group o' kids

Elaine

Today I had a shoot with this group: 4 siblings and their cousin. I've taken their photos for 3-4 years now, and they are not my easiest clients, but they are cute! As we were shooting at 4 pm, I knew I needed to find shade where they wouldn't squint, and then use fill flash. I used a shoot-thru umbrella with a gelled flash, and even though there are some chin shadows, I'm relieved to have captured this shot. I didn't have to do much at all in post. I got some cute ones of the baby alone, so even though she's not looking, at least we can see her eyes! I'm hoping that it doesn't look overly flashed to other photogs, but I'd love to have some C&C on this for ways to improve for next time.

Canon 40D, 70-200 f/4 L IS at f/4 and 70mm, 1/200 sec, ISO 200
shoot-thru umbrella with gelled flash (1/3 CTB)
edited in LR2

jeffreaux2

Well on my uncalibrated iPod touch it looks like you were stressing for no good reason! This looks great. Yes you have chin shadows but they are soft edged and much more pleasant than flat shadowless light. I like the balance of flash to ambient. Do you recall the fec setting? On here it could stand to be warmer... But I'll need to check that on my calibrated of to be sure.

Very nice. Love the light!

sweet caroline

Looks great! I like the there's some personality in this shot, and gorgeous eyes. The light looks good.

Caroline

divamum

sweet caroline wrote:

Looks great! I like the there's some personality in this shot, and gorgeous eyes. The light looks good.

Caroline

I think it's delightful

heatherfeather

Me too! (And thank God they are building shorts into little girls' skirts now-a-days!)

jeffreaux2

heatherfeather wrote:

Me too! (And thank God they are building shorts into little girls' skirts now-a-days!)

Heather, should we get Elaine to " repeat after me"? She is waaay ready to admit it. Dontya think?

Elaine

Yay! Thank you so much!
Jeff, the flash was at -2/3 FEC. Have you checked this on your monitor yet? I'm curious what your impression of the WB is. I did warm it up, but sometimes just because it's warmer than the original, it looks warm enough, but maybe it's not quite there.
Heather...yes! I had the same thought about the skirt/shorts! Her mom was trying to get her to sit in a more "lady like" position, but she was very wiggly and thankfully it didn't really matter.

Elaine

jeffreaux2 wrote:

Heather, should we get Elaine to " repeat after me"? She is waaay ready to admit it. Dontya think?

I don't know what this means, but I think I'd better run awaaaayyy! I'm quite certain I'm not ready to admit anything!

PS - I actually had nightmares about this shoot last night. We were wandering around the countryside, and I couldn't find a setting or background or lighting that worked. We must have been in Alaska, because it was nearing 10:30 pm and it was still light out, although it was getting more dim and I kept saying, "We're losing the light, we're losing the light!" My one consolation was that I thought I might be able to swing a cool silhouette shot of the family. Heehee...

heatherfeather

This is how it goes:

Elaine, repeat after me.... "I know EXACTLY what I am doing."

(Jeff has made me do this more than once... ha ha!)
And then rest secured in the knowledge that you are doing GREAT! And your photo is fantastic! (AND I was thinking that your wb was right on!)

Scott_Quier

Flash level looks good. Color looks good.

So (and just to get on the bandwagon ), repeat after me, "I know EXACTLY what I'm doing!"

Wil Davis

I think that's a fabulous picture! The expressions are priceless, and I think the baby's distraction adds to the interest (yes, I know I always say that the subject should be looking into the lens, but I think here the exception proves the rule! )

The lighting is great, and gives the picture just enough of the "three dimensional" look, with the background being out of focus - nice job!

I hope you did more shots of this group - they look so very interesting!

Thanks for sharing!
- Wil

BTW aren't they called "skorts"?

Elaine

Scott_Quier wrote:

Flash level looks good. Color looks good.

So (and just to get on the bandwagon ), repeat after me, "I know EXACTLY what I'm doing!"

Thanks, Scott!!
Uhh...until I can not be surprised that I got something to work, I don't think I can say that! rofl

jeffreaux2

Looking at it again on a real monitor.....and a calibrated one....I think the wb looks fine. Another bonus is that now...at a bigger size...I can also see that it has that unmistakeable "Elaine" look to it.

The skirt issue could be a nit, but with the baby looking away, and the boy at lefts expression and arm the way they are....well the "formality" has already been knocked down a bit....and together all these issues combine to make what could have been stiff and formal a bit more fun and personable. I like it.

The intersection where the foliage meets the ground behind them creates a line that roughly divides the image in half.....and runs right through a couple heads. This doesnt bother me so much....although I am told that it should. As an outdoor portrait shooter myself, I know that it is tough to avoid since location and composition are often dictated by where the shade is.....a task made harder for groups rather than a single subject.


I like it....on a large screen as well!
Ya done good.


Now repeat after me....

" I am a good photographer and know exactly what I am doing":D

Elaine

Wil Davis wrote:

I think that's a fabulous picture! The expressions are priceless, and I think the baby's distraction adds to the interest (yes, I know I always say that the subject should be looking into the lens, but I think here the exception proves the rule! )

The lighting is great, and gives the picture just enough of the "three dimensional" look, with the background being out of focus - nice job!

I hope you did more shots of this group - they look so very interesting!

Thanks for sharing!
- Wil

BTW aren't they called "skorts"?

Thank you very much, Wil! I took a lot of shots to get this one. I had at least three poses in mind, and we tried two, but none worked as well as this one shot. And since Grandma was along, footing the bill, and she just wants a big shot of all her grandkids together, I think this is the winner.

A skort is technically a piece that looks like a skirt on the front while the back appears to be shorts...so basically shorts with a skirt panel on the front. The little girl's outfit in this photo included a full skirt with matching shorts built in underneath. Perfect for playing while still looking girly...and for posing for pictures.

divamum

Elaine wrote:

A skort is technically a piece that looks like a skirt on the front while the back appears to be shorts...so basically shorts with a skirt panel on the front. The little girl's outfit in this photo included a full skirt with matching shorts built in underneath. Perfect for playing while still looking girly...and for posing for pictures.

Actually, as mom to a girl, these combos are also called skorts in the stores now, even though they're not strictly speaking the tennis-skirt style of old. They're GREAT for active little girls

Elaine, it amazes me that you worry about your technical security - your shots are always lit to perfection and have a sparkle to them that I love.... and wish I knew how to do!!

Elaine

jeffreaux2 wrote:

Looking at it again on a real monitor.....and a calibrated one....I think the wb looks fine. Another bonus is that now...at a bigger size...I can also see that it has that unmistakeable "Elaine" look to it.

The skirt issue could be a nit, but with the baby looking away, and the boy at lefts expression and arm the way they are....well the "formality" has already been knocked down a bit....and together all these issues combine to make what could have been stiff and formal a bit more fun and personable. I like it.

The intersection where the foliage meets the ground behind them creates a line that roughly divides the image in half.....and runs right through a couple heads. This doesnt bother me so much....although I am told that it should. As an outdoor portrait shooter myself, I know that it is tough to avoid since location and composition are often dictated by where the shade is.....a task made harder for groups rather than a single subject.


I like it....on a large screen as well!
Ya done good.


Now repeat after me....

" I am a good photographer and know exactly what I am doing":D

My photos have a look??! I'm not sure what it is, but I thank you kindly. Yes, I noticed the cut-in-half thing going on, too. I do usually try to avoid this, but as you said, location challenges can be tough sometimes. I think this is one of those things that photogs often try to avoid, knowing it can make a difference in the look and feel of a photo, but a lot of people wouldn't even notice it, so I'm choosing to let it go.

Hey...LR question for you. I've been setting my photos to export with standard screen sharpening, and I like the results. Do you do this, and do you change that setting for photos that will be printed?

jeffreaux2

Elaine wrote:

My photos have a look??! I'm not sure what it is, but I thank you kindly. Yes, I noticed the cut-in-half thing going on, too. I do usually try to avoid this, but as you said, location challenges can be tough sometimes. I think this is one of those things that photogs often try to avoid, knowing it can make a difference in the look and feel of a photo, but a lot of people wouldn't even notice it, so I'm choosing to let it go.

Hey...LR question for you. I've been setting my photos to export with standard screen sharpening, and I like the results. Do you do this, and do you change that setting for photos that will be printed?

Im not sure what "standard screen sharpening" is or how to set that(enlighten me). I sharpen for print always....and care very little if that has a negative impact on how it looks on-screen.

Elaine

divamum wrote:

Actually, as mom to a girl, these combos are also called skorts in the stores now, even though they're not strictly speaking the tennis-skirt style of old. They're GREAT for active little girls

Elaine, it amazes me that you worry about your technical security - your shots are always lit to perfection and have a sparkle to them that I love.... and wish I knew how to do!!

I stand corrected! I should have known things would be different now. Thanks for clearing that up.
And thank you for your kind, sweet words, Diva! I have said so many times to my husband that I just don't do this sort of thing regularly enough to make it feel familiar and secure. And I get so nervous that I don't seek out opportunities to do it more than just what comes my way. And so I remain in a weird, nervous cycle. I love to shoot events where I can just wander and the "client" (usually not paying) is just happy to get whatever I give. But when it comes down to getting paid and there are expectations involved (certainly on my part, somewhat on their part) I break out in a cold sweat! Working with flash is certainly not in my so-easy-I-don't-have-to-think-about-it bag of tricks yet, so this just adds to the anxiety. I've seriously considered not renewing my business license this summer and just shooting for family and volunteer projects. I don't know... but I sincerely appreciate your vote of confidence. And everyone else's here. Thank you!

Elaine

jeffreaux2 wrote:

Im not sure what "standard screen sharpening" is or how to set that(enlighten me). I sharpen for print always....and care very little if that has a negative impact on how it looks on-screen.

I wasn't doing this until I attended Kelby's Live LR training. In the Export dialogue box (is that what it's called? you know...the box that pops up when you export a photo), one of the categories is "output sharpening." I choose screen and standard. Kelby said that "low" was basically non existent and "standard" was basically low. There are also options for matte paper and glossy paper, but I've not tried those. I ordered a few prints from my point and shoot with the screen-standard settings, and they seemed to be fine. Just wondered what other LR users are doing. I also apply a little sharpening in LR in the Detail box.

jeffreaux2

Elaine wrote:

I wasn't doing this until I attended Kelby's Live LR training. In the Export dialogue box (is that what it's called? you know...the box that pops up when you export a photo), one of the categories is "output sharpening." I choose screen and standard. Kelby said that "low" was basically non existent and "standard" was basically low. There are also options for matte paper and glossy paper, but I've not tried those. I ordered a few prints from my point and shoot with the screen-standard settings, and they seemed to be fine. Just wondered what other LR users are doing. I also apply a little sharpening in LR in the Detail box.

Okay....

I leave output sharpening un-checked. In the sharpening tool in the develop mode I usually set a .7 radius and use the sharpening amount...along with the mask...to suit each photo on an individual basis. If Im sure I wont be printing anything larger than 4x6....I often let the default amount of sharpening be applied.

I still SOMETIMES do additional high -pass sharpening in photoshop, but am doing that less and less.

There was a time not so long ago when I would set LR's sharpening to zero and do it all in photoshop, but that changed with the resolution jump from XTi to 50D....dont ask me why...I dunno.....but it seemed that the images NEEDED to be sharpened prior to working with them elsewhere.


...and yes your work has a look...

I used to think it was from the Oly gear.....but you switched to Canon and the look remained. Then I though it might be that you used either a multiply or overlay layer to gain contrast.....but I doubt that this is the case either at least for EVERYthing you shoot. More than likely it is associated with how your eye sees color and the adjustments you do to make it look right to you. If I am right here, then you have a good eye for pleasing color. Its a goodness.

I know what you mean about getting the eebie-geebies when you are charging money and EXPECTED to produce. I have a December wedding that I am probably overstressing about...not because it will go any better or worse than any other I have covered, but more likely because I am charging A LOT more money. But so be it. Ive drawn my line in the sand there. Weddings are a LOT of work and if you want me to shoot it your gonna have to show me ($$$) that you want me. I will likely get less wedding work because of that....but Im fine with that. Even if December's wedding were my last.

Dont sell yourself short. If you need practice to make yourself more at ease then practice, but seriously......you know how to use the gear.

Elaine

jeffreaux2 wrote:

Okay....

I leave output sharpening un-checked. In the sharpening tool in the develop mode I usually set a .7 radius and use the sharpening amount...along with the mask...to suit each photo on an individual basis. If Im sure I wont be printing anything larger than 4x6....I often let the default amount of sharpening be applied.

I still SOMETIMES do additional high -pass sharpening in photoshop, but am doing that less and less.

There was a time not so long ago when I would set LR's sharpening to zero and do it all in photoshop, but that changed with the resolution jump from XTi to 50D....dont ask me why...I dunno.....but it seemed that the images NEEDED to be sharpened prior to working with them elsewhere.


...and yes your work has a look...

I used to think it was from the Oly gear.....but you switched to Canon and the look remained. Then I though it might be that you used either a multiply or overlay layer to gain contrast.....but I doubt that this is the case either at least for EVERYthing you shoot. More than likely it is associated with how your eye sees color and the adjustments you do to make it look right to you. If I am right here, then you have a good eye for pleasing color. Its a goodness.

I know what you mean about getting the eebie-geebies when you are charging money and EXPECTED to produce. I have a December wedding that I am probably overstressing about...not because it will go any better or worse than any other I have covered, but more likely because I am charging A LOT more money. But so be it. Ive drawn my line in the sand there. Weddings are a LOT of work and if you want me to shoot it your gonna have to show me ($$$) that you want me. I will likely get less wedding work because of that....but Im fine with that. Even if December's wedding were my last.

Dont sell yourself short. If you need practice to make yourself more at ease then practice, but seriously......you know how to use the gear.

As I've become more comfortable and familiar with LR, I use CS3 less and less as well. In fact, now I try to avoid it for day-to-day processing, even though I had some favorite actions that I liked to use. I haven't done much experimenting with the sharpening thing; thanks for sharing your take on it. Is there a reason you don't use the output sharpening, or is it that you just haven't chosen to include it in your workflow?

It's interesting to hear that there has been some consistency throughout my journey shared on DGrin. At first it was Minolta gear and PSE 3 and then 5. Then it was Canon gear and PSE 5 and CS3. Then came LR (since Feb). I can look back and say that I do a lot less post work than I used to, partly because I'm getting cleaner shots SOOC and partly because my workflow and post skills have improved. In the past, I did like to use soft light overlays, but I haven't for a long time now. I'm thankful for any "goodness" that's there. And thankful for all I've learned here, which has been a TON!

I hear ya about drawing your line in the sand about weddings. Good for you for stepping up your price! I'm confident you'll do a tremendous job...and I'm sure it won't be your last!

Qarik

nice picture elaine..I would consider dodging the bright patches of sun light though..just being picky.

heatherfeather

Oh, I am so happy to read more about sharpening... I am just now delving into that... and it seems like there is a lot more to learn than I had thought.

Elaine- your nerves WILL calm down with a little more time and after proving to yourself again and again that you can do this. Shoot, I have even started sleeping the night before weddings... And I never thought I would be able to do that!

You really are a very good photographer, and I am always amazed at your eyes... just scrumptious.

Elaine

Qarik wrote:

nice picture elaine..I would consider dodging the bright patches of sun light though..just being picky.

Thanks, Qarik! I have been debating about that. Maybe I'll give it a go and see what I think.

Elaine

heatherfeather wrote:

Oh, I am so happy to read more about sharpening... I am just now delving into that... and it seems like there is a lot more to learn than I had thought.

Elaine- your nerves WILL calm down with a little more time and after proving to yourself again and again that you can do this. Shoot, I have even started sleeping the night before weddings... And I never thought I would be able to do that!

You really are a very good photographer, and I am always amazed at your eyes... just scrumptious.

Sharpening...seems there is a lot to know and figure out there! I tend to just pick a mode and do it the same way for everything.

Nerves...I'm glad you're getting sleep at night before weddings! Maybe I'll calm down in another 10 years or so!

NeilL

It's very upfront, punchy and rich. It has personality.

I absolutely love the little body center front - she has all the aplomb and disdain of a patriarch!!:D

Neil


PS I am often embarrassed for little girls wearing short dresses - they are really next-to-nothing. An insult to them, in my opinion. Don't know what their mothers are thinking. Shorts are good.

jeffreaux2

Elaine.....it may not be an altogether bad idea to go back to the umbrella lighting post of yours and put up some of your results.....along with settings and what you learned.....to help out anyone who was following that.

PS...Your blog is a treat to visit...

Elaine

Thanks, Neil! I love your description of the littlest one.

Jeff...I took your advice and posted a few over in that thread.


And...thank you.