"School of Portraiture" - Lesson 08 - Taking it to the next level ("The Reunion")

[Ricco]

. And the focus is off. It was hard to focus when she moved so much, BUT I noticed I had to have my iso up to about 800 (baaaaad) in order to get any kind of shutter speed. So more/brighter lights are needed?

Jen - I can empathize. My kids are nearly impossible to photograph. Between the constant movement and the "oh not another photo" screams, I struggle to get a good frame. So, you have done well in getting where you are.

With regards to the iso - and this is something I've learnt from Colin - it. Is far better to get a little bit of noise in the photo from higher iso than missing your focus or having too long a shutter speed. I used to stress when my iOS went above 400, now I don't worry any more as long as I get the shot. I would say that unless I'm using artificial lights, iso 800 is typically where I'm at with diffusers and reflectors and natural lighting.

With regards to your focus, are you using a single spot or do you let your camera find its own focus point? Typically I use my centre point only.

Anyway, hope it helps.

[M Aella]

...I used to stress when my iOS went above 400, now I don't worry any more as long as I get the shot. I would say that unless I'm using artificial lights, iso 800 is typically where I'm at with diffusers and reflectors and natural lighting.

With regards to your focus, are you using a single spot or do you let your camera find its own focus point? Typically I use my centre point only.

Anyway, hope it helps.

Well, that makes me feel a bit better about my iso, I thought about giving her a free tan, for a nanosecond (or so) but the higher iso won out Thanks! I tried to keep the spot of focus on where I felt her eye "should" land up when I took the shot. Ie. on the right at about 2/3 height when she faced left and vis-versa. Should I have just pulled back and taken a wider shot, used the center focus and crop when neccesary? I tried to give myself a little wiggle room on either side, but maybe I had too tight a shot still? And would that have helped for focusing on my whirling dervish to *have* taken a wider shot? Sorry for all the questions, but for every answer I can't promise I won't come up with 10 more. LOL Ps. I only have my Canon kit 18-55mm lens and a 2x telephoto and a something-something "wide-angle" lens (I'm trying to get the hang of one at a time)...

[Ricco]

Jen - don't worry about the questions. I had just as many when I started out and probably still do.

The light is independent of your lens - good light on a kit lens is still good light on a pro lens so worth persevering.

When I shoot I have my camera locked to e center af point only. I focus on the spot that I want while holding the shutter half down and then recompose. There was an article a few weeks back that suggested that this isn't ideal but it still serves me well 95% of the time.

Usually I would try to minimise cropping to a bare minimum. Try and get it as close as you can in camera.

With wide vs zoom, you probably will get a smaller dof with zooming. While is will help to get some separation from the background, it also needs you to make sure your focus is right.

So - the important bit - when do we see the results of what you have learnt?

[M Aella]

Thank-you, I will try keeping the center point focus, and will have to find that article! Sorry about not wording my question correctly, I understand light, is light, is light, but I'm confused about how close is "too" close with my kit lens? Even manually adjusting focal length (if I understand that correctly) I find I'm almost up my daughters nose and have a tough time keeping the composition in frame just to get the "right" shot I'm looking for. As for answer to your final inquiry..... Shhhh.... I"m at work. LoL. I'll have to get back at it Tuesday. but I'll still be checking in and pestering with questions. I love CiC!

[M Aella]

Haven't been able to carve out time to try and work on my lighting issue other than peruse Adorama, Amazon and Ebay for some honest-to-goodness strobes. Full moon last night made me dream for a longer lens *sigh* Once things settle down (my daughter's third birthday this week) I'll be back in the fray! Valerie, how is your photograph looking? I can't wait to see updates, your children are beautiful and my imagination is in love with your "location" Have a great day all!

[Loose Canon]

Hi Jen!

First off, let me congratulate you on your new “all consuming obsession”!

Looks like you are off to a rocking good start!

What a fun model you have there to help you feed your happy new obsession! I see lots of great photographs in the Near Future!

I especially like your “Beautiful Dreamer”. That is my kind of shot! If this were my shot of my daughter, I’d want this one on my wall for sure. I think with a bit more processing, this shot would really sing even more!

Sorry about not wording my question correctly, I understand light, is light, is light, but I'm confused about how close is "too" close with my kit lens? Even manually adjusting focal length (if I understand that correctly) I find I'm almost up my daughters nose and have a tough time keeping the composition in frame just to get the "right" shot I'm looking for.

If I understand what you are asking, I think most folks consider around 70+mm starting to get into nice portrait range. If you shoot much wider than that and get in fairly close, body parts start to distort. As an example, with a full face shot, the nose might appear overly distorted and large in comparison with the rest of the face.

[M Aella]

Hi Jen!

First off, let me congratulate you on your new “all consuming obsession”!

Looks like you are off to a rocking good start!

What a fun model you have there to help you feed your happy new obsession! I see lots of great photographs in the Near Future!

I especially like your “Beautiful Dreamer”. That is my kind of shot! If this were my shot of my daughter, I’d want this one on my wall for sure. I think with a bit more processing, this shot would really sing even more!



If I understand what you are asking, I think most folks consider around 70+mm starting to get into nice portrait range. If you shoot much wider than that and get in fairly close, body parts start to distort. As an example, with a full face shot, the nose might appear overly distorted and large in comparison with the rest of the face.

Thank-you! That is the question I was doing such a poor job of asking! From what I've read/researched I figured I would need a lens around the 70-200mm mark. And as a result of a discussion/performance worthy of an Oscar, I will be purchasing a small-to-start studio strobe "kit" right after we put the $60-$100 dollar part in hubby's truck! Go me! Hmmmm.... I wonder if a pan or two of cinnamon buns will net me said lens? I will post up more pictures for C&C when I get my LR3 license. As we speak my 30 day trial *gasp* expired!!

Thanks again! I'll take each and every comment and critique into my corner and go all Golem on it...


....my precioussssss......

[Loose Canon]

A 70-200mm would certainly be a very nice portrait lens. Its my personal favorite.

Sometimes, due to space limitations (I can't get far enough back in my humble little "home studio"), I have to go a bit wider in order to get say, a full body shot. But I am enjoying a 25-105mm and watching that I don't get too wide with it. I've also been using it to produce some "product" shots. I can get in fairly close with these while keeping it zoomed in. I'm very pleased with the image quality it is producing and it makes a nice walk about piece.

I'd say a pan or two of cinnamon buns ought to net you just about anything you want and will go nicely with your strobes!

[M Aella]

That's what I'm thinking cinnamon buns all the way. The price of a 70-200mm had me looking around a LOT and I found a reasonably (I believe) priced 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM. Should I save my pennies and wait for a large aperture? I don't have a huge space for a studio (in my basement) about 12x15-20' depending on how far I back up and can still not get my stairs in the shot) My friend, a Nikonite (see? We get along!) Was recommended to buy a 24-120 VR f4, an 18-200mm VR or a 28-300mm by her "Camera-store-guy" at McBain's. She too will be shooting portraits in a home-studio. He told her 70-200/300mm are for outdoors only. I don't pretend to know much of anything about pro-photography, but that doesn't seem to line up with what I've read?! I must be confused. LoL. Anyways, if the 70-300mm would work for ME, I can go tomorrow to check it out *huge grin* I will also be doing outdoor portraits and "family" shots so the more bang I can get for my meager buck, the better. With a family of five I can't justify too much without knowing I can get "Some" return. lol. Thank-you guys so much for all the advice and critiques!

[Loose Canon]

Before I go any further here, Jen, I just want you to know that I have the dubious distinction of being the only photographer in CiC to fail the School of Portraiture! Colin, God bless him, tried his best but it looks like I’ll be keeping my day job! Probably best to keep that in mind as you read through my ramblings!

Personally, I think the “Camera-store-guy” at McBain’s is way off here. I use my 70-200 indoors all the time. It is a constant f2.8 and is absolutely fantastic for indoors and low light. As an example, I have used it shooting in horrific light in churches shooting candid portraits for media directors covering their events. It has the reach to get those up-close-and-personals from across the gym or chapel (or wherever). When I shoot these types of events, there is always something going on that I don’t need to be distracting so the reach and speed (I may not be able or permitted to use flash) makes all the difference. As time progresses, you will come to love the speed as you go to those recitals, sporting events, school programs, etc. that Miss Beautiful Dreamer is going to participate in and the light is less than great.

As far as speed goes, I always try to save until I can get the fastest and best glass possible for the particular lens I am looking for. I’m also not a huge fan of a lens whose maximum aperture varies with its focal length. When you need the reach, you lose the speed. Naturally it will cost me, but I have never regretted this policy. When/if I change camera bodies, I will already have suffered the pain of shelling out for good glass. And I can promise you that if you are really becoming obsessed, you will be looking to upgrade to better glass anyway. Maybe sooner than later. Might as well start out with the best and save everyone time and money! So my blanket answer would pretty much have to be save until you can afford the best you can afford!

Same theory for outdoors.

One possibility is that the “Camera-store-guy” might rent you a couple of lenses for you to take home for a test drive. And definitely take your camera body in to test drive some of these lenses in-store for the “Big Grins”! The more you do, the better decision you will make.

[rpcrowe]

louise4 by Pablo1766, on Flickr

I am still learning my studio stuff.
I was hoping to create a soft sexy look but not sure if the feet are in the right place

Paul,

Lovely portrait but, I hope you don't mind a couple of comments. These certainly don't negate the fact that this is a really nice capture.

I do have a problem with feet hanging in mid-air. They always compete with the subjects face for my attention. Not just on your portrait but, with most other portraits that portray a female in this position. I really don't know the solution, except perhaps shooting from a slight angle, rather than down the length of her torso, which could eliminate the feet in the air.

The other distraction from the subject's beauty (for me) is the distortion of the size of her arms (especially her left arm). I think that this might be remedied to a great degree by shooting from a longer camera to subject distance with a longer focal length lens.

Finally, the flat of a female hand is usually not quite as greceful as the side of the hand.

[Andrew1]

Jen, re your decision on a new lens...I don't see in any of your post what camera you have. If it is a DX camera then I would personally have to agree with the guy from McBains that for your use, the 70-200 is too long for you to use in the location you describe. Even at the 15 foot max you wouldn't be pressed up against the back wall. Shooting at 12 feet you would be pretty much limited to the low end of the lens and not getting much more than head and shoulders. Take into account that at that range an aperture anywhere close to being wide open is going to give you a DOF of somewhere around a foot restricts you from moving around a lot. An awful lot of $$$ for effectively what would be a 70 - 100 lens (105-150 DX). If your camera is a DX format take another look at your lens options and consider the 1.5 multiplier. Either the 18 - 200 or 24 -120 would be a good choice. (The 28 - 300 is usually listed as the FX equivalent of the 18 - 200. The high end range at 1.5 multiplier is not only hard to manage hand-held, that range may also be of no use to you personally.) Also consider what else you would use it for as a zoom makes more sense for most of us amateurs. Looking at cost, it's either the 24-120 alone OR the 18-200 and some lighting gear. Try your friends if she purchased one or rent each of the lenses for a day and try them out. Get lots of input and you'll pick the best one for you. Good luck.

[M Aella]

L Canon and Andrew, thank-you for the replies and I do apologize for overlooking the obvious. I have a Canon 1100D (nothing fancy, but a definate boost from my p&s ) I've been trying my 18-55mm with a 2.2x telephoto converter and it's a bit better, but still doesn't seem to meet my needs, if that makes sense. Andrew, if I'm understanding your very helpful post correctly, that's another thing I was trying to understand. I don't intend on moving for the sake of being able to use a "better" lens, and as I'm just starting out a fancy studio isn't coming my way anytime soon either. So I'm trying to decide on a lens that matches my location,as limiting as that may be. I'm a total newbie, so I don't think I'll know what those limitations are to be bothered by them right away. That being said, I will be shooting outdoors too. The asking price for the aforementioned 70-300 f4-5.6 (yes, sliding aperture) IS USM is $375. That seems to be good for my area. I've looked in as many different places as I can find and have found that to be comparable. *sigh* I know I'll need to upgrade lenses as I gain experience. In the spirit of putting it all on the table I found a 70-200 f4L IS USM lens for $654.00... I'm really torn. I *can* afford it... but should I?

[Andrew1]

Here's a copy of an old post of mine....

I'll give you a concept I always use when making expensive hardware purchases whether it be camera, lenses, computers, tools, etc. They are all tools for one reason or another. Ask yourself two questions with the first one being the heavy weighting.

1. Are my skills better than the capabilities of the tool I already have and it's holding me back?
2. Does the new tool do something that I NEED to do often and have no other way of doing it?

When I do buy a new item I always make it the best I can afford at the time. Quality will make it last longer in most cases and also continue to answer NO to questions 1 and 2 for a longer period of time. Emotion and envy still come into the picture but play a much lesser part than the logical questions. There may be times when some of us have the free cash to upgrade our equipment but don't mistake the quality of the gear with knowledge or capabilities.

Listen to yourself honestly and you will make the right decision.

(sorry, got off target. any future comments will be out of this thread)

[M Aella]

I have some "clients" lined up for outdoor shots when the weather warms up and about 3 or 4 at this time who want indoor shoots for their soon-to-be-born (in the next 3 months). To be honest, if I found an off-lens that was as good quality as the one I'm looking at, I would be fine with it. I buy what works for my needs rather than what's the best "looking" I can get. lol I'm a thrift-store kinda gal, got that from my mother. My father, however, taught me the importance of buying quality where it counts. I think lenses fall under the latter. It will end up being my go-to lens for a while because from the 60-80-some reviews, comparisons and the like that I've read over the past... *cough* whiiiile it seems to encompass my needs nicely. I prefer to read as many "facts" as I can and then ask opinions so that I'm not blindly following popular opinion. I apreciate the advice I've been given on this thread and consider it to be honest and is thus *very* valued by myself. And no need to apologize for your previous post, I found it exactly what I needed to step back and put things in perspective... bwah ha ha... "perspective" tee hee... I will get the best I can afford, turns out I forgot about exchange and the L-series comes in at $594 instead of $654. By the time I factor in driving to look at the 70-300 lens the 70-200 comes it at only about 40 dollars more. I can give up Tim's for a few months to make the difference. And hubby agrees. no cinnamon buns required... Thank-you! thank-you! thank-you!

[Colin Southern]

Hi Jen,

Looks like you're a LOTR Fan - just thought I'd rub it in my saying that "the ring" (actually "rings") were made by a local Jeweler here in Nelson NZ where I live, and some of the movie was shot in my surrounding districts. On the down side, it's one movie that I just couldn't "get into" -- only saw the firse one, and that almost bored me to tears Just thought I'd throw in that but of trivia, my "preciousssssss"

I've been reading through your various posts (and posts by others) (apologies by the way for not chiming in sooner ).

Some thoughts ...

With regards to lens selection, you need to keep in mind that the 1100D is what's termed a "crop factor" camera, which means that it'll effectively multiply the focal length (or "zoom in") any lens that you use by a factor of 1.6. So a 70-200mm lens will give you the same field of view (which is the important thing as it determins how much the subject "fills the screen") as a 112-320mm lens. For shooting kids (and big kids like me!) this is ideal, but ONLY because you have the distance available. That's important because although outdoor head and shoulders type portraiture is great eg:



A BIG BIG part of outdoor portraiture is also environmental portraiture in which the subject is shown relating to their environment, eg



So a 70-200 on your camera is a great lens outside. In a studio, it's a pretty safe bet that you won't have the luxury of the same kinds of spaces though; camera to subject distances are the thing that most folks first think of, but subject to background distance is also important (the bigger the better) for (a) best bokeh and (b) seperating your foreground and background lighting zones (so one doesn't contaminate the other). What does all this mean? It means that in the studio, shots like this are doing to be easy ...



Shots like this MAY be possible (if you're lucky) ...



And shots like these (including kids -- which are VERY important) ... not a hope in "heck" ...



In an ideal world, you're going to need 2 lenses - a 24-70mm and a 70-200mm. If you really really really had to limit yourself to just one lens then I'd STRONGLY suggest the 24-105mm (keeping in mind that on your camera it will give you the field of view of a 38-168mm lens, which is going to be the best compromise that you're going to get (albeit a good one).

You mentioned a few other lenses, but I'd strongly suggest getting the fastest glass that you can afford; if you get non-IS glass then you'll have to keep your shutterspeed up in the 1/200th to 1/400th range a lot of the time to avoid camera shake - and that's VERY hard to do with a slow lens - and would mean cranking up your ISO even higher which in turn is going to cause you other complications. The other issue with a slow lens is that the depth of field is going to be too great to really make image "pop". Take a look at this image ...



I'm sure that you can appreciate that this shot just wouldn't look the same if the background was sharp.

So lens wise, I'd strongly suggest the 24-105 if you're limited to a single lens, although another option would be a 70-200/F4 IS and a cheap 24mm prime lens (not as versatile though).

In terms of lighting - again - it's going to be "tricky" if you don't have the funds to invest in a few things; outdoors you're into the realm of the portable flash - and my suggestion would be to beg / borrow / steal the $$$ to get into the 580EX / 580EX II realm, with some kind of off-camera triggering capability. You'll usually want to be firing into a shoot-through umbrella initially, so all of that is reasonable cheap -- it's certainly a good start.

Inside the studio it's a different story though; one where you basically have two approaches. One approach is to use the same flash gear to augment natural light; the other is to use a dark studio and take responsibility for supplying all needed light. Personally, I use the 2nd approach, but then again, I've got some pretty serious "fire power" in my studio. The downside of trying to light a dark studio with minimalist lighting is (a) you'll be limited to only certain kinds of looks, (b) you'll have less light than is ideal so you'll need to open up your lenses more which in turn will give you problems with insufficient depth of field (which can be a problem in the studio due to the smaller camera to subject distances) (I never shoot wider than F11, and often down to F22), and (c) if you can't spread the light around enough then you'll have quite contrasty images that will fall apart due to noise becomming visible when you try to reveal shadow detail in post-processing (made a lot worse by the fact that you'll probably have to shoot at ISO 400, thus decreasing your available dynamic range by around 2 stops).

So if you're going to invest in studio strobes, aim for 2 (preferably 3) that are around 500 watt-seconds.

Hope this helps

[M Aella]

Colin, thank-you. Did enjoy LOTR, but truthfully am way more of a Star Wars nerd. "My preciousssss" just seemed. right. But I digress. You, sir, are everywhere. Omni-present. I search the forums for knowledge and there you are! And now here you are. lol. Thank-you for such a well thought out response. *looks up 24-105mm on Adorama*....
.
.
.
.
*jaw drops a little*
Good thing we are coming up to spring/summer and I can take most pictures outside until I can save shekles for that lens. lol (excuse my sticker shock. new to "real" photography. came from large family...) Studio strobes 2 (try 3) 500 ws each. I saw that in the thread(s) in which you showcased your studio. Niiiiiiice. and slightly stalker-ish. lol ANYways. I see shoot through umbrellas are more reasonably priced (read cheaper) than softboxes so a good start for a little po' person such as I. I didn't think it would be this "hard". Gosh. lol I'm having trouble thinking about spending so much money and hope I'm good enough... my poor little heart.... maybe that means I'm not ready, eh?

eta: crop factor of 1.6, right? yay! I think I'm learning!

[Colin Southern]

Hi Jen,

I'm afraid I never got into Star Wars either ... big Star TREK fan though (they just keep getting better and better).

I think I'm so "omni-present" here because I just don't have a life ...

To be honest, we get quite a few folks wanting to (essentially) do professional-level photography on an extremely low budget; we give them the best advice we can, but I think that they often miss the point, in that as an amateur, the goal is to "create a nice photo" - sounds straight-forward enough, but there's no "expectation of performance" in the eyes of the "client". Example - Aunty Jen goes to her sisters wedding as a guest and happens to get a couple of "cool shots" which she offers to the B&G. Great stuff! On the other hand, the official wedding photographer only manages a couple of "cool shots" ... uh-oh - BIG problem.

As an amatuer you can pick and choose - as a professional you need to have the tools & knowledge to photograph anything within your genre(s).

To relate that to your situation; if you only have a couple of lights you may be able to get a great head and shoulders portrait - but if the parent then says "Oh - and I'd also really like a full-length photo of little Johnny on a white background" then you're probably going to be struggling (but failure isn't an option).

You'll find that in the world of photography there will always be those who are better and worse than any one of us - the "trick" is to learn from the ones that are better and teach the ones that are worse. I'm afraid that there are no shortcuts though - and no substitute for experience. And there's only one way to get experience.

[M Aella]

Thank-you. True, all expectations of performance are mine alone, and your simile is dead on. The photographs I've taken since getting my 1100D middle of last month has gotten some good comments from family and friends, but all I see are areas I need to improve upon... They are blind I tells ya! Blind! I'm disproportionately hard on myself, I realize that. I'm more thinking I'd "chicken out" and just keep taking pictures for myself and my family and never make the leap because I'd never feel I'm "good enough" I love learning from other people! One of the main reasons I joined CiC. I know I have to pay money out, you need good equipement. David wasn't carved with a toothpick, but I guess I'm just looking to see if I am even capable of taking good pictures one day. LOL And I'm not fond of "shortcuts" you miss out on too much o' that learning stuff doing that. Give me experience or give me out-of-focus mediocrity! lol. My hopefully not too misguided hope is to start out doing some outdoor portraits, gain experience and save some green to get those lights as suggested by you and just kind of go from there. Rather a sort of do the best with the best you can afford and move forward as required. If that makes sense?



But let's talk about the really important issue here, please...


A Trekkie?

Et Tu, Colin?

or should ^that^ have been in Klingon?

[M Aella]

I'm now a complete lens convert. I bow before upgrade awesomeness. lol I had an irrational fear that when I recieved my "new" lens that it would be marginally better than the 18-55mm that I have. I was so wrong. I can't wait to post up pictures of my first attempts at outdoor portraits. But now I have the Photog bug even worse.... I'm beginning to have a slight suspicion this is a lifelong affliction. I nearly wept when I saw the quality of the pictures that lens allows me to take. *sigh* Thank-you all for your suggestions, I have locked them away in my overworked brain as my de facto list of future lenses. Just do me a favour: Shhh.. don't tell hubby