The Photography Thread

[Srontgorrth]

Lots of really great shots. The stage looks a fair bit lower too, wish it was that way for me. The 17-50 was pretty useless most of the time due to that.

And as for this shot:


IMG_0125 by Srontgorrth, on Flickr

I really like the way it turned out, except for that there's that weird unnatural glow on some of silhouette. If I edit the exposure and try and change that, than everything just get's blown out.

 

[Pessimism]

Edit the two images, one where Johan's skin is how you wish, and the other with how you want the foreground/background, and then overlap them (mask the motherfucker). Just make sure that you blend it well and hopefully it should turn out pretty good when everything is said and done.

 

[Srontgorrth]

So, bought a Canon 1ds Mark II since it was only $975 on Craigslist (goes for $1700+ on eBay. Thing is a beast, totally rugged and built like a tank, but I'm gonna throw it on eBay in order to fund for a 5d Mark II. Full frame is awesome, though.

Also, got a totally awesome tripod:

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/Ravelli-Professional-Tripod-Adjustable-Pistol/dp/B003SQEAY0/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1316141381&sr=8-3[/ame]

It's built with a very durable and high grade aluminum, pretty damn heavy, and has a trigger grip ball socket that works great. I mounted my 70-200mm f2.8L on the 1ds Mark II (6 or 7 pounds) then put it on the triped, even at a 45 degree angle it was holding up well. If any of you are interested in an excellent tripod, look no further.

 

[Hubster]

I love my new bullet belt. My facial expression here is totally off, I need to reshoot this. And I need to try different lighting styles, I'm getting bored of this one...

 

[Srontgorrth]

Lighting came out pretty cool, looks like a band promo shot of sorts. I need to do more with my lights but I've been lazy.

 

[Hubster]

Thanks man. I need to do some low key stuff, but it seems to be trickier than high key. Know of any decent You Tube clips for tut's?

 

[Srontgorrth]

Not really, but just use one light and try moving yourself or the light around and see what starts to come out.

Anyways, I finally got some good portait editing software, portrait professional, and here's one of the shots I edited from the PSW shoot a couple weeks ago. Really happy with the way it turned out:


IMG_0929-revised by Srontgorrth, on Flickr

 

[Pessimism]

Post the original non processed shot Stront: I ask because Portrait Prof. in my experience straddles the line pretty carelessly between being soft and crisp. I like your portrait, but I would like to see it without the program airbrushing the models skin so much. Said airbrushing is really noticeable when you examine both the edges of her bangs and her nose (soft lines on the right side of her nose, hard on the left), and the area below her temple.

The model is pretty well placed in my opinion, especially since their is a real disconnect between detail. I'll elaborate with an example. In the above picture, the attention to detail in her hair accessory is extremely prominent - BUT - the default area where my eyes rest are her eyes (specifically her left eye), which is great because that is typically the focal point in a portrait. The problem however is that although her face is in focus, her eyes look incredibly soft; this could be because the area around the skin has been airbrushed to the extremes, which would make the surrounding areas appear a bit off (or it could be something as editing the tonal range of the eye area itself to be artificially lighter than it was in the picture - that too would create a visual disconnect). I think her right eye could benefit from some added light, but given the entire area it might be best to experiment with just making the iris slightly more prominent to balance out the power of her gaze.

 

[Srontgorrth]

Post the original non processed shot Stront: I ask because Portrait Prof. in my experience straddles the line pretty carelessly between being soft and crisp. I like your portrait, but I would like to see it without the program airbrushing the models skin so much. Said airbrushing is really noticeable when you examine both the edges of her bangs and her nose (soft lines on the right side of her nose, hard on the left), and the area below her temple.

The model is pretty well placed in my opinion, especially since their is a real disconnect between detail. I'll elaborate with an example. In the above picture, the attention to detail in her hair accessory is extremely prominent - BUT - the default area where my eyes rest are her eyes (specifically her left eye), which is great because that is typically the focal point in a portrait. The problem however is that although her face is in focus, her eyes look incredibly soft; this could be because the area around the skin has been airbrushed to the extremes, which would make the surrounding areas appear a bit off (or it could be something as editing the tonal range of the eye area itself to be artificially lighter than it was in the picture - that too would create a visual disconnect). I think her right eye could benefit from some added light, but given the entire area it might be best to experiment with just making the iris slightly more prominent to balance out the power of her gaze.

Yeah, I was a bit on the extreme side when it came to the skin smoothing/softening, but I really liked the creamy effect it sort of had. That, and the pores below her left eye were there when everything else was smoothed out until I notched it up pretty damn high.

When I edited the eyes I was finding it hard to find a good balance in regards to brightening her right eye up, but I could probably give it another shot.

Anyways, here's the united/processed shot (just opened it in PS and saved as jpg):


IMG_0929-unedited by Srontgorrth, on Flickr

 

[Pessimism]

I forget, do you have CS5 (or any version of photoshop)? You better have shot RAW! Try boosting the exposure a little (either with the .cr2 .xmp file, or with an exposure adjustment layer), and then using the clone stamp at around 30% opacity to stamp out skin blemishes. You might really like the outcome (I also think that would be the best choice to get rid of the lines around her mouth). Then try dodging the one iris of the eye (the tool let's you switch between focusing on shadows, highlights and midtones - try midtones).

And for the hell of it, try doing a high pass filter on her eyes. Just highlight them with the wand tool, and ctrl+c/ctrl+v the selected area (will put it on a new layer). Select this layers blending mode to overlay, and then go into the filter menu and select High Pass (type 2 or 3 as the number). It might really bring out the eyes some more, insofar as crispness/matching the detail in the hair.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

It's a shame imo that clonestamping/airbrushing has so much of an effect on our psyches. The girl should look attractive without having to look child/fey like.

 

[Pessimism]

I agree, I frankly like texture on the skin.

I'm sure you've seen some of the videos on the extremes that are taken to change a human being into something "more attractive"
.

 

[Srontgorrth]

Gave it a shot, but her right eye ended up turning into a much darker green then the left eye, and it looks more like an alien eyeball than her own the clone stamp tool wasn't really working out well for fixing the lines, among other things, it looked really weird when I did it, but instead I tried the spot healing brush and that appeared a little better.

And of course, she is attractive without any of that, but I wanted a sort of ethereal dreamy look out of it, and so that's what I went for, and that's what I (think) I got.

Anyways, here's the CS5'd version (w/o the high pass filter on the right eye, but with everything else mentioned):


IMG_0929pt2 by Srontgorrth, on Flickr

 

[Pessimism]

Spot healing, if I remember right, defaults to a "content aware fill" brush, which would no doubt be incredibly useful. I think the brush head is the only thing that changes how the fill is applies (ex: 100% hard brush vs. 0% hard). Another good way to choose specific areas is the lasso tool, then edit menu>Fill>content aware.

 

[Srontgorrth]

Yeah next time I'll probably just try and do it through photoshop. Whenever I use a new program I tend to go to the extreme with it (i.e. my first HDR shots, this etc).

Anyways, sold the 1dsmkii for $1727, netting me a nice hefty profit.

Just got this on eBay:

It's 15-30mm, which on a crop isn't anything special, but on full frame will be fucking wide (slightly wider than 10mm on a crop sensor).

 

[Pessimism]

Oh man, For a minute I thought you got the sigma 8mm.

Fucking BOING!

Still, 24mm equivalent on a crop sensor is nothing to scoff at. Be careful though, once you catch wide fever, it's hard to get better...

 

[Srontgorrth]

As much as a fisheye would be cool, I just want ultra wide, but still rectilinear, so this will fit the bill without being a hefty price (I thought a bit about the Sigma 12-24mm too, but it's about twice the price, and starts out at f4.5, whereas the 15-30 starts at 3.5, which might work out for some concert stuff once I can boost up that ISO with a 5dmk2).

That being said, can't wait to catch wide fever. It will be a beautiful, beautiful thing.

 

[Pessimism]

The sigma 8-16mm is rectilinear nigga.

And it's only $700 at B&H... god damn I wish I had money.

 

[Srontgorrth]

Oh shiznit, didn't realize that.

But it's crop sensor only, making it a ~13-25 , though I guess that's almost as wide as the Sigma 12-24mm (on a full frame). In any case, can't wait for some ultra wide fun.

Any thoughts on the navy photog thing btw?

 

[Pessimism]

Nah, no updates on my front about it. One of my friends (army) said that the photographer they were paired with was extremely bored, so there's that lol.

I haven't properly checked into it though.