450D and 24-70 f/2.8L Portrait

beltzclan said:

I think you have a great lens and you are right it can be very sharp
and capable of really great things. Sorry that some others are a bit
harsh. I can see true potential in you and encourage you to keep
after it. Good job. And great liking kid.

Click to expand...

The story behind this picture may be of interest. Our church was interested in reaching out and engaging the residents of our immediate community. We noticed that a good percentage of the residents had dogs. Since I had very little formal portrait experience; but, had the lights, we decided the safest offer was free portraits of the dogs in the neighborhood. First, being free they could not complain about the quality and second being dogs there was less risk of criticism should I not be able to pull it off at a high level of quality.

While I was waiting for another person to arrive at the annex for portraits, a man, this boy and the dog walked by and I invited them in for a photo of their dog. It was a spur of the moment thing. The dog was new to them having just been adopted from a rescue center and was VERY nervous and fidgety. So, the boy had to hold the dog for the pictures. Time was also problem because they were on their way to a rodeo as soon as they finished walking the dog. All-in-all it was very rushed.

To be honest, it is a testament to the Octodomes that the lighting was decent at all since I shot 10 photos in probably 15 minutes. I didn't have time to meter the lights. I just eyeballed the modeling lamps, started shooting and adjusted the fill after each of the first two shots after reviewing the image.

I'll actually check to see how much time I spent with taking pictures. But, considering the circumstances, I thought the camera, lens and lights did an admirable job and I was more than pleased by the outcome.

So, the criticism, while well taken as a part of learning and getting better, doesn't bother me. I was lucky to get what I got and that is MORE than enough for me.

--
http://3DPrinterUsers.Blogspot.com

To suggest that the photo is soft is one thing. To suggest that I don't know how to operate the equipment is another. I can guarantee you that you had a LOT more time to compose and set up your photo than I did.

And, given the circumstances under which mine were shot... relative to the circumstances under which yours was shot... there can be little comparison as to the ease of composition, lighting and focus. Your contrived picture, in which you had time to layer pearls and carefully compose the model is a far cry from a slightly chaotic setting trying to capture an image of a nervious dog having to be tightly held by a non-model little boy.

While I don't mind you commenting on the qualities of the image, I'll take issue with you when you extrapolate to my not knowing my equipment. That was just plain arrogant and wrong of you. Frankly, anyone shooting a prone subject is BOUND to get some area in focus. Even I couldn't miss on that one.

dave 2009 said:

I didn't say mine was better but technically speaking its focused.
The entire point of posting on this forum for me is to help others
get better results.... I think the website speaks for that...

Tom here has a setup, he could be getting far better results. I
think he might not know how to use the equipment is all so why
fluff it up when he could get much better results and be very proud
of those and impress other people beyond himself.

Click to expand...

--
http://3DPrinterUsers.Blogspot.com

you are mistaken and its not an argument for me. I'd like to see a better photo from you in the future... I could've shot the photo with the clarity you took with a point and shoot quite easily. I dont think your strobes assisted you at all is what i'm getting at... wouldn't you rather know what settings to dial in rather then feel lucky you got a shot, just be surprised that you didnt...

I suppose it comes down to experience, I use one light and the girl held stuff in her hand. I didn't layer anything or compose she just moved around and I took photos.

When I do portraits I know my lighting requirements.. I use aperture between 2.8 and 8.0 and based on that I use either 1/16th to 1/2 flash output from my 430ex.

I always have a shutter speed around 1/180th. I use my speedlites to help focus in low light conditions....

In my opinion, based on the lack of any depth in your photo - its extremely flat to me... this would indicate the lights were not used in a manner that would have achieved far more detail, clarity, and depth.

Hi Tom!

Very nice for a near-grab shot as I understand it. I love the expressions. That looks like the L lens quality to the colors if you know what I mean. I've seen what you can do when given enough time to setup the shot.

The red of the jacket is pretty strong, maybe WB is a bit too warm letting the jacket pop a bit too much. Making the blacks a bit more black might improve the depth of the shot. pity the sharpness but as grabshots go it's still pretty decent.
--
Kind regards
Imqqmi



http://www.pbase.com/imqqmi

My hands are itching looking at that lighting gear So you use monolights exclusively then? It sure helps setting things up but might be a little low light for good noise performance. How does it work out for you in the noise department though?

Tom Meeks said:

I'm a HUGE Photoflex product fan and while I love the quality of just
about all of their products, the Octodomes have really one me over.
I'd like to get the 7' Octodome at some point.

Having used the Photoflex StarLights (hot lights) for years, I
decided to take a chance on their new Starflash monolights. And,
I've not regretted that decision.



--
http://3DPrinterUsers.Blogspot.com

Click to expand...

--
Kind regards
Imqqmi



http://www.pbase.com/imqqmi

Tom Meeks said:

For some reason, my camera, which is set for RAW+JPG decided not to
save the RAW. So, all I had to work with was the in camera JPG. So,
I'm not at all offended by the complaints.

Click to expand...

Crazy, but even a JPG out of the camera should not be this soft. My 450D will produce a much sharper shot with the kitlens, even in bad light-conditions. And your light-gear is impressive.

Tom Meeks said:

This is the best my particular camera can do when it comes to focus.
Look back through the threads and you'll see that's it been a
consitent complaint. But, how sharp an image is isn't as important
to me as the message it conveys and I got very lucky on this one in
that regard.

Click to expand...

I fully agree that the message and the feeling a shot gives is important. The most important probably. But: if that is the sharpest your 450D can do with a L-lens, I wouldn;t hesitate one second and bring it back. JPEG or RAW, this is just not sharp enough for that equipment. Sorry. Really don't want to offend you or your equipment. A good picture doesn't have to be sharp, if it's not intended to be sharp. If this is the level of sharpness you always get, there is something completely wrong and you should return your camera.

Tom Meeks said:

Here is the lighting setup that produced that image. I'm using 1
Photoflex Starflash 650w/s with a 5' Octodome, a Starflash 300w/s
with a 3' Octodome and a Starflash 100w/s in a LiteDome as the
hairlight.

Click to expand...

Cool light set-up... I'd love to have one of those.

Tom Meeks said:

This was shot as a part of an outreach our church is doing in the
community where we are taking free portraits of pets & families.
We're working out of an annex which is nice for this type of setup.



--
http://3DPrinterUsers.Blogspot.com

Click to expand...

--
Still learning.....

Sony H2
Canon 450D 18-55 IS, 55-250 IS, 50mm 1.8

Some of my pictures here:
http://www.pbase.com/ed197907/

imqqmi said:

My hands are itching looking at that lighting gear So you use
monolights exclusively then? It sure helps setting things up but
might be a little low light for good noise performance. How does it
work out for you in the noise department though?

Click to expand...

The noise is acceptable for now. The 450D is a consumer level camera. So, it does what it does. I plan to purchase 5D MK II and that should help both in terms of focus and noise.

Because I only used DPP and only had the JPG with which to work, I was limited in how any noise could be processed. The computer I'm now using is temporary while my main computer is in the shop. I have Noiseware Professional that I would normally use. But, it wasn't used in processing this image.

--
http://3DPrinterUsers.Blogspot.com

imqqmi said:

Hi Tom!

Very nice for a near-grab shot as I understand it. I love the
expressions. That looks like the L lens quality to the colors if you
know what I mean. I've seen what you can do when given enough time to
setup the shot.

The red of the jacket is pretty strong, maybe WB is a bit too warm
letting the jacket pop a bit too much. Making the blacks a bit more
black might improve the depth of the shot. pity the sharpness but as
grabshots go it's still pretty decent.

Click to expand...

Even though I have a screen calibration system. it's hard to trust on the LCD currently used. So, the saturation might be set a bit high and I did warm the image a bit. The result prints nicely. But, from a technical, by-the-numbers point of view it is definitely overly warm and over-saturated. But, that is the effect I was looking for (which I decribe as "surreal") in the printed copy. Sure, I can back everything off. But, that wasn't what I wanted to achieve. Even the noise adds to the effect when you see the image printed.

One of the things I've noticed as I've worked on this project is that people seem to respond to warmer, slightly over-saturated images more positively than absolutely by-the-number correct color. Perhaps because it reminds them of film at some level.

I started out with undersaturated images and then this one was processed as the pendulum swung in the other direction. I'm sure that the pendulum will keep swinging as I learn to achieve a better balance over time.

Your observations were right on! Thanks!

--
http://3DPrinterUsers.Blogspot.com

EDirkx,

I really appreciate what you have to say and it mirrors my own experience with this camera. If you click on my profile and look for my posts, I have complained about this particular camera's focus from the day I bought it. Recently, I think I found part of the problem at that may be the UV filter than was on the lens.

But, I have NEVER been totally happy with this camera's focus. Of course, I was jumped on for claiming that. (LOOK FOR ME IN THE AF THREADS.) So, why am I still shooting with it. First, the 24-70L vastly improved the images I was getting. And, I plan to purchase a 5D MK II in the near future. But, in the meanime this is the ONLY camera that I have available and I will do my best with it. It focuses well enough right now for my purposes at the moment and will go into the shop as soon as I can replace it. I'm not a full-time photographer so the demands on me aren't as great as they might be on others. People are pleased with their photos and that's what counts for now. But, I AM longing to be able to put this particular camera aside.

One of the reasons why I have the 24-70L and this great lighting, at least in part, was chasing the focus issues of my 450D from another angle. With the better lens, ans as my lighting improved, the quality of focus, in general, improved as DOF became wider. You ought to see this camera with the kit lens hanging on it! Now, THAT's discouraging.

You can offend my equipment all you want. In fact, your reply was very, very helpful. My 450D is what it is and it's helpful to know that others think it could be better. All I desire is to do the best I can with what I have at the moment... and, this is it.

EDirkx said:

Crazy, but even a JPG out of the camera should not be this soft. My
450D will produce a much sharper shot with the kitlens, even in bad
light-conditions. And your light-gear is impressive.

I fully agree that the message and the feeling a shot gives is
important. The most important probably. But: if that is the sharpest
your 450D can do with a L-lens, I wouldn;t hesitate one second and
bring it back. JPEG or RAW, this is just not sharp enough for that
equipment. Sorry. Really don't want to offend you or your equipment.
A good picture doesn't have to be sharp, if it's not intended to be
sharp. If this is the level of sharpness you always get, there is
something completely wrong and you should return your camera.

Click to expand...

--
http://3DPrinterUsers.Blogspot.com

Tom Meeks wrote to Dave 2009:

Tom Meeks said:

While I don't mind you commenting on the qualities of the image, I'll
take issue with you when you extrapolate to my not knowing my
equipment. That was just plain arrogant and wrong of you.

Click to expand...

Dave's default assumption is that everyone else is an idiot and needs to be taught a lesson. Best to just ignore him.

Nice shot by the way, thanks for sharing.

Hi Tom,

I have never tried the light strobes before. Do you think having the low
white ceiling would defeat the use of these lights ? I can imagine the
light bouncing around a lot here.

--
Thien

Tom Meeks said:

I'm a HUGE Photoflex product fan and while I love the quality of just
about all of their products, the Octodomes have really one me over.
I'd like to get the 7' Octodome at some point.

Having used the Photoflex StarLights (hot lights) for years, I
decided to take a chance on their new Starflash monolights. And,
I've not regretted that decision.



--
http://3DPrinterUsers.Blogspot.com

Click to expand...

--

I checked the information regarding the images and found the following.

The first image (IMG_3522) was taken to test lights at 13:34:21.
The last image (IMG_3530) was taken at 13:37:44.

So, all the time available for setting the lights and getting the shots was 3 minutes and 21 seconds... much less than the time I even thought it had been. Like I said, I literally grabbed them off the street and they were heading for rodeo.

The initially posted image (IMG_352.JPG) displays this information:

Time: 13:34:39
Aperature 2.8
ISO 800
Shutter Speed 1/40 sec.
Evaluative Metering

I had last used my camera at an event at work in a large dark conference room and had not reset the camera for the lights in the studio. We are trying to create a book of pets in the town to give to the historical society so I'm anxious to capture every dog when I can. But, in my haste I was not shooting optimally at first, as you can see from the above numbers. So, whatever faults are in the initial image CAN be ascribed to user error.

By IMG_3524 I had realized I was in the wrong mode and the settings became

Time: 13:35:16
Av: f7.1
Tv: 1/200
ISO: 100

And, for the following image we have:

Time: 13:35:48
Av: f6.3
Tv: 1/200
ISO: 100



Yet, it is the first that gets all the praise by those that see the prints and it's certainly my favorite. But, frankly, whatever criticism is deserves, it ain't too bad for 3 minutes and 23 seconds worth of shooting 11 images while adjusting lights and chasing exposure.

--
http://3DPrinterUsers.Blogspot.com

While it's not a professional studio with high ceilings, it's still a wonderful space for the lights. In fact, I think I could easily use a 7' Octodome in this area without a much problem.

The light is SO SOFT that the ceilings and wall are probably inconsequential. It's INFINITELY better than using dedicated flashes with strobes.

But, I do think that one can come close with the Softlighter and a dedicated flash. And, I will try to take some comparison shots with the new low cost portable lighting system (Interfit EXD200) I recently bought for my daughter to learn lighting using one softbox and a Softlighter.

Later that afternoon, I played around with the EXD200 and their inexpensive beauty dish. That was VERY interesting and a lot of fun. I'm shooting more this weekend and maybe I can come up with some samples.

thien nguyen said:

I have never tried the light strobes before. Do you think having the low
white ceiling would defeat the use of these lights ? I can imagine the
light bouncing around a lot here.

--
Thien

Tom Meeks said:

I'm a HUGE Photoflex product fan and while I love the quality of just
about all of their products, the Octodomes have really one me over.
I'd like to get the 7' Octodome at some point.

Having used the Photoflex StarLights (hot lights) for years, I
decided to take a chance on their new Starflash monolights. And,
I've not regretted that decision.



--
http://3DPrinterUsers.Blogspot.com

Click to expand...

--

Click to expand...

--
http://3DPrinterUsers.Blogspot.com

WilbaW said:

WilbaW said:

While I don't mind you commenting on the qualities of the image, I'll
take issue with you when you extrapolate to my not knowing my
equipment. That was just plain arrogant and wrong of you.

Click to expand...

Dave's default assumption is that everyone else is an idiot and needs
to be taught a lesson. Best to just ignore him.

Nice shot by the way, thanks for sharing.

Click to expand...

Dave might come across as harsh some times, but he did say "MIGHT not know how to use his equipment" and not "He does not know how to use his equipment" as everyone jumped him about. He phrased it in a way that there was a "possibility" that he didn't have the experience or knowledge. He also gave some good critiques of the photo in order for the OP to learn how to do better the next time.

Dave might have answered differently if he had known the circumstances surrounding the shoot, and how the OP did know the photo wasn't the best. I like the composition, but I find the light too "Sears portrait studio"(Uniformed light on both sides), but it was what was needed for that situation, which we were told about later.

I finally checked the EXIF and it almost appears as if the lighting wasn't firing at all!

Tv 1/40sec
Av f2.8
ISO 800

So, in my haste (see my post below) I may not checked the lights. It seems I corrected it later because I then went to:

Tv 1/200
Av f6.3
ISO 100

So, it appears you were right for this image. OPERATOR ERROR!!!

But, even so, there is a quality that is very, very appealing about that particular image that transcends the technical failings.

--
http://3DPrinterUsers.Blogspot.com

Good job brother.
--
Passion is the thing that should drive us in all we do. For
it is only when passion is applied, that we can both be
successful and fulfilled. - James Beltz

Full Gallery at http://www.BCphoto.biz

KALEL33 said:

WilbaW said:

KALEL33 said:

While I don't mind you commenting on the qualities of the image, I'll
take issue with you when you extrapolate to my not knowing my
equipment. That was just plain arrogant and wrong of you.

Click to expand...

Dave's default assumption is that everyone else is an idiot and needs
to be taught a lesson. Best to just ignore him.

Nice shot by the way, thanks for sharing.

Click to expand...

Dave might come across as harsh some times, but he did say "MIGHT not
know how to use his equipment" and not "He does not know how to use
his equipment" as everyone jumped him about. He phrased it in a way
that there was a "possibility" that he didn't have the experience or
knowledge.

Click to expand...

So Tom's use of the word extrapolate was appropriate. I based my statement on months of observation, not just or particularly this thread.

KALEL33 said:

He also gave some good critiques of the photo in order
for the OP to learn how to do better the next time.

Click to expand...

On the assumption that he needed to be taught ....

KALEL33 said:

Dave might have answered differently if he had known the circumstances
surrounding the shoot, and how the OP did know the photo wasn't the best.

Click to expand...

That's the point really, isn't it? - you have no right to criticize things you don't understand!

So then what was the point of this thread? To show a soft, well composed, uniformly lit kid with his dog? Usually people post photos expecting the positives and negatives. It lets people know what they are doing right and wrong.

OP said the 450D with that lens was great, but the photo was soft..do you think nobody should say anything?

Later in the day, after the boy and dog, I had a chance to experiment with an Interfit beauty dish mounted on an EXD200. It was a lot of fun to shoot with it. I did use one of the Photoflex lights as a hair light. But, aside from that it's just a $200 200w/s monolight with a $59 beauty dish! This one did require a bit of post in a photo editor. The beauty dish shows every flaw.



--
http://3DPrinterUsers.Blogspot.com

beltzclan said:

Good job brother.

Click to expand...

Thanks, beltzclan!

I appreciate it.

http://3DPrinterUsers.Blogspot.com