StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Death's first experience with the possibilities of a real flash, and a background, and a non nude model (No, you're not getting photos of that).
Enjoy and critique . (I was very dissapointed at how generic it came out, but the eyes were nice in some, and this is my weak point in terms of photography)

All Rights reserved. (As always, in case it wasn't obvious).
Portraits-4

What is this "sync speed" you speak of? (Answer: Boost your aperture, dumbo!)
Portraits-33


The lovely model:

Portraits-22

Portraits-21

Portraits-20

Portraits-19

Portraits-18


Portraits-14

Portraits-13

Portraits-12

Portraits-11

Portraits-10

Portraits-9

Portraits-17

Portraits-16

Portraits-15

Portraits-8

Portraits-7

Portraits-6

Portraits-5

Portraits-3

Portraits-2

Portraits-1

Portraits


Portraits-32

Portraits-31


Portraits-29

Portraits-28

Portraits-27

Portraits-26

Portraits-25


Portraits-23

Nice. Did you get blondie's number, after?

Phantasee wrote:Nice. Did you get blondie's number, after?

I also have the number/email of the model who did nude work. Your point being? . (And she was unbelievably hot. I know that it's part of the job description to radiate sex appeal, but still, Damn ).

There's a yellowish-green or bluish colour cast on half the photos taken against the blue background, you really want to avoid this with skin tones since it makes the models look like they're suffering from jaundice. You'll have to use a manual white balance setting on your camera or bring a white or neutral grey index card with you to do a manual calibration of the camera's white balance. Of course you could always fix it afterwards with Photoshop but that brings up the problem of monitor calibration which is a big can of worms.

J wrote:There's a yellowish-green or bluish colour cast on half the photos taken against the blue background, you really want to avoid this with skin tones since it makes the models look like they're suffering from jaundice. You'll have to use a manual white balance setting on your camera or bring a white or neutral grey index card with you to do a manual calibration of the camera's white balance. Of course you could always fix it afterwards with Photoshop but that brings up the problem of monitor calibration which is a big can of worms.

Are you sure? I've gone through and looked at the photos and I can't see a yellow skin tone... I calibrated the background blue lighting so it wouldn't touch her face, maybe it just looks that way due to the contrast?
Could you give a specific example? Thanks!


(And yeah, my monitor isn't calibrated. It crashed my pc last time I tried it ).

Those are excellents! Your models are very pretties!

Except the ones who weren't so very pretties.

Jmac is rite though. Your outdoor photos were better in picture quality, for some inconceivable reasons.

Shroom Man 777 wrote:Those are excellents! Your models are very pretties!

Except the ones who weren't so very pretties.

Then comment on which of them and why!

Jmac is rite though. Your outdoor photos were better in picture quality, for some inconceivable reasons.

I'm not good at anything involving people, even more so stuff requiring interaction with people. It applies to all things, not just conversations

DEATH wrote: Then comment on which of them and why!

It's cause the pretty ones were pretty ladies!

Shroom Man 777 wrote:

DEATH wrote: Then comment on which of them and why!

It's cause the pretty ones were pretty ladies!

All of them were ladies, you transvestite obsessed twat! (Well, except for the one guy)

Erm, how about the one with the lolipops?


Anyway, I think you're fine with the peoples. It's just, I don't know, this seems like the first ever time you've posted studio-related stuff. Most (if not all) of your previous shots were done outdoors, so I guess you haven't learned whatever studio tricks studio photographers use to make their stuff awesome.

Yes, that is an astute observations!

Some of the shorts are a bit dark, though that may be intentionally so.

EDIT:

I am not obsessed over transvestites. I haven't watched pron about a shemale doing a real female though, so I don't know what I'd think about that tho.

Shroom Man 777 wrote:Erm, how about the one with the lolipops?

That's a woman you racist bastard!

Anyway, I think you're fine with the peoples. It's just, I don't know, this seems like the first ever time you've posted studio-related stuff. Most (if not all) of your previous shots were done outdoors, so I guess you haven't learned whatever studio tricks studio photographers use to make their stuff awesome.

It's the first time i've done anything in a studio. (And I have no idea when i'll have the opportunity again, if ever).

Yes, that is an astute observations!

Mine usually are. Comes with the glasses.

Some of the shorts are a bit dark, though that may be intentionally so.

The ones with shadows? yeah. Also, some lacked lighting.

I am not obsessed over transvestites. I haven't watched pron about a shemale doing a real female though, so I don't know what I'd think about that tho.

.....Ahuh.

I also found it awesome that your models didn't use too much makeup, if any.

Shroom Man 777 wrote:I also found it awesome that your models didn't use too much makeup, if any.

What makeup?

DEATH wrote:Are you sure? I've gone through and looked at the photos and I can't see a yellow skin tone... I calibrated the background blue lighting so it wouldn't touch her face, maybe it just looks that way due to the contrast?
Could you give a specific example? Thanks!

Portraits 21, 9, 12, 15, and 18 stick out as particularly noticeable.





Here's a quick edit of portrait 9, original on top. Note that the white pattern on the sweater is greenish, whereas on the edited version it's almost pure white. To fix it I went into curves, pulled down the green and gave the red & blue a bit of bump until the white pattern which I've circled was nice & white without any colour casts.

(And yeah, my monitor isn't calibrated. It crashed my pc last time I tried it ).

Well find a way to calibrate it then, either through the buttons on the monitor or the software package that comes with your video card. A properly calibrated monitor makes your life a lot easier when you're doing digital photography.

aerius wrote: Here's a quick edit of portrait 9, original on top. Note that the white pattern on the sweater is greenish, whereas on the edited version it's almost pure white. To fix it I went into curves, pulled down the green and gave the red & blue a bit of bump until I the white pattern which I've circled was nice & white without any colour casts.

You're quite right, that is very noticeable. Thanks. I'll remember to disable the auto WB next time . (sunlight I think).

(And yeah, my monitor isn't calibrated. It crashed my pc last time I tried it ).

Well find a way to calibrate it then, either through the buttons on the monitor or the software package that comes with your video card. A properly calibrated monitor makes your life a lot easier when you're doing digital photography.

I set the stuff with the monitor (colour "temp" to RGB), but external calibrating software crashes when I try it with my poor LG . Something hardware based might work, but that costs cash. (And I don't even have a non broken tripod or external flash).

DEATH wrote:I set the stuff with the monitor (colour "temp" to RGB), but external calibrating software crashes when I try it with my poor LG . Something hardware based might work, but that costs cash. (And I don't even have a non broken tripod or external flash).

That's odd. What video card are you using? You should be able to download the driver/setup package for it and then tweak the colour manually as shown on the bottom of this page. I set my colour temp to 6500K then used the brightness/contrast buttons to make the stuff on linked page look right, then did the colour adjustment and finally I tweaked the gamma settings. Then I went back and rechecked everything.

Oh yeah, before I forget, how to get rid of colour casts. The auto-fixes don't work 100% of the time and may not always get the best results, but most of the time they'll get you close enough.

DEATH wrote: You're quite right, that is very noticeable. Thanks. I'll remember to disable the auto WB next time . (sunlight I think).

I'm a few days late for this thread, apologies for the necromancy. Now:

Since Canon DLSRs can sometimes give you truly horrible auto-WB settings, have you considered using an Expodisc?

You attach it to your lens, go to the position where your subject of focus will be, aim back at your shooting position, shoot, and use that image as a custom white-balance image. Then, return to your planned shooting location, aim at the subject, and shoot the pictures you want.

It's quite effective. In the US, it ranges within $70-$100, depending on the lens diameter it's supposed to match to (i.e. 58mm, 62mm, 77mm, 82mm etc.).

lukexcom wrote:

DEATH wrote: You're quite right, that is very noticeable. Thanks. I'll remember to disable the auto WB next time . (sunlight I think).

I'm a few days late for this thread, apologies for the necromancy. Now:

Since Canon DLSRs can sometimes give you truly horrible auto-WB settings, have you considered using an Expodisc?

You attach it to your lens, go to the position where your subject of focus will be, aim back at your shooting position, shoot, and use that image as a custom white-balance image. Then, return to your planned shooting location, aim at the subject, and shoot the pictures you want.

It's quite effective. In the US, it ranges within $70-$100, depending on the lens diameter it's supposed to match to (i.e. 58mm, 62mm, 77mm, 82mm etc.).

Sigh, 120$ is outside of my budget range. (That, and it isn't available in the shops around here, so importing would cost even more). I'll just make sure to preset the WB next time, I didn't think of the backgroud light messing the WB up in the low light.