1st time Engagement Photos

[lazuras_dc]

So I did a very short session with some friends so that they could have a few pics to appease the parents and have 1 to put in the paper.

Please give me some feedback on these. I might be doing a couple of more of these types of shoots in the future.

Thanks!

1.



2.


3. Going for a vintage look here


4.



5.


6.


7.

[ngoduyviet]

I'm supposed to get a crap load of work done, but too lazy so here goes:

1. You need to crank up that flash a little or reduce the F stop & increase the shutter speed. This would help kill some of the ambient and keep the shots sharper, also your flash didn't have to work too hard.

2. If you went for silhouette, went completely silhouette, don't go half way.

3. Selective color was popular, not anymore.

4. Except the first shot, the rest of the series didn't give any intimate feelings to them. Gotta get them closer.

[ronocnikral]

well viet, i'll let you be that guy...

i would argue point number 3 above. while i don't like selective coloring or ever use it, i think it is still popular among certain clientele. abc/espn uses it all the time. and when used, it should bringout the subjects, not take away from it.

DC, i think you did an OK job. some issues with posing, flash exposure and sharpness. my2 cents is that if you plan to continue doing this, you should find someone with some experience and tag along to see what they do. opps come up here on tpf from time to time.

keep working and studying and you'll get there eventually...

[lazuras_dc]

Yeah, we all were later to the shoot than intended by a good 30min. and it was already getting pretty dark. I ended up going with longer shutter speeds bc everything was getting too dark. Most of it was shot ~f2.8
I realized later I could've upped the ISO as well as played with the metering for some of the other pics. Of course, I didn't charge them it was a favor ;)

Thanks for the opinions. Anything else?

[toverman]

Fun shots overall. It's hard to judge sharpness with photos online, but I'll say that No. 5 looks completely soft (could be a longer shutter speed, as it's brighter than the others).

[clbegis]

I am going to jump in here and ask a question that is maybe more for me. DC Indicates that everything was shot at 2.8. Aside from differences in monitors and overall sharpness, the woman's face looks to be sharper than his in picture #4. Is that just me? Should she have gone with a smaller aperture to increase the DOF? Does that small amount of depth difference really make that much of a difference in shooting 2.8? Not knocking the pics, just trying to learn something myself.

[photojournalist]

Originally Posted by clbegis

I am going to jump in here and ask a question that is maybe more for me. DC Indicates that everything was shot at 2.8. Aside from differences in monitors and overall sharpness, the woman's face looks to be sharper than his in picture #4. Is that just me? Should she have gone with a smaller aperture to increase the DOF? Does that small amount of depth difference really make that much of a difference in shooting 2.8? Not knocking the pics, just trying to learn something myself.

#4, looks like he shot it at f4, iso200, and at 1/13th. She is a tad sharper than him, and at 2.8 it would've been worst. For a pose like this, I usually go at least f4, but apparently in this pic even f4 was not enough, so maybe 5.6 would've been better. If it was me, I would probably shoot it at ISO 400 or higher so I wouldn't have to deal with the slow shutter speed.

[ngoduyviet]

Originally Posted by clbegis

I am going to jump in here and ask a question that is maybe more for me. DC Indicates that everything was shot at 2.8. Aside from differences in monitors and overall sharpness, the woman's face looks to be sharper than his in picture #4. Is that just me? Should she have gone with a smaller aperture to increase the DOF? Does that small amount of depth difference really make that much of a difference in shooting 2.8? Not knocking the pics, just trying to learn something myself.

Except a couple of shots at F2.8, from the EXIF, everything else was shot from F4 and smaller @ 50mm.

F2.8 is fairly thin for someone who's not used to it and yeah it makes a big difference when shot with medium to tele lens. In this case, DC should have closed it down a lot more than F4 @ 50mm to get them both in focus.

[S-Man]

I think 1 and 2 can be saved somewhat. With 2 I'd up the blacks to make the silhouette an actual silhouette, and bump the vibrance and saturation, the oranges and reds to bring out the sky, add some contrast etc. making a silhouette shot with a gorgeous sky.

With 1 I'd raise the fill and increase contrast a touch, along with perhaps local adjustments on the sky to bring it out, maybe a graduated brightness adjustment on it.

Hope you shot RAW.

As was said, shooting wide open is all good, but make sure they're on the same focal plane. (or is it plain?)

I hate when a shoot starts later than planned. You have to rush and stuff, and you only get to shoot for like 30 minutes before it's completely dark :o/

Also, I think I'm going to start a protest group: P.A.S.Co. (Photographers Against Selective Coloring)

[peeker]

Hey DC... I like what you are attempting to do here. I just shot a similar picture to what you attempted in #7. The comment I would make is use a triggered off camera flash to fill in their faces, while leaving the sunset backdrop colorful. I can't tell, but would guess that you used an on camera flash which isn't going to be either powerful enough, or directional to give you the effect you want.

Be careful about the composition. Because of the darkness, you have the line of the backdrop going directly through their heads. Would be better if you either got their heads above the treeline by laying on the ground, or better yet to elevate yourself to have their entire body against the water.

Lastly, your horizon line is crooked.

[S-Man]

Yeah, but keep at it man. Study peoples work and how they did things. You'll look back on these and smile. :)

[lazuras_dc]

Good points that I did not notice before.

I actually went back to look at some of my EXIF data, and actually a lot of them were shot with smaller aperture than I thought. I think I was trying to get a bigger DOF and get the background in better focus rather than being blurry. But since it was getting so dark it kind of worked against me. A lot of the EXIF I wondered why I picked that, but I guess we were kinda rushed and being 1st time was just trying to get it done before it got completely dark.

I don't have the set up for an off camera flash. I was using a 430ex hotshoe for these, any ideas on something cheap to start off with ?

[S-Man]

Either an ST-E2 speedlite controller, or those ebay triggers. Cybersyncs are kind of lower cost for radio triggers.
ST-E2's can be had used for like $150.

[lazuras_dc]

So do you have a wireless transmitter on the hostshoe then do you have the flash and umbrella mounted on a tripod ?

[S-Man]

Yeah, that's usually how they trigger. Either that or the sync cable.
The ST-E2 is on the hotshoe, as well as the wireless triggers. You then mount a flash on a lightstand with either the receiver or a Canon flash in slave mode.
Do some searches on the Pros and Cons of the ST-E2 and decide what's best for your uses.