Advice on Outdoor Portraits

E

EddieBet

Suspended / Banned
Messages
52
Edit My Images
No
I'm looking for advice and tips on both techinque and equipement for achieving the following.
IMG_1841.jpg


This a picture was taken on a Canon 40D with fillin, defused flash on manual mode, by someone with experience of this type of photography.

IMG_2318.jpg


This picture was taken on my 10D by a novice on manual mode.

I have now bought a Cannon 60D and I am looking for advice on a lens, I'm unsure whether to use my standard 18-55mm or to buy a fixed 35mm?

Also any critique or advice you could pass on to help me bridge the gap between the photos will be welcomed.
 
The one main act of taking a shot is to capture for ever that one moment treasured by the recipient (in this case the fisherman) To me you're shot is a
better Capture and better exposed than the top one.

Take you're time and practise with you're camera till you can achieve the effect you desire (be it underexposed like the first shot if you so wish)

On the lens choice,I would wait a while and you will come to a decision on what lens you need,then you can come back and ask which one we would recommend.
The old saying "spend in haste,repent at leisure" is very worthwhile remembering in Photography. :thumbs:

PS.
The top shot is better posed with a good background and He is smiling,that will make it look better to some.
Just remember what is behind the subject,as well as to say CHEESE.:thumbs::lol:
 
Last edited:
Some quick observations..

The top shot is focussed on the fisherman, has a well chosen background and has been given a warm felling by careful slection of the white balance. The fisherman is in a natural pose, looks reasonably comfortable and is looking at the viewer. there are no background distractions and the reflection of the fish adds to the composition.

The lower shot is focussed on the fish and the depth of field is too shallow to have the fisherman in focus at the same time, the background is distracting and the overall colour tone is rather cool. The fisherman has an unfortunate (crotch shot) and uncomfortable looking pose and is not engaging with the viewer. Careless composition allows the bucket to creep into the shot.


I'm afraid that in my opinion there's nothing about the second picture that would be fixed by changing the lens.
 
Last edited:
Having said that.. there's a lot that could be improved very cheaply and quickly with practice, technique and thinking about the shot.
 
Looking at the first shot I think the first thing you need to buy is a good pair of waders :-)
 
towershot said:
The one main act of taking a shot is to capture for ever that one moment treasured by the recipient (in this case the fisherman) To me you're shot is a
better Capture and better exposed than the top one.

Take you're time and practise with you're camera till you can achieve the effect you desire (be it underexposed like the first shot if you so wish)

On the lens choice,I would wait a while and you will come to a decision on what lens you need,then you can come back and ask which one we would recommend.
The old saying "spend in haste,repent at leisure" is very worthwhile remembering in Photography. :thumbs:

PS.
The top shot is better posed with a good background and He is smiling,that will make it look better to some.
Just remember what is behind the subject,as well as to say CHEESE.:thumbs::lol:
Click to expand...

I prefer the darker image, it shows the fish off in its true colours and the sky makes it look "moodier. Where as the bottom picture the sky is too bright and I want avoid the glare on the fish, which is my main bug bare.

I think you're right about waiting for the lens.
 
Alastair said:
Some quick observations..

The top shot is focussed on the fisherman, has a well chosen background and has been given a warm felling by careful slection of the white balance. The fisherman is in a natural pose, looks reasonably comfortable and is looking at the viewer. there are no background distractions and the reflection of the fish adds to the composition.

The lower shot is focussed on the fish and the depth of field is too shallow to have the fisherman in focus at the same time, the background is distracting and the overall colour tone is rather cool. The fisherman has an unfortunate (crotch shot) and uncomfortable looking pose and is not engaging with the viewer. Careless composition allows the bucket to creep into the shot.


I'm afraid that in my opinion there's nothing about the second picture that would be fixed by changing the lens.
Click to expand...


The trouble I have is being the subject matter there is only so much I can do to set up the shot and give guidance to the guy with the camera. The reason I look relaxed in the above shot is because I know the cameraman knows how to get the shot (and the fish is 6lb lighter), but it was bloody freezing in the water! On the bottom shot I was worried about making sure there was a dark back ground and directing the the shot in general. I know how to frame a shot, I just need to learn about light balance and setting the ISO, apperture and shutter, and the use of fillin flash without bleaching the shot out.
 
Hi Eddie,

Would that be JB, MC or little Pete who took the top shot? I reckon JB.....:)

In terms of lenses, I know a lot of carpers are switching over to lenses like the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and the 50mm lenses available for Canon. I had a play with Steve Renyard's 30mm Sigma the other week at Hunt's and was seriously impressed by the IQ. On Canon 1.6x crop it's not a bad focal length, although once you start to go longer (say 50mm) then you do start to limit your options because you tend to get one type of shot, especially in tight swims.

The top shot was done with a 17-40 I expect, as that's the standard lens on our kits, and I can see it's been done with the idea of getting cover straps. If it was just a record shot then you needn't be going as wide-angle. Exposure-wise it's underexposed but providing the ISO is low enough then it can be tweaked with some fill adjustment and contrast tweaks to make it 'pop' without incurring serious noise issues.

I personally like wide-angle shots for these big fish when shooting in portrait format, as you get a bit more of a dynamic shot. By their nature, wide-angle lenses give you more perceived DoF so you don't have to be up at f/11 or similar.

The main issue aside from overall exposure, is where to focus. With commons it's easy, as you have scales to latch onto for contrast detection, but with leathers and mirrors it's harder to get the camera to pick up a specific focus point. This is made harder in dull conditions when contrast drops. The good thing about big fish like the one you're holding is you can't hold them far from your body so the plane of focus can pretty much run through your face down to the fish. I usually take a few options; one focussed on the angler's face to capitalise on this, then one focussed on the flank of the fish. I go for the one that looks best.

You do need to be aware of just how angled the fish is to the camera; if it's a head-on shot then it's a lot harder to get both fish and angler in focus. You end up requiring huge DoF and in crappy light that is hard (unless you have mega high ISOs to play with). Try to have the fish as flat to the camera as possible to give yourself the best chance of everything being in focus and sharp.

The second shot is the standard record shot that we'd use mid-feature and is the one most anglers take as a memory of the fish.

Personally, I prefer the angler to have one knee on the ground, as this allows them to tilt the fish (drop the tail, raise the head) and it doesn't make them look like they're squatting to have a dump :D Doing this also means they're not having to keep they're balance, which in turn means they don't have to hold the fish out as much. Keeping the fish closer to the body you can use narrower DoF (handy when you have a busy background) but it has to be a comfortable, natural-looking pose first and foremost. Elbows tucked into the bottom of your ribs make your shoulders hunch up and you look strange.

Lens-wise for this shot I would be tempted to stay away from anything longer than 80mm, unless you're totally confident that the photographer (if you are the fish holder) will nail the DoF to get both the angler and fish sharp. I'd advise also not going wider than 20mm, as wide lenses just make the fish look bizarre, especially if it's a deep fish. I do use a 17mm lens for this kind of shot when we just want to get the head of the fish in focus for purposes such as showing the hook bait still in the mouth. But for record shots where the angler plays as much importance as the fish, I'd keep the fish flat to the camera and use about 30-35mm.

I have done shots of fish being held like this on a 200mm lens and they look the nuts when there's a clean background but that's when I have the luxury of space to move around. Plenty of light to get a fast enough shutter speed AND get a decent aperture of around f/5.6 helps also. Then I ask the angler to keep the fish tight to him and focus somewhere near the dorsal - that's should get everything sharp.

Flash is a big part o my photography but I'd be here all day running through that :)

As for your lens dilemma, If I were to go for either the 50mm or the 18-55, I'd go with the zoom every day, just for the versatility. If it's your only lens then having just a prime can reduce your options. They may be good in low light but these days, with cameras like the 60D that can comfortably do ISO 6400 (and it be printable at A3) there isn't that much of an argument for using f/1.8 glass.

Hope this helps and don't hesitate to ask me anything - if I can help I will :)
 
Last edited:
Wow, my answer,or a try at at one is an amateur jobby. I try to help even when not sure as it is awful not to get any answers to questions it.

The answer from Pat is wonderful and completely Professional.
Helps us all,me especially :bonk: and helps us to move on a bit on our progress.
Isn't it great to have togs like Pat on site.:thumbs:

Thanks Pat.:clap:
 
specialman said:
Hi Eddie,

Would that be JB, MC or little Pete who took the top shot? I reckon JB.....:)

In terms of lenses, I know a lot of carpers are switching over to lenses like the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and whatever 50mm lenses are available for Canon. I had a play with Steve Renyard's 30mm Sigma the other week at Hunt's and was seriously impressed by the IQ. On Canon 1.6x crop it's not a bad focal length, although once you start to go longer (say 50mm) then you do start to limit your options because you tend to get one type of shot.

The top shot was done with a 17-40, as that's the standard lens on our kits, and I can see it's been done with the idea of getting cover straps but if it was just a record shot then you needn't be going as wide-angle. Exposure-wise it's underexposed but providing the ISO is low enough then it can be tweaked with some fill adjustment and contrast tweaks to make it 'pop' without incurring serious noise issues.

I personally like wide-angle shots for these big fish when shooting in portrait format, as you get a bit more of a dynamic shot and by the nature of wide-angle lenses giving you more perceived DoF, you don't have to be up at f/11 or similar.

The main issue aside from overall exposure, is where to focus. With mirrors it's easy, as you have sclaes to latch onto for contrast detection, but with leathers and mirrors it's harder to get the camera to pick up a specific focus point, especially in dull conditions. The good thing about big fish like the one you're holding is you can't hold them far from your body so the plane of focus can pretty much run through your face down to the fish. I usually take a few options; one focussed on the angler's face to capitalise on this, then one focussed on the flank of the fish.

You do need to be aware of just how angled the fish is to the camera; if it's a head-on shot then it's a lot harder, as you end up requiring huge DoF and in crappy light that is hard (unless you have mega high ISOs to play with). Try to have the fish as flat to the camera as possible to give yourself the best chance of everything being in focus and sharp.

The second shot is the standard record shot that we'd use mid-feature and is the one most anglers take as a memory of the fish.

Personally, I prefer the angler to have one knee on the ground, as this allows them to tilt the fish (drop the tail, raise the head or whatever) and it doesn't make them look like they're squatting to have a dump :D This also means they're not having to keep they're balance, which means they don't have to hold the fish out as much. Keeping the fish closer to the body means you can use narrower DoF (handy when you have a busy background) but it has to be a comfortable, natural-looking pose.

Lens-wise for this shot I would be tempted to stay away from anything wider than 20mm and anything longer than 80mm, unless you're totally confident that the photographer (if you are the fish holder) will nail the DoF to get both the angler and fish sharp. Wide lenses just make the fish look bizarre, especially if it's a deep fish. I do use a 17mm lens for this kind of shot when we just want to get the head of the fish in focus for purposes such as showing the hook bait still in the mouth. But for record shots where the angler plays as much importance as the fish, I'd keep the fish flat to the camera and use about 30mm.

I have done shots of fish being held like this on a 200mm lens and they look the nuts when there's a clean background but that's when I have the luxury of space, and plenty of light to get a fast enough shutter speed AND get a decent aperture of around f/5.6. Then I ask the angler to keep the fish tight to him and focus somewhere near the dorsal - that's should get everything sharp.

As for your lens dilemma, If I were to go for either the 50mm or the 18-55, I'd go with the zoom every day, just for the versatility. If it's your only lens then having just a prime can reduce your options. They may be good in low light but these days, with cameras like the 60D that can comfortably do ISO 6400 (and it be printable at A3) there isn't that much of an argument for using f/1.8 glass.

Hope this helps and don't hesitate to ask me anything - if I can help I will :)
Click to expand...

Hi Pat,

That is going to take a few reads to sink in, but there are some interesting points.

Your right it was Bonesy, I have had a right mixed bag from ACF this year, JB has done a couple with me, Ex-editor Rich has been over and got me a cover shot and young Dan has been over to see me a couple of times.

I also prefer to err on the side of wide angle, but like you say you can go too far. Currently I have an 18-55mm and a 55-200mm (and im selling my 28-80mm with my 10D), I was thinking about a fixed lens to make my shots more standard. I had a 34lb and a 44lb last month and 2 different amateur photographers did the pictures (on my powershot SX20) and the results were very different, the 34 looked bigger than the 44! It truth I think the 34 looked too big and the 44 was under stated, I held the fish in the same way its just I think the zoom was used on the 44lb.

I know what you are saying about having one knee down, but its easier to rest the weight on my knees. :D

Im glad you said that about the 50mm, I nearly bought one bout after talking to a guys this weekend, I was advised to go for around a 35mm to get a "true veiw". I'll take a look at the 30mm, thats an impressive f/ on the sigma! I think for the time being I'll have a play with focal lenghts and see what I prefer for trophy shots and uprights.

What would you recommed for Macro shots? I need to do a rig demo for Big Carp this week.

Thanks, Ed
 
No worries mate. It's a shame there aren't any ays to lock a zoom - I know the Tamron 17-50 I had you could lock the lens at 17mm but as far as I'm aware, there aren't any lenses that'll lock at a specific foal length. People who aren't familiar with camera do like to twist the zoom :lol:

For macro shots I use a 60mm (I shoot Nikon) and I find that focal length to be good. I don't like the 100mm Canon the guys use because I always find that you have to be further away. I know a few people I've talked to over the years rate the 60mm Canon EF-S very highly and it's pretty cheap.
 
specialman said:
No worries mate. It's a shame there aren't any ays to lock a zoom - I know the Tamron 17-50 I had you could lock the lens at 17mm but as far as I'm aware, there aren't any lenses that'll lock at a specific foal length. People who aren't familiar with camera do like to twist the zoom :lol:

For macro shots I use a 60mm (I shoot Nikon) and I find that focal length to be good. I don't like the 100mm Canon the guys use because I always find that you have to be further away. I know a few people I've talked to over the years rate the 60mm Canon EF-S very highly and it's pretty cheap.
Click to expand...

There is. It's called gaffers tape!
 
The main difference between shots 1 and 2 are the lighting, shot 2 shows all the hallmarks of uninspiring on camera flash, you get great, even perfect exposure, but ultimately a blandly lit boring picture. Image 1 is better but still not one you'd say wow that's fabulous.

If you REALLY want to produce great images with this sort of subject then you really are going to need to learn how to use off camera flash with soft boxes and reflectors and eventually modifiers too. But heh thats why we do this cos' it ain't easy and you have to think about it and learn.

If shot 2 was lit from a shallow angle to the fish either left or right then the scales would produce shadow which would help show a rich texture to the image and brin it more to life.

Hang in there though, you've just taken a step on a very long path.
 
Ed - I'll dig out some flash-lit shots that may be able to help you and just some general shots that might give you a better idea of what I'm talking about.

The thing about using flash off-camera is setting it all up and actually having the gear and getting it to the swim. It needs to be a lightweight, compact solution - I generally just shoot with a 40cm softbox on a tripod or small lightstand.

Thing is, if someone else is doing the shooing then you might just be guilding a very bad lilly because they need to get the shot in the first place.
 
specialman said:
Ed - I'll dig out some flash-lit shots that may be able to help you and just some general shots that might give you a better idea of what I'm talking about.

The thing about using flash off-camera is setting it all up and actually having the gear and getting it to the swim. It needs to be a lightweight, compact solution - I generally just shoot with a 40cm softbox on a tripod or small lightstand.

Thing is, if someone else is doing the shooing then you might just be guilding a very bad lilly because they need to get the shot in the first place.
Click to expand...

Thanks again! You are right in what you say about others taking the shot and its tricky, but the more I know the better it will be.

Talking about off camera shooting, I have a Jessops 360 flash gun that I'm starting to learn about to try and get a softer flash. It reacts with infer-red for off camera, but I suppose that defeats the object. The remotes seem cheap enough to get an angled light.

Im going to try and get time to pop into Jessops to get a new tripod, my old one is broken so I have been using a bank stick to save weight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top