Candid portraits

Crapking

"Whatever you are....be a good one." AL
Nov 9, 2011
445
0
jjlabella.photoshelter.com
Here's one to start off - I'd like to see more 'candid' portraits, rather than posed. I'm curious to see what settings people use when they are not really planning on taking a shot, but rather when something interesting occurs and there is not always time to be 'creative' with the lights or the settings. I was recently shooting a hoops game, and the cutest kid was on the bench teasing the players during a time-out. didn't have time to think, just took a quick shot with my 'action' settings. Love what the 135 2L can do here.
 

Attachments

  • ButlerJan614.jpg
    ButlerJan614.jpg
    347.2 KB · Views: 6,075
B

briansquibb

Guest
I was experimenting with a flash extender at an animal sanctuary. And a keeper wandered past .... this was into the sun
 

Attachments

  • B09G9678.JPG
    B09G9678.JPG
    472.2 KB · Views: 5,908
S

smirkypants

Guest
I shot this of my friend Jeanine. She was playing in a tournament and I was preparing to shoot it. I saw her mounting up under some trees and shot her. I accidentally pressed the JPEG button, so adjusting the light was tough. Her face could use a little fill, but it was entirely "candid" from about 30 yards away. Canon 7D, 100-400mm, f5.6, 1/400, ISO 400.
 

Attachments

  • Jeanine Mounting copy.jpg
    Jeanine Mounting copy.jpg
    87 KB · Views: 5,871
W

willrobb

Guest
Here are some candid shot from Japan, giving a nice cross section of society

A boy taking part in the "Festival of light" at the controversial Yasukuni shrine.

"Otaku" (geeks) photographing maids in Akihabara.

A novice monk chanting in Kamakura.

And a drunken salary man looking on hopelessly as the train doors close and he hasn't managed to get up or grab his briefcase ::)
 

Attachments

  • Japan 49.jpg
    Japan 49.jpg
    138 KB · Views: 5,355
  • Japan 90.jpg
    Japan 90.jpg
    176.3 KB · Views: 5,435
  • Japan 2.jpg
    Japan 2.jpg
    307 KB · Views: 5,439
  • Japan 61.jpg
    Japan 61.jpg
    221.4 KB · Views: 8,796

macrodust

EOS M6 Mark II
Dec 7, 2011
56
0
willrobb said:
Here are some candid shot from Japan, giving a nice cross section of society

A boy taking part in the "Festival of light" at the controversial Yasukuni shrine.

"Otaku" (geeks) photographing maids in Akihabara.

A novice monk chanting in Kamakura.

And a drunken salary man looking on hopelessly as the train doors close and he hasn't managed to get up or grab his briefcase ::)

Gotta love the man on the metro!
 

macrodust

EOS M6 Mark II
Dec 7, 2011
56
0
JR said:
shot with 5D mkII and 135L...

Clothes, furniture, toy and pacifier - all color matched! ;D
Cute girl! I regret not getting a decent camera until my son was already 7...
 
M

machingo

Guest
Our son at breakfast time. I was trying out my (now 2 week old) 5D2. Lens was 50 1.4.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0016.jpg
    IMG_0016.jpg
    159.8 KB · Views: 5,300

Cosk

EOS M50
Dec 19, 2011
47
0
Denver, CO
Street photography in Bolivia, 85 1.8 on a 30D

6684795777_be22a005c2_b_d.jpg

6684804975_392d8c9f77_b_d.jpg

6684805483_5fdbe53656_b_d.jpg


... and about 1km under ground, in the Bolivian Silver Mines
24mm 2.8 on a 30D

6684818595_280029c4ff_b_d.jpg
 
N

NotABunny

Guest
Crapking said:
I was recently shooting a hoops game, and the cutest kid was on the bench teasing the players during a time-out.

Lovely!


There is something fishy with your export though. Chrome shows the photo green as crap (pun intended), while the other photos are color managed. This happens on both an sRGB and on an aRGB monitor.
 
N

NotABunny

Guest
Crapking said:
Here it is again - not sure why it is different

It's the same thing. I've read that Chrome always considers that photos are sRGB.

Here's a photo exported with ProPhoto (I'm curious if it works). Yuck, it doesn't! It's green as hell.

Okay, here's the same photo exported with aRGB. It doesn't work, but the colors are interesting. The orange is muted.

And below is exported with sRGB.

(Oh, they have EXIF: 40D, 70-200 F4 IS)
 
G

ghosh9691

Guest
NotABunny said:
Crapking said:
Here it is again - not sure why it is different

It's the same thing. I've read that Chrome always considers that photos are sRGB.

Here's a photo exported with ProPhoto (I'm curious if it works). Yuck, it doesn't! It's green as hell.

Okay, here's the same photo exported with aRGB. It doesn't work, but the colors are interesting. The orange is muted.

And below is exported with sRGB.

(Oh, they have EXIF: 40D, 70-200 F4 IS)

Chrome is not a color managed browser. IE9, Safari 5 and the latest versions of Firefox are. That is why your color in Chrome (and I see the same too) look crappy. Ditch Chrome.
 
Jun 10, 2011
330
0
www.davidriesenberg.com
And the weird thing is that there used to be a flag that you could set to enable color management in Chrome but they removed it at some point.
It's a shame really. From a performance and usability point of view, Chrome is by far my favorite browser.
 
N

NotABunny

Guest
ghosh9691 said:
NotABunny said:
Crapking said:
Here it is again - not sure why it is different

It's the same thing. I've read that Chrome always considers that photos are sRGB.

Here's a photo exported with ProPhoto (I'm curious if it works). Yuck, it doesn't! It's green as hell.

Okay, here's the same photo exported with aRGB. It doesn't work, but the colors are interesting. The orange is muted.

And below is exported with sRGB.

(Oh, they have EXIF: 40D, 70-200 F4 IS)

Chrome is not a color managed browser. IE9, Safari 5 and the latest versions of Firefox are. That is why your color in Chrome (and I see the same too) look crappy. Ditch Chrome.

Chrome is color managed. Start it with the "--enable-monitor-profile" command line parameter. It's there and it works but apparently only if the images are sRGB.
 
G

ghosh9691

Guest
NotABunny said:
ghosh9691 said:
NotABunny said:
Crapking said:
Here it is again - not sure why it is different

It's the same thing. I've read that Chrome always considers that photos are sRGB.

Here's a photo exported with ProPhoto (I'm curious if it works). Yuck, it doesn't! It's green as hell.

Okay, here's the same photo exported with aRGB. It doesn't work, but the colors are interesting. The orange is muted.

And below is exported with sRGB.

(Oh, they have EXIF: 40D, 70-200 F4 IS)

Chrome is not a color managed browser. IE9, Safari 5 and the latest versions of Firefox are. That is why your color in Chrome (and I see the same too) look crappy. Ditch Chrome.

Chrome is color managed. Start it with the "--enable-monitor-profile" command line parameter. It's there and it works but apparently only if the images are sRGB.

All applications are supposed to handle sRGB correctly. That does not make it color managed. Chrome is not color managed. On my color calibrated monitor, it shows up with terrible colors, even with that command line parameter. A proper color managed browser would display photos with sRGB, Adobe, ProPhoto correctly. If you want to test, go to the following: http://regex.info/blog/photo-tech/color-spaces-page2 and you will see how poorly Chrome performs. Now repeat with IE9 and you can see the difference. As you will find out, Chrome completely ignores the embedded color profile!
 

Crapking

"Whatever you are....be a good one." AL
Nov 9, 2011
445
0
jjlabella.photoshelter.com
I was "working" from the office computer (Chrome), now I'll upload it from Safari (home)

On my screen, it looks fine, did we solve the dilemma or do I need to post-process in PS differently? My usual work flow is to shoot in max resolution RAW, (7D), download to my MacPro, working with 27" LED screen (not calibrated), select website keepers, then edit only those keepers in Adobe Camera Raw, then "save as" JPEG ProphotoRGB 8 bit, 240 ppi, (usually downsize to ~ 1910x1274) and then "DONE" the original file. Later I upload my keeper JPEGs to my hosting service (Phanfare) and I've just started 'sharing' some with a new FLICKr account to see how I like that service, and to facilitate copying to this forum.

I've experimented at times shooting sports in native JPEG, trying to save time post-processing, but for sports/lowlight, I find I need to post-process anyways.
 

Attachments

  • ButlerJan614.jpg
    ButlerJan614.jpg
    347.2 KB · Views: 3,403
<-- start Taboola -->