Fashion shoot

[86JR]

Going to add more pics to this thread as I complete them but have a teaser for now and want your critique. No haters though please!

My SB600 packed up so couldnt fire the elinchrom flashes in the studio, but have found out i can do it straight off the D300s in commander mode, which I will bear in mind for the future. So whole shot was done off artificial light. Tripod wasnt good either, the head is rubbish IMO! (redsnapper).

So used ISO 800 which I am happy with. Only post processing done is reducing the saturation and vibrance slighty, this is because I couldnt nail the WB (tried allsorts of settings) so everything was coming out oversaturated.

EXIF Sub IFD

* Exposure Time 1/60 second
* Lens F-Number / F-Stop = ƒ/5
* Exposure Program = manual control (1)
* ISO Speed Ratings = 800
* Shutter Speed (Exposure Time) = 1/60 second
* Exposure Bias (EV) = -4/6 ===> -0.67
* Max Aperture = ƒ/3.48
* Distance to Subject = 237/100 m
* Metering Mode = center weighted average (2)
* Light Source / White Balance = unknown (0)
* Flash = Flash did not fire
* Focal Length = 180/10 mm ===> 18 mm
* Image Width = 2848 pixels
* Image Height = 3371 pixels
* Exposure Mode = manual exposure (1)
* White Balance = auto (0)
* Focal Length in 35mm Film = 27mm

 

[Phate]

Can I ask why are you using ISO800 with studio lights? You shouldn't need to at all.

When I'm using my studio gear I shoot typically

1/250
ISO100
Anywhere from f/8.0-f/13

 

[drunken fool]

i'm sure someone more qualified will give a better response but the shadows make him look like he's got mikey mouse ears. The pose just doesn't look 'natural' either.

 

[Schizophonic]

Going to add more pics to this thread as I complete them but have a teaser for now and want your critique. No haters though please!

So you want critique but no negative response...okay.

 

[bigredshark]

You should be shooting at lower ISO in that situation, the main problem is the flash setup needs work, those shadows are nasty. That aside it's not at all bad really, maybe fractionally overexposed - check the histogram??

 

[Phate]

So you want critique but no negative response...okay.

You've started already.

Critique is NOT a negative response. Saying 'lulz you used rubbish settings' is negative, saying its a bit overexposed and he needs to sort his flash settings out to get the lighting correct, is not.

 

[Raymond Lin]

I think he likes constructive criticism.

 

[Schizophonic]

You've started already.

Critique is NOT a negative response. Saying 'lulz you used rubbish settings' is negative, saying its a bit overexposed and he needs to sort his flash settings out to get the lighting correct, is not.

I didn't talk about his photo. I was commenting about how he worded his phrase.

I'll leave.

 

[ichabod crane]

Like what has already been said, you need lower ISO for studio work and the exposure is a little off. The bottom half of the image seems a bit soft around the jeans and hand, this sort of work needs to be pin sharp. Although it could be the harsh shadows causing this.

 

[kae2]

The "Flash" of the studio light is what determines the exposure time, your job is just to ensure that the shutter is open for the duration of that flash. I always use iso100 and 1/125th shutter speed when using my studio gear. Using a flash gun for walkabout events is different, but in this scenario, it's one size fits all for the vast majority of the time.

It looks like the capture is a little soft, so you could do with working on your focus lock, although this could be a product of your high iso (It shouldn't be with a D300).

You can easily fix your white balance issues by using a "grey card". Either buy a cheapie one, or print an 18% grey card on a printer and use that. Your camera has settings for custom white balance (RTFM).

SORRY - just re-read and you used natural light due to a failed flash gun? Ignore the comments above that don't apply then, lol.
For the record, I use a wireless transmitter to fire the flash guns (cost less than £30).

Andy.

 

[Phate]

Also, I've never used a tripod during a studio shoot...nor seen someone use one? - Try without, I think you'll find the freedom much better

 

[86JR]

Thankyou

I had to shoot handheld and didnt have enough light to do so on iso 200, some of the shots I had him moving around in conversation to try and get some narrative going on, so I was snapping away at 6fps as you will see in some of the others, so i needed a quick shutter speed.

My favorite but cant get the noise out.

Artifacts

Pleased with this one!

Eurgh shadow!

Like this one too!

 

[Phate]

Thankyou

I had to shoot handheld and didnt have enough light to do so on iso 200, some of the shots I had him moving around in conversation to try and get some narrative going on, so I was snapping away at 6fps as you will see in some of the others, so i needed a quick shutter speed.

Hang on, not enough light to shoot at ISO200?

Using Studio lights you must have?

Also studio lights at 6fps?

Where the lights actually firing between each shot? or when you say studio lights is it a continuous light source? What lights are they?

 

[Johnny|lucidcomposure]

Basically you got a very dark scene there even with a fastish lens. The typical dark black studio with only fill lights is "not" enough to shoot a low ISO and capture high quality clean, sharp images.

 

[Johnny|lucidcomposure]

Hang on, not enough light to shoot at ISO200?

Using Studio lights you must have?

Also studio lights at 6fps?

Where the lights actually firing between each shot? or when you say studio lights is it a continuous light source? What lights are they?

He hasn't got a working flash system. He's using fill lamps. Thats obvious from the cast of light in the images. Its very possible to strugle at F5 ISO 800 with that light source.

 

[Phate]

He hasn't got a working flash system. He's using fill lamps. Thats obvious from the cast of light in the images. Its very possible to strugle at F5 ISO 800 with that light source.

Aye, clocked this, makes sense to.

Now it makes sense

2bl, you've got a perfectly capable camera, if you want to get into studio photography set yourself up with a proper lighting system, mine is all second hand cost me a few hundred and works perfectly fine, one of the best purchases I've ever made!

 

[86JR]

I just had to make best of the situation really, i had a black background in a black painted studio with a black floor and ceiling, and 4 continuous lighting lamps. I couldnt trigger the flash, so just used the lighting. Hence ramping the ISO up, and i was told the d300s handles iso 800 with no noise, which is obviously wrong.

I dont shoot in raw either as my monitor is iffy so i do as little PP as possible so not to ruin the images (as you know, i was told all my images i PP'd and posted on here were terrible). I always try and nail the exposure in jpeg from the camera and im slowly getting to the point where i can guess what aparture and shutter speeds i need. Flash complicates all that (as does iso).

 

[bigredshark]

I think the best thing you could do would be to remove those shadows in photoshop - they should in most cases be fairly easy to mask looking at them. If you don't know how to do it then it's well worth learning, command on photoshop's masking tools is one of the most useful skills going.

It's difficult to tell at these sizes but they don't look pin sharp to my eyes, which is something you really need to aim for with studio work. Related to that, I wouldn't generally be shooting in burst mode for studio work unless you're using it to capture something very specific (all but the best strobes aren't going to keep up anyway). The big advantage of a studio is the controlled environment which means you can setup your shot until your 100% happy, under those circumstance you shouldn't need burst mode unless you're looking for an effect. (In my view, I'm not a massive studio photographer myself but I can do it)

 

[xaldub]

I dont shoot in raw either as my monitor is iffy so i do as little PP as possible so not to ruin the images (as you know, i was told all my images i PP'd and posted on here were terrible). I always try and nail the exposure in jpeg from the camera and im slowly getting to the point where i can guess what aparture and shutter speeds i need. Flash complicates all that (as does iso).

Don't know who gave you that advice , you really should be shooting in RAW to get the most out of your photos. You have to be really good to shoot perfect JPEG's nearly all the time ...

 

[drunken fool]

sorry, but the shadows in the extra photo's are even worse. Also, is it me or are most of the pics very soft/slightly out of focus? Not sure if it's intentional or not.

not sure what the relevance of an iffy monitor is to not shooting in raw? Surely you are already starting from a compressed (and lossy) image so any corrections you can make in post processing are majorly limited?