A few pre-wedding Portraits

[rangie]

My friends were married on Hayman Island a couple of weeks ago an I was lucky enough to be able to get some shots. They wanted some portraits the day before they got married, and here is the result... I really love my new 85mm 1.8.







Your critique is appreciated!

Ben

[rangie]

1 am Just curious. Can anyone see my pics this time?

[Marvin]

I can see them. They look great - nice and sharp and great colours.

[shakey]

I can see them. Nice informal shots. The couple look at ease which is great. I like #2 the best. Might be worth considering cloning out the white shapes behind the guy's head with some of the vegetation.

Teeth...the guy's teeth are whiter than the girl's. I'd be tempted to try and match them in PS.

Band-aid on guy's leg in #3. There may be a story in that which makes it worthwhile keeping it in the photo, but if there isn't, I'd clone it out.

[rangie]

Thanks, This is the second time I have posted images and the first time I couldnt get them to display, so that is re-assuring.

I cloned the bandaid out of all the other photos but this one... thanks for spotting it, I will remove it.

[gstark]

Ben,

First of all, your wb is out. Did you use auto? Whatever, it's wrong, and these images have a cyan cast to them.

The first image, I think, should have been shot in portrait orientation. It's nice to have the extra background when it adds something to the image; in this case I don't think it does, and the image could benefit from more of your subject.

Image 2: the problem with the white .... thing ... is one that you should have fixed in the camera. It's just such a basic issue - failing to look in the viewfinder, failing to actually see what's in the image area. It takes just a second or two, and by moving just a little one way or the other you can easily fix this before it becomes an issue.

The problems I see in the third image are the same as in the second: you failed to actually see what you're capturing. Where are the subjects' feet? You've chopped bits of them off!

Again, stop, before you press that shutter release. cast your eye around the viewfinder, to make sure that you have their extremities included, and there's no trees (telegraph poles, whatever) growing out of their heads. And don't overlook that lady taking her dog for a walk in the background either. No, she's not there this time, but you need to be aware of her presence for those times that she is.

[Bindii]

Ben,

First of all, your wb is out. Did you use auto? Whatever, it's wrong, and these images have a cyan cast to them.

The first image, I think, should have been shot in portrait orientation. It's nice to have the extra background when it adds something to the image; in this case I don't think it does, and the image could benefit from more of your subject.

Image 2: the problem with the white .... thing ... is one that you should have fixed in the camera. It's just such a basic issue - failing to look in the viewfinder, failing to actually see what's in the image area. It takes just a second or two, and by moving just a little one way or the other you can easily fix this before it becomes an issue.

The problems I see in the third image are the same as in the second: you failed to actually see what you're capturing. Where are the subjects' feet? You've chopped bits of them off!

Again, stop, before you press that shutter release. cast your eye around the viewfinder, to make sure that you have their extremities included, and there's no trees (telegraph poles, whatever) growing out of their heads. And don't overlook that lady taking her dog for a walk in the background either. No, she's not there this time, but you need to be aware of her presence for those times that she is.

What he said...

and I'd also be tempted to lose some of the wrinkles under the ladies eye's also... even if you used the healing brush then reduced the opacity to about 50% so it looks realistic..

just saying..

[rangie]

Ben,

First of all, your wb is out. Did you use auto? Whatever, it's wrong, and these images have a cyan cast to them.

Yep, I used Auto. I guess I have a bit to learn about white balance... I did shoot raw, so I should be able to change this in Capture NX, except, I dont really know what I am lookin for! Do I need to do something to mu monitor so I get a true representation of the colours?

Thanks for your feedback, as I look through my pics I notice I have pressed the trigger too many times without taking notice of what is behind the subject, BIG learning!

[gstark]

Ben,

First of all, your wb is out. Did you use auto? Whatever, it's wrong, and these images have a cyan cast to them.

Yep, I used Auto. I guess I have a bit to learn about white balance... I did shoot raw, so I should be able to change this in Capture NX, except, I dont really know what I am lookin for!

Ok ...

Start by looking at the lady's white dress. Look in the shadow areas of anything that's white, really. It's very easy, once you know what you're looking for. Here you can see that the shadows are not clean - they're a light cyan, rather than being neutral. You will often see something similar in snow scenes.

In NX, set it to Something like bright sunshine -2. That would have been the camera setting I'd have used. Importantly, as you're changing your wb values in NX, look at the areas I've highlighted, and see what each one does. Play with the outcomes and see what different settings do, and then learn how to bring that back at a shooting situation. That's where the real learning will occur.

As to using auto wb .... it's there for a purpose.

I'm sure of that.

But I've yet to understand exactly what that purpose is.

Let's get back to these three images of yours, all shot under exactly the same conditions: bright sunlight.

From a camera settings PoV, that means that you need to examine the prevailing conditions, apply your settings, and then - for all of the photos that you want to make - just get on with making them. If the prevailing conditions remain the same, then it follows that so too will your shooting parameters, the primary of those being EV and wb.

OK so we've established that your prevailing conditions aren;t changing, and therefore your image parameters also don;t need to change. The problem with AWB and AE is that your camera looks at each image - and the content thereof - and makes an assessment based upon each image's actual content, in order to take readings and determine and apply settings.

So, an image with lots of bright green (think trees etc) will be assessed differently from an image shot under the same prevailing conditions but with lots of yellows and pinks (think tropical flowers) or deep blues (think water, boats, etc). The camera is, IMHO, working too hard, and working against you. If you're shooting snapshots, then fine, who gives a damn?

But if you're shooting for something better than snaps (not that there's anything wrong with snaps, but ... ) then you need to take control and fine tune to get the results that you want.

Do I need to do something to mu monitor so I get a true representation of the colours?

Ever been into an electrical appliance store, and looked at a row of tvs, where every tv has a different colour and density even though they're all tuned to the same programming? Computer monitors, and computer video cards are no different. You need to calibrate your systems and workflows, and then learn to understand about colour spaces.

Thanks for your feedback, as I look through my pics I notice I have pressed the trigger too many times without taking notice of what is behind the subject, BIG learning!

More than you can begin to understand.

Fortunately, much of it is very easy, such as that tip. Easy to learn, cheap to apply ... all it takes is a bit of understanding on your part.

[hamster]

I'm going to go against the grain here, and say that in my opinion, with a RAW workflow, using AWB is no issue. It can always be corrected. I'd imagine if you shot them in JPEG and did not set your WB beforehand that that would have been a much more serious issue...

As far as my contribution to WB goes. Look for what should be white. Then, in photoshop (or captureNX, i've not used the version that came with my D80), check your numbers and try and adjust the settings to get them close with each other as that usually is a good starting point. Having said that however, I do calibrate my monitor and i just fiddle with sliders and settings until skin tones look somewhat good (to me). But making sure things are white is usually a good starting point.

I think another issue you need to consider is lens choice. 85mm on a camera with a crop factor puts it well beyond 125mm, and this range i find most people tend to use for single people photography. While yes it is possible to use the 85 glass for couple photos, I'm not sure that this lens was the right selection. With such a beautiful location maybe it would have been better to consider capturing the couple in the location with a wider choice? The 50mm 1.8 is dead cheap.

Given what your subjects were wearing, I think a series of shots that are more in line with picture 3 would have been much better. Fun and in love is the order of the day.

On that note, if anyone want to explain to me how to set opacity of heal brush, i'd love to know. is it second layer opacity or something you actually do with brush settings?

[BullcreekBob]

... is it second layer opacity...

Yes.

If you were old and grey haired like me, you'd know that making changes to originals is not a wise idea.

In your dotage or retirement when you have the time and knowlege to go back over some old images and pp them better, you'll be pleased you made no changes to originals and made ALL your mods and adjustments in ways that can be adjusted or tweaked or discarded or redone (properly).

[gstark]

I'm going to go against the grain here, and say that in my opinion, with a RAW workflow, using AWB is no issue. It can always be corrected.

So, you're going to be happy to shoot the photo wrong in the first instance, and increase your workload at some later point? How many images would you like to do this for? 10? 20? 100? 500 from a one-day shoot? 1500 from a weekend event?

Yes, sure ... you can correct an error such as this in post.

And you can correct your exposure errors too. But would you go out and shoot your 1500 image weekend event consistently two stops under, just because you know you can correct it in post? If not, then why are you applying the same "shoot it wrong and correct it in post" logic to wb?

Surely a more correct goal is to get it right, in the camera, first?

Let me put this another way: let's say that you work for me, and you shoot everything with incorrect wb set. Yes, as we've agreed, I can correct this in post. But you're only doing the shooting, and you've just landed me with, say, a wedding, with 400 frames, all of which need me to review assess, adjust and apply altered wb settings.

Tell you what: two things have just happened:

1: You've just cost me a couple of hundred extra dollars in post processing. These would be real dollars, because I should be doing other things, not correcting your shooting errors or laziness. Perhaps that's the profit on the job? Would I be happy? Unlikely. That would probably then lead to the second thing ...

2: You're fired.

In a real business situation, you cannot afford to shoot with that sort of complaceny.

In a real-world situation, many people do not have the time to spend on endless PP of their image: I spend more than enough time at a computer - at least five of them, actually - on a daily basis. When I go out and shoot, that last thing I'm interested in is correcting my avoidable stuff-ups on the computer, and stuffing up wb in an image is very definitely a stuff-up that's very avoidable.

So, yes, you are absolutely correct.

And very bloody wrong.

As far as my contribution to WB goes. Look for what should be white.

Oh that it was that simple. Blown highlights are white. A wedding dress is white. A wedding dress that is overexposed, but not blown, is white. But could you now, please, define white?

Snowfields, in sunlight, look white. But again, please define white.

What looks fine in bright light often tells a different story when you look at that same object in a shadowed area, and the OP's images display exactly this situation. The whites, where in shadows, should still be neutral. They're not. it's wrong.

Neutralise the color cast in the shadows, and then reassess the images. It's very easy to do, and as you say, it can be done in post. Sadly, for these images, it needs to be done in post - it must be done in post - because although it easily could have been done at the point of capture, it was not.

check your numbers

ROTFLMAO.

Sorry, but are you suggesting that he checks the actual colour temperature? I can't recall the last time I did that. Actually, I can't remember the first time I've done that.

One needs to critically look at the images, one needs to know what to look at, and to look for. Numbers are great: they tell you the price of your camera. The size of your image. But not the quality of the images that you capture, of which your chosen wb is but one parameter.

But making sure things are white is usually a good starting point.

The point being, that you need to choose the correct part of the correct white object. I would not choose teeth. I would not choose the whites of a person's eyes. I would not choose any reflections: even though they appear to be white, they're not.

I think another issue you need to consider is lens choice. 85mm on a camera with a crop factor

Which camera? Nikon crop is 1.5. Canon varies from 1.6 to 1.3. Not everyone reading this thread shoots Nikon. They may want to, but they do not.

85 on a Nikon crop is 127.5. To me that's not "well beyond 125mm", but near enough as dammit to 125. I certainly wouldn't be likely to notice that difference. And for portraits, that sits perfectly in the traditional 35mm range of 105 - 135 as the so-called ideal portraiture focal length range. In a practical sense, there is nothing better, IMHO, than the Nikkor 85 f/1.4 on a Nikon body. And it's ideal for portraits of one, two, maybe three people. Composition - the chip behind the camera - then takes a hand and makes an image good, or not.

[hamster]

haha...new to the forum and already so much discussion

Gary: Perhaps i should explain: I was going off your example of the cyan colour cast on the dress. If his monitor is not calibrated, then perhaps an examination of the RGB values in CS or similar would have been a decent starting point for WB adjustment in PP in the shadow areas where the cast is apparent.

Definitely in a professional setting where money counts and time is money, then expodiscs, grey cards, WB settings, the whole nine yards should be used where applicable, and that would definitely occur in whatever the setup phase is of any photographer's onsite workflow. Indeed, when I operate in that capacity, that is the method to go by. I certainly agree that adjustments in the setup phase is certainly going to cut time and therefore costs during PP. So no, i would not be happy at X hundred/thousand photos all with incorrect and inconsistent (A)WB. But the impression i got here in the opening description was one of a much less formal meeting of photographer and his friends.

Now you tell me. How many photos would you, in that capacity, take? 10? 20? 100? 500? How many photos would you release to them from that number? As a professional yes, I would be fired, but as an amateur where we put in as much time as we want without obligation such as services rendered for money, this gives us the freedom to change and correct. However I also agree with you that it is important as a photographer that we do get into the practice of getting it right now than setting up for massive correction down the road.

Heck, you could carry on your "professional gets it right first time" argument to his flaws in composition, and you have. Not that my compositions are any better, but what concerns me more than the WB inaccuracy is the cropped body parts and distracting white thing in the background in example 2. My point was that perhaps in his case, with his current operating methods, having a wider lens would have given him more freedom to move around or crop in PP, as there are problems in composition. The freedom to correct by using RAW could perhaps also be applied to the freedom to correct with a wider image, so to speak. Like you said, though, perhaps he should have looked twice through the viewfinder before pressing that shutter button.

BullcreekBob: Good to know that young people like me are starting right early then.

David.

[gstark]

David,

haha...new to the forum and already so much discussion

It's a discussion forum. There would be something seriously amiss if we were not discussing something.

Gary: Perhaps i should explain: I was going off your example of the cyan colour cast on the dress. If his monitor is not calibrated, then perhaps an examination of the RGB values in CS or similar would have been a decent starting point for WB adjustment in PP in the shadow areas where the cast is apparent.

If your monitor is not calibrated, then what the hell are you doing even bothering to try to adjust colours or do very much PP anyway? You have no foundation upon which you can build. Your work is no better than precision guesswork.

Definitely in a professional setting where money counts and time is money, then expodiscs, grey cards, WB settings, the whole nine yards should be used where applicable, and that would definitely occur in whatever the setup phase is of any photographer's onsite workflow. Indeed, when I operate in that capacity, that is the method to go by. I certainly agree that adjustments in the setup phase is certainly going to cut time and therefore costs during PP. So no, i would not be happy at X hundred/thousand photos all with incorrect and inconsistent (A)WB. But the impression i got here in the opening description was one of a much less formal meeting of photographer and his friends.

So you lower your standards? May as well use a cellphone camera then; why bother using a DSLR and good glass if you're only going to print toilet paper?

Now you tell me. How many photos would you, in that capacity, take? 10? 20? 100? 500? How many photos would you release to them from that number? As a professional yes, I would be fired, but as an amateur where we put in as much time as we want without obligation such as services rendered for money, this gives us the freedom to change and correct. However I also agree with you that it is important as a photographer that we do get into the practice of getting it right now than setting up for massive correction down the road.

Exactly. There are times when it helps to be expedient. Getting things right, in the first instance, only makes things better and easier.

Even as an unpaid amateur. Does being unpaid make your efforts any less valuable? Does being unpaid mean that you should therefore spend more time on this?

I will certainly spend more time on doing stuff for my good friends, but none of that will be related (hopefully) to not doing stuff correctly in the first instance.

Heck, you could carry on your "professional gets it right first time" argument to his flaws in composition, and you have.

Yep. Is there a reason when, if I'm offering a critique, I should not offer my honest opinion? Please remember that we're talking about the image, not the individual, and all I'm doing is offering my opinion, for what that's worth. As long as the opinion is given in an open, and positive manner - as I believe I have done - then what is the problem?

You - everyone - is free to challenge my thoughts, as you have done. But if/when you do, you may need to be prepared to defend your points. In this instance you seem to ultimately agree with me; I happen to not see any reason to lower my standards. Further, I do see that if my points are observed, including those relating to composition, the outcomes that will be achieved will be good.

Am I wrong?

Is that not a good position to aim for?

Not that my compositions are any better, but what concerns me more than the WB inaccuracy is the cropped body parts and distracting white thing in the background in example 2. My point was that perhaps in his case, with his current operating methods, having a wider lens would have given him more freedom to move around or crop in PP, as there are problems in composition.

Or perhaps taking a half step backwards or to the right.

Or perhaps just leaning backwards.

Or perhaps rearranging the subjects.

Or ....

There are a great many options, none of which we can decide upon, because we were not there, at the shoot. He may have been standing at the edge of a pool, perhaps removing a number of options.

The point is though that he was shooting, and with a given lens, and he did not take those few extra seconds to check the viewfinder.

Regardless of the lens in use, he still needs to check the viewfinder. With a 50mm, he may have moved closer to subject, in order to - correctly, in all likelihood - fill the frame with the subjects. Without checking the viewfinder, the exact same errors may still happen.

Like you said, though, perhaps he should have looked twice through the viewfinder before pressing that shutter button.

No, that's not a perhaps. It's one of the most common errors that I've encountered in photography, but it is so easy to overcome. Subjects' hand placements would be another, and especially in wedding photography.

Quick question for you: do you shoot with both eyes open?

[rangie]

All I can say is "Bring it On!"... I placed my images in the critique section for that purpose... just like at the end of a Gordon Ramsay Show... the restaurant owner always thanks him in the end.. why, because his true honest opinion actually helped them, even though it caused some perturbation along the way...

The greatest part is that some fixes cost nothing (unlike some of the nice glass we all lust after!) 5 seconds more time spent, WB and composition, and I would end up with better pics... cost... $nil

I look forward to the day (although I doubt it will ever arrive) when I can post an Image in front of my more experienced peers and you have nothing to add...

thanks again for taking the time to help me...

Ben

[methd]

All I can say is "Bring it On!"... I placed my images in the critique section for that purpose... just like at the end of a Gordon Ramsay Show... the restaurant owner always thanks him in the end.. why, because his true honest opinion actually helped them, even though it caused some perturbation along the way...

The greatest part is that some fixes cost nothing (unlike some of the nice glass we all lust after!) 5 seconds more time spent, WB and composition, and I would end up with better pics... cost... $nil

I look forward to the day (although I doubt it will ever arrive) when I can post an Image in front of my more experienced peers and you have nothing to add...

thanks again for taking the time to help me...

Ben

taken like a true gentleman. that's the way it should be.

also one thing if i might add. I use a wibal card to get perfect WB, but the thing is, i prefer my potraits to be a little on the warm side anyway, so really, your end choice of WB is up to you.... do what you like best, as long as you know what you're doing.

[hamster]

Gary,

I wouldn't call it a lowering of standards. I would prefer to think of it as a different workflow for different situations (high vs low volume work). For friends and only 20 shots, i wouldn't mind manual adjustment for all 20, but obviously for high volume then that's a different question altogether.

There really is no problem. At the end of the day, it's just a your workflow vs mine issue, but to be honest I have a feeling when we both work in a high volume situation, there isn't that much difference in the methodology...simply because we both know that that is the fastest and therefore right way to go about things.

Does being unpaid mean that you should therefore spend more time on this?

I feel that this means that as an amateur I can choose to and can, not that i should have the most efficient method simply because of time/money, even if like you said, a shooter should get it right the first time. What about scenes where a warmer WB is required? That still requires adjustment.

Further, I do see that if my points are observed, including those relating to composition, the outcomes that will be achieved will be good.

I agree with you on that point. I am merely presenting a second opinion as to how he may have an improved outcome, focusing on the PP as opposed to setup and shooting stages (which is inefficient, but the photos have been taken already and i choose to comment on what can be done now seeing as you already talked quite indepth about what can be done in future before pressing that shutter button).

Quick question for you: do you shoot with both eyes open?

I shoot with both eyes open or one eye closed. It depends when. If i feel i may miss something in the crowd or elsewhere, then both eyes open. However if it's a single subject and I know it's going to be a single subject, then i can afford to shoot with one eye closed. I'm a left eye dominant but right handed person, so sometimes in dark environments that ready light on the speedlight does hurt a little.

Feel free to grill my work if you think it's worth the trouble, I'm very interested in reading what you'd have to say when you have the time.