger water-container (ie - fishtank) and larger dropped objects ... using a telephoto is like being close to the subject in terms of DOF in my experience

    Like I said, just thoughts.


    Dark Moon - I don't care for the crop; both the subject and the only other item in the shot (the chair) are on the right of the frame, making the image feel unbalanced. I think a square crop with the subject centered would be stronger. Also the glare on the glasses is not ideal - but I think the crop is a bigger deal (at least to my eyes)


    Eggy - pretty good focus and decent enough candid for sure. However I personally have no interest in seeing a stranger in the middle of eating messy food. I think this might remain in the category of higher-quality-snapshot (which may very well be what you're going for).

  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Thanks Pope. I shall try some of that, but instead of colored background I think I might just go grab some more gels for my flash and color a white background that way.

    So I had a bit of an epiphany yesterday while flipping through a magazine. I'm used to lighting people sized objects where you can manipulate the light by moving a light back and forth a few feet or moving it around the subject. With product type photography you really have to control the light a LOT more since you are working with a smaller object. Honestly this should have been obvious but this type of lighting is so different from what I'm used to; so it took a while for it to dawn on me.

    I'm going to try and make some smaller snoots and try the water thing again a few different ways. I also got an 18x24" piece of clear plexiglass/acrylic ($8 at home depot) for a nice reflection and so I can put white or black underneath it depending on if I want some reflected light.

    As for the negative space around the glass I'm not sure I agree with that idea. The subject of these photos are the objects being dropped into the glass and the resulting water splash. If I pull the camera out even further to add negative space, then I'm going to be making those subjects even smaller in the frame. This doesn't seem like a good idea especially in the collage format that I was using. If anything, I think I would rather move in closer to the items like I did with the pistachio shot. Ideally I would be using a fish tank but I don't have one and those things are expensive.

    DM: Thanks I didn't even notice the vignetting until you pointed it out. Either my light wasn't lighting up that corner or my cheap 75-300 sucks HARD because I was shooting at f/13.

    7521745260_e8e0fc52b8_o.jpg
    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    DM: When shooting people in a landscape format like that you need to take into account where the head is pointed and where the shoulders are pointed. This will tell you if you need to put the person's head in the left 1/3rd or right 1/3rd of the photo. In this case the person's head is straight and the shoulders are pointing to the right. I would then put their head on the left 1/3rd and leave all the negative space on the right because thats the direction their body is facing. These are not always hard and fast rules but they help a lot. I'm of the opinion its good to know the rules so you can break them in interesting or intentional ways when you want to.

    For example if you want a person to look uncomfortable/cramped/etc then you can intentionally break that rule:
    THIS IS NOT MY PHOTO I AM USING IT AS AN EXAMPLE

    7521745260_e8e0fc52b8_o.jpg
    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • erisian popeerisian pope Registered User
    edited April 2010
    I agree about negative space. I mentioned moving the camera back to get more DOF. You'd have to crop the resulting image to get back to the degree of closeness that you want. You see the retarded amount of blur in my macro shots - which works for that subject. Partly this is because I favor a wide aperture (usually f/2.8) but if I shift from f/2.8 to f/11 (a huge shift) the background goes from being a creamy blur of a solid color to being textured with out-of-focus details. And the background is usually less than 12-inches from the subject, often much less. However if I were to move the camera back from the subject, even at f/2.8 I'd start to see the out-of-focus details in the background.

    Over at The Online Photographer they worked on a somewhat clinical test on the factors that affect DOF and found camera-subject distance outstripped aperture.

    Anyway, my point is that since you mentioned lowering aperture further to try to improve DOF maybe you might get better results (plus a wider aperture which means faster shutter or lower ISO) by moving the camera back, despite the need to crop.

    But maybe it's not worth bothering with. Just wanted to clear up that I wasn't suggesting a change in your comp at all.

  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Minimalist fog stuffs. Didn't work out the way I wanted in my mind.

    fog.jpg

    7521745260_e8e0fc52b8_o.jpg
    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • needOpticneedOptic Registered User
    edited April 2010
    This is what I was trying to do yesterday and only finished today:

    4545034962_4893f5deef.jpg

  • BladeXBladeX Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    @CC: I always find that taking pictures of fog/in the fog hardly ever comes out the way that I want although at least yours manages to give off a sort of Silent Hill creepy field vibe.

    @nO: Jesus christ dude, your strobe work is just fantastic. Makes me wish I had a few hundred dollars I could spare on a strobist kit and I also now want a Heineken.

    @Pope: I don't think you've taken a flower shot yet that I don't like which is an accomplishment I'd say given the over taken cliched subject matter.

  • erisian popeerisian pope Registered User
    edited April 2010
    CC - I wish there was a bit more variation in the density of the fog so that we could see a little gradation in the light. That said, the fact that in the foreground I can see actual wisps of fog is incredible. I've never gotten that kind of detail in a fog pic. I also quite enjoy the composition. I think the pic's good.

    NeedO - Effing perfect, dude. That could be in a magazine. Definitely one for the portfolio for sure.

    BladeX - Cheers. That's awesome to hear.

  • needOpticneedOptic Registered User
    edited April 2010
    TOTP!

    4545034962_4893f5deef.jpg

    Blade - thanks mang! Yeah, before I had the lights I didn't want them. Now that I have them I find more and more opportunities to take pictures because I don't have to rely on natural light as much. And then the next bad thing is that I want bigger / better lights, etc.

    Erisian - thank you, kind sir!

    Edit: setup shot

    13.jpg

  • erisian popeerisian pope Registered User
    edited April 2010
    Took this a couple days ago. The flower is from a succulent plant; an Echevaria (I think it's Echevaria perle von nuremberg)

    4541402649_68e9363921.jpg
    for a larger copy, click image to go to its flickr page then click "all sizes"

  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    nO thanks for the setup shot and your description on flickr is fucking awesome. Its good to see how you thought through the process and tried different things and how those turned out. Please keep doing that because its super helpful. :)

    7521745260_e8e0fc52b8_o.jpg
    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • needOpticneedOptic Registered User
    edited April 2010
    Communist - I'm glad it's helpful, I always like reading people's approach to a concept so I figured I'd return the favor.

    The color below the bottle is actually a green piece of paper from some hobby store - not a gel. The background light IS gelled yellow, however.

  • mtsmts Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    CC - I wish there was a bit more variation in the density of the fog so that we could see a little gradation in the light. That said, the fact that in the foreground I can see actual wisps of fog is incredible. I've never gotten that kind of detail in a fog pic. I also quite enjoy the composition. I think the pic's good.

    NeedO - Effing perfect, dude. That could be in a magazine. Definitely one for the portfolio for sure.

    BladeX - Cheers. That's awesome to hear.
    the only thing keeping that from a mag shot is the head of the beer is kind of screwed up. that and maybe some more bubbles

    camo_sig.png
  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    needOptic wrote: »
    Communist - I'm glad it's helpful, I always like reading people's approach to a concept so I figured I'd return the favor.

    The color below the bottle is actually a green piece of paper from some hobby store - not a gel. The background light IS gelled yellow, however.

    Yea I'll try and do something similar when I start producing images that are of similar quality.
    How long did you spend trying to get this just right?

    7521745260_e8e0fc52b8_o.jpg
    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • saltinesssaltiness Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Nice shot nO. It is a little weird how the reflection of the glass goes green though and the heineken bottle could use a little less orange in it in my opinion, both easily fixable in PS.

    XBL: heavenkils
  • needOpticneedOptic Registered User
    edited April 2010
    Communist - well, this actually went pretty well and I had the final shot in 30-40 minutes.. but I kinda thought about it the other day a bit and planned it.

    Salti - yeah, good crits, I'll adjust when i get home.

  • MuncieMuncie Registered User
    edited April 2010
    nO: I think you should remove the back label from the bottle and try to prevent your highlights from covering any part of the logo. Also, most beers have an ideal head and this is very important to their branding. To create a good head make sure you're pouring the beer into a moist, sterile glass. Any kind of particulate or oil will destroy the head, as will a dry glass. The head should form a meniscus above the rim of the glass.

    You would probably also want to edit out the little circle in the bottle above the label as it distracts from the ideal you are trying to present here.

    All in all I like where you are going with the colors and composition on an artistic level, but there are some questionable messaging here. Yellow is a warm color, the highlights are sharp, and head is flaccid. To me, it looks like a warmed glass of beer.

    Edit: Take a look at beer ads. Most brands use cool colors. Stella Artois is an example of a brand that uses warm colors in their messaging but their bottles and glasses are always beaded. Guinness seems to be about 50/50 from what I've seen, but they use cool muted colors. As their product has gotten traction in North America you're seeing a lot more sweating glasses in their ads, even if it's not as pronounced as an American lager ad. I'd be curious to compare their British ads with their American ones.

  • KAJedKAJed Registered User
    edited April 2010
    Ok so call me childish... Hehe flaccid.

  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Ok so I took a lot more time and did a few different setups.

    Black background with a white sheet under the container with to flashes into psuedo DIY soft boxes at 70 degress from the camera and another flash in a soft box back left of the water container.
    4549459784_c6831dc68b_o.jpg

    setup:
    Spoiler:

    Beer shot. Not quite as good as I would have liked but its definitely getting there. The brightness / rim on some of the bottles washed out the labels a little bit. I intentionally left some shadow on the labels.
    4549459786_9f3fe18dc3_o.jpg

    setup:
    Spoiler:

    This was done with a white paper drop behind the water jar thing. I aimed a flash directly at that and then had snooted flashes at 45s aimed at the orange cube.
    4549459788_1f14fd0d52_o.jpg

    7521745260_e8e0fc52b8_o.jpg
    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • mtsmts Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    i vastly prefer the black background as the whit one wants to automatically give me a migraine if i look at it.

    camo_sig.png
  • ProspicienceProspicience The Raven King DenvemoloradoRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I didn't like your previous white shot quite as much CC, but this one I like a lot better. I think it's a mixture of exposure and the blue tones in the water splash contrasted with the orange. :^: sick stuff.

    Also great beer shot, besides what you pointed out looks great. If I was being really picky I'd point out the bright rim light on the beer on the far right, but it's not a big deal. Damn good selection of beers there too :D

    Pfffffffffflickr ||Steam: IamBic || Bnet: IamBick#1264
  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Damn good selection of beers there too :D

    Really, I just shot this to show I have a better beer selection than nO ;)
    Spoiler:

    I was also planning on spritzing the bottles with some water to make them look cold but I forgot to do that. ....and I just noticed that the far right bottle is actually shorter than the other bottles because it isn't 12 oz. :?

    Really late Edit: I highly recommend the left 4 beers for those who like non-hoppy beers with lots of flavor. Wild Blue, Paulner Salvator (Double Bock), Great Divide Claymore Scotch,and Blue Moon Grand Cru (excellent with some orange slices in it). Yes, I am a beer snob, but I get to be one since I'm such a light weight.

    7521745260_e8e0fc52b8_o.jpg
    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Soooooo I was looking at some flickr stats and apparently i've gotten some hits to some of my pictures from people google searching "escorts denver". :x

    I guess I shall have to investigate when I get home and see if a model is using her head shot on some site intentionally or if someone is just using some pictures the without anyone's knowledge. :? Or I could just not care about it....hrmmm

    7521745260_e8e0fc52b8_o.jpg
    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • erisian popeerisian pope Registered User
    edited April 2010
    If the hits are from google then I don't see how it could be from someone using the picture. If the models use the images on their site and link back to your stream then the referrer would not be the google search but would be the model's site. The fact that the referrer is the google search means that google found results on your stream for those words.

    But when I google "escorts denver" (without quotes) and add "site:flickr.com" (again without quotes) I don't find any of your images.

    How weird!!

  • Uncle_BalsamicUncle_Balsamic Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I don't know if this is a good place to ask, but is this a good beginner camera?

    I know very little about these things, but it seems to be a good deal.

    sig.png
  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    If the hits are from google then I don't see how it could be from someone using the picture. If the models use the images on their site and link back to your stream then the referrer would not be the google search but would be the model's site. The fact that the referrer is the google search means that google found results on your stream for those words.

    But when I google "escorts denver" (without quotes) and add "site:flickr.com" (again without quotes) I don't find any of your images.

    How weird!!

    Hrm, Ok. This is the picture in question and does not include the word "escort" anywhere on the page but it does include the word "Denver" from my tags.

    7521745260_e8e0fc52b8_o.jpg
    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I don't know if this is a good place to ask, but is this a good beginner camera?

    I know very little about these things, but it seems to be a good deal.

    Depends on your price range. If you can spend something like 400-600 I would go with a low end Canon or Nikon. You can also buy things used.

    7521745260_e8e0fc52b8_o.jpg
    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • needOpticneedOptic Registered User
    edited April 2010
    Cow - nice work.

    I like the lime the best, as the s curve from the drop is very delicious. Not sure why you didn't push the highlights in photoshop, however. Use curves with a layer mask to just brighten those glitters up, mang.

    The beer shot - nice light, weak comp. Just kinda busy and the eye roams around.

    How did you shoot this? One hand on camera, the other letting the orange / lime / etc. go? I needs me a translucent water container type thing. :-/

    Edit: that middle bottle deserves a shoot of it's own. Such a nice design.

  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Thanks for the suggestions. I will try and bump up the highlights on the lime shot and might do another shot with the Grand Cru bottle.

    I'm just using a wired shutter release and pressing the button with one hand while dropping the object with the other. I grabbed my water container thing which is really designed to keep food fresh at Bed Bath and Beyond. Sadly it was more expensive than I really wanted to pay even with a $5 off coupon I got in the mail (~$10).

    If you do start doing water shots I will say it is definitely worth your time to get rid of the water drops on the sides of the container between shots.

    7521745260_e8e0fc52b8_o.jpg
    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Sign In or Register to comment.