Got a new SB900 and decided to practice OCF (on myself)

lindazgrin

I've been a natural light photographer for 4 years but decided it's time to step it up a little.

SB900 on a lightstand, thru umbrella. I haven't quite grasped why thru or bouning in umbrella would be different?

Anyway, I took a lot but these came out good enough to post.

D'Buggs

Very nice........... The diff b'tween shooting with the cover on/off is the type of light - Without it, the light takes on a near soft box quality but we lose a lot of light. Works pretty good when/if set close to the subject.

Qarik

these are very nice shots.

chrisdg

These images are quite captivating, particularly #2, and the "model" is gorgeous. :wow

Wil Davis

#1: Great skin tones and gorgeous eyes - straight into the lens, BANG! connection! My only concern is that the patterns on the top are competing with the OOF highlights in the background (certainly in black & white); It might have worked in colour if the top had been in red or green...

#2: Those eyes again! Wow! I might have cropped different, depending on the target use of the picture (for instance, for cover pic, leave space for titles and stuff, which is what you did. For portrait, I would have cropped tighter; same goes for #1:

Nice job!

- Wil

(PS: wanna job as a model??? )

lindazgrin

D'Buggs wrote:

Very nice........... The diff b'tween shooting with the cover on/off is the type of light - Without it, the light takes on a near soft box quality but we lose a lot of light. Works pretty good when/if set close to the subject.

So you are saying that putting on the black cover, I would actually loose less light? That makes sense. Good to know. TY

lindazgrin

Wil Davis wrote:

#1: Great skin tones and gorgeous eyes - straight into the lens, BANG! connection! My only concern is that the patterns on the top are competing with the OOF highlights in the background (certainly in black & white); It might have worked in colour if the top had been in red or green...

#2: Those eyes again! Wow! I might have cropped different, depending on the target use of the picture (for instance, for cover pic, leave space for titles and stuff, which is what you did. For portrait, I would have cropped tighter; same goes for #1:

Nice job!

- Wil

(PS: wanna job as a model??? )

Thanks for your input, much appreciated. Actually #2 has a portrait orientation as original but for some reason I didn't like it. Yeah, I should have cropped tighter on #1 especially. For some reason I like some "air" in my photos.

lol... sure, if you ever come to the crystal coast and don't mind a 34 year old

Wil Davis

I dunno about a black cover, but I understand D'Buggs to mean that if you shoot through the umbrella (i.e. umbrella between the flash head and subject) then the light is very diffuse, but much light is lost (absorbed) by the umbrella, whereas turning the umbrella around so that the flash head points into the umbrella which then reflects the light back onto the subject, the quality of the light is less diffuse, but there is more of it…

(sorry, sentence turned into epistle…)

- Wil

Edit: re-read: ah! perhaps D'Buggs was talking about the white dome thingy which you can put over the flash head; yes, those things absorb a lot of light, but I also stand by what I wrote.

BTW - so, what colour was the top (looked like some sort of embroidered Chinese silk…)

Wil Davis

lindazgrin wrote:

…snip
For some reason I like some "air" in my photos.
snip…

Understood, but one of my basic rules is "fill the frame"; I realize that you can crop "'til the cows come home" after the fact, but by doing so you're throwing away data.

Anyway, I do like your pictures…

- Wil

bendruckerphoto

Nice exposure and composition. As has been said, a shoot-thru will give off softer light, but at the cost of less light output. Light bounced off a white umbrella will be harsher, but more of the light is sent in the right direction because of the black backing. A silver umbrella will maintain even more of your flash's output, but at the cost of fairly harsh light.

lindazgrin

Wil Davis wrote:

I dunno about a black cover, but I understand D'Buggs to mean that if you shoot through the umbrella (i.e. umbrella between the flash head and subject) then the light is very diffuse, but much light is lost (absorbed) by the umbrella, whereas turning the umbrella around so that the flash head points into the umbrella which then reflects the light back onto the subject, the quality of the light is less diffuse, but there is more of it…

(sorry, sentence turned into epistle…)

- Wil

Edit: re-read: ah! perhaps D'Buggs was talking about the white dome thingy which you can put over the flash head; yes, those things absorb a lot of light, but I also stand by what I wrote.

BTW - so, what colour was the top (looked like some sort of embroidered Chinese silk…)

Great info, I'll have to try that sometime.

Oh it's a blue chinese dress.

lindazgrin

Wil Davis wrote:

Understood, but one of my basic rules is "fill the frame"; I realize that you can crop "'til the cows come home" after the fact, but by doing so you're throwing away data.

Anyway, I do like your pictures…

- Wil

I usually get a little uncertain where to crop when limbs are involved, do you have any tip regarding that?

Qarik

bendruckerphoto wrote:

Nice exposure and composition. As has been said, a shoot-thru will give off softer light, but at the cost of less light output. Light bounced off a white umbrella will be harsher, but more of the light is sent in the right direction because of the black backing. A silver umbrella will maintain even more of your flash's output, but at the cost of fairly harsh light.

I question whether you get more light due to the black lining in the umbrella. Since it is black it absorbs a great majority of the light. It will however keep light from straying/reflecting from anything behind the umbrella.

bendruckerphoto

Qarik wrote:

I question whether you get more light due to the black lining in the umbrella. Since it is black it absorbs a great majority of the light. It will however keep light from straying/reflecting from anything behind the umbrella.

The physics of that certainly make sense. I guess I use a reflective umbrella so rarely, I've never though about it! Shoot-thru is way better!

rwells

Linda,

I agree that the first shot the patterns on the top are clashing with the bg highlights, and both are competing with your face.

Second photo: I have no nits here. I like the image, including the crop

D'Buggs

Lemme clairify;


How I set up umby's is to bounce light back to the subject, with or without the covers on.... When they're off, we lose a lot of 'power' because much of the light travels on through the 'brella and off to outer-space (perhaps 2 stops worth). But what does come back is really nice and soft - Not quite softbox material but pretty close IMO.


Again, I'm using the umby in the same manner as though I were using the reflector (black dome) attached but in order to maintain power, the dial needs to be cranked or light set closer, or both (depends on what ya got for a light source).

bdcolen

Fill the frame

Wil Davis wrote:

Understood, but one of my basic rules is "fill the frame"; I realize that you can crop "'til the cows come home" after the fact, but by doing so you're throwing away data.

Anyway, I do like your pictures…

- Wil

I'll admit that I don't understand having a "rule" that the frame must be "filled." That's like saying, 'I see everything the same and want shots that all look the same.' Every shot should, ideally, be cropped with the finder, but that 'crop' can include air, empty space, whatever one wants to call it, if one thinks that it enhances the image.

In this case, I can see tighening the vertical shot somewhat, but I personally like the framing of the horizontal shot, with the subject to the left and the empty space to the right.

It's all a matter of personal vision.

lindazgrin

bdcolen wrote:

I'll admit that I don't understand having a "rule" that the frame must be "filled." That's like saying, 'I see everything the same and want shots that all look the same.' Every shot should, ideally, be cropped with the finder, but that 'crop' can include air, empty space, whatever one wants to call it, if one thinks that it enhances the image.

In this case, I can see tighening the vertical shot somewhat, but I personally like the framing of the horizontal shot, with the subject to the left and the empty space to the right.

It's all a matter of personal vision.

wise words

lindazgrin

rwells wrote:

Linda,

I agree that the first shot the patterns on the top are clashing with the bg highlights, and both are competing with your face.

Second photo: I have no nits here. I like the image, including the crop

Thank you, and I do see what you guys mean with the bg on #1. I should have cropped off at least that group of lights up there. It's a forest with the sun.

Wil Davis

bdcolen wrote:

…snip
That's like saying, 'I see everything the same and want shots that all look the same.'
…snip

Not really; somewhat of an exaggeration, actually…

…perhaps you missed the bit about depending on the target use of the picture.

- Wil

divamum

I think these are lovely (as are you - my goodness what a good lookin' bunch of female photogs are in this place, at least judging by some of the self portraits I've seen! Yes, Caroline and Heather, that would be you two leading a strong pack..... ) Great dress too.

I also LOVE the umbrella shot - that's inspired! I hope you're considering using that as promo material, because it has such a wonderful sense of humour in it. (and if it's a standard shot that "lots of people do" that I've missed along the way in my n00bness, apologies, but I think it's very clever indeed )

jeffreaux2

On the convertable umbrella.....

-Something to consider.... In a shoot through fashion much of the light is also bounced back toward the flash...away from your subject(this is refered to as "spill"). The light that does make its way through the umbrella is indeed diffused, and is radiated perpendicular to the surface of the umbrella (though stronger towards the center). So if you can imagine light shooting straight out from the umbrella...some even near its edges....then you realize that in a shoot through fashion it will cover a fairly wide area with light. Again, the light will be strongest near the center of the umbrella with a nice even falloff toward its edges.

-Bounced out of the umbrella...with the cover on...will help prevent "spill". The coverage will be a bit smaller. You still lose light since you are bouncing off a surface that isn't of perfect reflective quality, but that is the point....otherwise a direct flash would suit just as well.

Choosing which method to use depends largely on the surroundings. Outdoors, I use a shoot through unless I am seeing odd shadows produced from the "spill" bouncing off nearby walls or surfaces and back onto my subject.

Indoors.....I don't do much indoor work, but if I did.....I'd probably use the umbrella with the cover in a bounce arrangement unless I was in a very darkly painted room(ceilings and walls) to prevent unwanted spill from affecting the images.

Your examples look great...and this from a fella who knows a thing or two about the trials of trying to get your noggin in focus in a self portrait. Well done!

lindazgrin

divamum wrote:

I think these are lovely (as are you - my goodness what a good lookin' bunch of female photogs are in this place, at least judging by some of the self portraits I've seen! Yes, Caroline and Heather, that would be you two leading a strong pack..... ) Great dress too.

I also LOVE the umbrella shot - that's inspired! I hope you're considering using that as promo material, because it has such a wonderful sense of humour in it. (and if it's a standard shot that "lots of people do" that I've missed along the way in my n00bness, apologies, but I think it's very clever indeed )

lol...thank you I'm sure it's been done frequently, but I couldn't resist. Too bad I missed most of the head/umbrella.

lindazgrin

jeffreaux2 wrote:

On the convertable umbrella.....

-Something to consider.... In a shoot through fashion much of the light is also bounced back toward the flash...away from your subject(this is refered to as "spill"). The light that does make its way through the umbrella is indeed diffused, and is radiated perpendicular to the surface of the umbrella (though stronger towards the center). So if you can imagine light shooting straight out from the umbrella...some even near its edges....then you realize that in a shoot through fashion it will cover a fairly wide area with light. Again, the light will be strongest near the center of the umbrella with a nice even falloff toward its edges.

-Bounced out of the umbrella...with the cover on...will help prevent "spill". The coverage will be a bit smaller. You still lose light since you are bouncing off a surface that isn't of perfect reflective quality, but that is the point....otherwise a direct flash would suit just as well.

Choosing which method to use depends largely on the surroundings. Outdoors, I use a shoot through unless I am seeing odd shadows produced from the "spill" bouncing off nearby walls or surfaces and back onto my subject.

Indoors.....I don't do much indoor work, but if I did.....I'd probably use the umbrella with the cover in a bounce arrangement unless I was in a very darkly painted room(ceilings and walls) to prevent unwanted spill from affecting the images.

Your examples look great...and this from a fella who knows a thing or two about the trials of trying to get your noggin in focus in a self portrait. Well done!

Thank you Jeff, I appreciate the write-up...and the compliment!

Mitchell

Linda, these are lovely.

I prefer to use a shoot through outdoors. Perhaps Jeff taught me that. The light is soft and diffuse. Much nicer than a bare flash or bounced into an umbrella.

lindazgrin

Mitchell wrote:

Linda, these are lovely.

I prefer to use a shoot through outdoors. Perhaps Jeff taught me that. The light is soft and diffuse. Much nicer than a bare flash or bounced into an umbrella.

Mitch, you're here too! :ivar

Mitchell

lindazgrin wrote:

Mitch, you're here too! :ivar

My 5 year anniversary here this month! I'm still waiting for a cake.

RBrogen

These are great SPs. Course the subject makes it much easier for the camera! lol

lindazgrin

Mitchell wrote:

My 5 year anniversary here this month! I'm still waiting for a cake.

5! where have I been all this time.... I have 5 years at FM but it's not very friendly over there, so I don't post.

lindazgrin

RBrogen wrote:

These are great SPs. Course the subject makes it much easier for the camera! lol

Oh, I have plenty of SPs in the trash can. Make-up, good light, a smooth lens and some airbrushing works like charm