'tis the season for campus E-shoots 6pix

Blurmore

Here is mine, shot at UMBC a suburban commuter campus with a cool water feature.

1.


2.

3.


4.


5.


6.


edit: forgot to add, have a comment? critique? question? Have at it.

divamum

Ooooooo.... REALLY love 4 and 6 - the rings/pockets is very cool (is that a crop or did you shoot it like that, and if so... which lens? Enquiring minds... ) Also like the foregrounds leaves in 1.

Was 3 done infrared, or in post? I thought about that with the leaves in some of mine, but none of them quite worked with that treatment, probably because the light was so flat that day - I really like the effect you got with it.

Thanks for sharing!

Shima

I love #1... were you on the ground to take this shot?

mmmatt

Hey Jason! Nice!!! 6 for sure is the winner here in my eyes. That is a wonderfull ring shot and consider it stolen next chance I get! Ha!! Also like 4 a lot. Great use of those horizontal lines. 1 is also great with those wonderful fall leaves in the foreground. The couple get a little lost in 5 for me, but I would hate to crop those gorgeous trees. 2 is maybe a scoche flashey and the skin tones look a little off, but that is more a personal preference maybe. I tend to go warmer than a lot of people, but this seems a little cool and maybe magenta-ey.

Great stuff my friend!!

Matt

FedererPhoto

Really dig the angle on #1 ... feels like a stolen moment that you caught rather than something where you told them to nuzzle.

Blurmore

Diva: slight crop 60mm EF-S Macro. These B&W's aren't infra. I do little color by color gray scale bumps depending on the couple's skin tone in LR, select a split tone, clarity, vignetting, noise and sharpen values and save it as a preset. Then I apply it to every picture that I want mono. I don't tick any of the exposure boxes in the preset, so I can adjust the exposure for each independently. I use this same preset for their wedding too. I'm not really down with the post experimentation image to image, for me consistency throughout the job is paramount. They are both fair people so the bumps are in red and yellow, the tree leaves were yellow so they glow like infrared.

Shima: Yup laying in wet leaves.

Matt: I get a kick out of the term "flashey" and its use. When you are using flash at 75-100% of foreground exposure, you end up with a discrepancy in WB. You have to find a happy medium, this is my happy medium. So far as the "flashey". I see this term used a lot lately, and I think it flows out of one's desire to have a portrait be "natural". I've never subscribed to this notion. While I like my subjects to be comfortable and natural, I've never been compelled to always work with the light. I see times to work with the light, and times to work against the light. This is one of those times. The exposure here was 1/250 f4.5 ISO 100 which was the background exposure, the ambient exposure at the subject was probably 1/30th f4.5 ISO 100 a good 3 stops difference. So to make this "natural" I'd have to blow the background or severely under-expose the foreground. I refuse, it has always been my thing to really flood the foreground with flash. I will agree the she has a bit of a harsh nose shadow. The only thing I could do this is to flatten the light or add another flash from the water side or maybe a reflector to open up that shadow side. Either way I guess it DOES come down to taste, and I consider this very in your face edgy, uncompromising, kind of exposure to be part of my style. I don't always play nice with light, I grab it by the photons and make it do my will. :P I do wish I had enough of a rim to give a hair light like I had in 1.

Fed: Yeah this was the kind of couple that I had interrupt from being cute to take a pic looking at the camera rather than coerce into being into each other. I just set my light and let them go, and this is what I got.

Thanks all.

urbanaries

Jason...re: your last post, you have to do what is right for your style/philosophy, and the shot doesn't bother me in that you make your decisions for a certain look. FWIW, clients rarely take issue with a well lit photo, harsh shadows or not.

That said, you might have some more "natural" looking results using gels...they really can make a huge difference.

zoomer

Love 1 and 4 is nice. I like three but without the tilt and the distracting branches in the foreground I would love it.

6 is a cool idea but the back hands are a bit too out of focus for it to really work....to me just a tiny bit out of focus would have worked better.

Good series, cute couple, I bet you have a bunch more good ones from this set your are holding out....

FedererPhoto

Blurmore wrote:

Matt: I get a kick out of the term "flashey" and its use. When you are using flash at 75-100% of foreground exposure, you end up with a discrepancy in WB.

Which can easily be solved by developing once for the BG WB and once for the subject WB and blending the resulting images in PS.

I suspect the term 'flashy' means it's unnaturally flashed - as in the WB, direction, and harshness combines to give an subject lighting that doesn't match/compliment the natural lighting.

I still like the image.

But a gel (or dual-WB processed and mixed) or small umbrella (or, preferablly, both) would make the image better, imho.

Blurmore

FedererPhoto wrote:

Which can easily be solved by developing once for the BG WB and once for the subject WB and blending the resulting images in PS.

I suspect the term 'flashy' means it's unnaturally flashed - as in the WB, direction, and harshness combines to give an subject lighting that doesn't match/compliment the natural lighting.

I still like the image.

But a gel (or dual-WB processed and mixed) or small umbrella (or, preferablly, both) would make the image better, imho.

That actually is a small umbrella on a Sunpak 622 Barebulb head. I never thought of processing for the foreground then bkg, its a good idea, an good idea that I don't really have time for in this image, but I will remember when I really need it.