Do I need a better camera or a better pair of hands?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nightbreath: There is nothing wrong with any of your photos and most of the "advice" you are getting here is bad.

Compositions are great, lighting perfect, post-production excellent.

Do the other photographer's images look slightly different? Yes. Different photographers, different styles. There are an infinite number of variables in shooting and post production, so it's impossible to tell from the images what he is doing differently. If you see something you like in his work, then experiment. No matter what happens, it will be a learning experience.

One thing though, you have a really unfair advantage living in Ukraine, since it has one of the highest ratios of beautiful to ugly. Feel sorry for those poor blokes who have to try to make plump, pasty-faced brides and grooms look good.
 
Upvote 0
92101media said:
For composition, you can take 2 'L' shaped pieces of non-transparent paper or cardboard, and place them at opposite diagonals, and then move them both up & down and left & right over your screen or print, thereby masking different amounts & areas of the photo, to see the effect of different compositions.

I like the idea of playing with composition, I think the discussion was turned into wrong direction. Here are few examples of what I like in terms of composition:

y_9aab6e7f.jpg


y_53a17aaf.jpg


y_fa112f76.jpg


I know that the examples I gave before are not the best composed ones, but I found them the best to show what my concerns are.
 
Upvote 0
nightbreath said:
Jettatore said:
To think about the same thing in other words. If you can capture the content of those really nice shots you've posted more or less the same and only the colors are off, then you are doing things behind the camera just fine. If you want to test how well things are going behind the camera for you vs. what you are trying to match, take both your study images and some samples of your own images into an editor and Desaturate (Black and White) them all and you will see if there are other areas that you need to focus on as well. You also have a decent bit of play room in editing to re-adjust overall exposure as well as highlights and shadow areas, especially if shooting in RAW in case just a bit of curves or RAW sliders will get you the match you are looking for.

This shot was made at f/2 on 85mm:

_mg_raw.jpg


You can compare it to this one:

y_8ddb5f37.jpg


I've got a feeling that when I edit photos in Lightroom texture starts to disappear to soon comparing to what I could get on full-frame. Or it's self-deception, I don't know.

You've improved the shot a decent bit in editing vs. the original but you've also deteriorated it in spots, this is exactly where your weakness is. You've over-saturated areas in the edit and have made the entire image a bit florescent and haven't leveraged other options that are available and that would have worked much better. You don't need a new camera if color is your issue and concern, you need to work on your editing skills. Best regards.
 
Upvote 0
unfocused said:
Nightbreath: There is nothing wrong with any of your photos and most of the "advice" you are getting here is bad.

Compositions are great, lighting perfect, post-production excellent.

Do the other photographer's images look slightly different? Yes. Different photographers, different styles. There are an infinite number of variables in shooting and post production, so it's impossible to tell from the images what he is doing differently. If you see something you like in his work, then experiment. No matter what happens, it will be a learning experience.

One thing though, you have a really unfair advantage living in Ukraine, since it has one of the highest ratios of beautiful to ugly. Feel sorry for those poor blokes who have to try to make plump, pasty-faced brides and grooms look good.

Thank you so much for this input. Frankly speaking, what I want from a new camera is the same jump I've felt when I moved from 400D to 7D. It was a huge new world to experiment in and the images taken out of the camera looked quite different.

What I personally want to achieve is the ability to do photos in any style I saw to be able to get out the best of every possible situation. It's not about being a good photographer to earn money, it's about inspiring yourself when you see results.

Tool in my eyes is sort of a toy that gives you additional inspiration. In this post I wanted to hear everyones thoughts about the direction I should follow. Any comments (including critiques) are welcome.
 
Upvote 0
Jettatore said:
You've improved the shot a decent bit in editing vs. the original but you've also deteriorated it in spots, this is exactly where your weakness is. You've over-saturated areas in the edit and have made the entire image a bit florescent and haven't leveraged other options that are available and that would have worked much better. You don't need a new camera if color is your issue and concern, you need to work on your editing skills. Best regards.

Thank you for your comment. Could you be more specific on the "deterioration it in spots"?
 
Upvote 0
nightbreath said:
I've got a feeling that when I edit photos in Lightroom texture starts to disappear to soon comparing to what I could get on full-frame. Or it's self-deception, I don't know.

Technically speaking, the 5Dmk2 has better tonal range than the 7D. ISO400 on the 5Dmk2 has about the same tonal range/precision as ISO100 on the 7D. You can look at DxOmark measurements for example. At base ISO I don't think it has makes much of a difference though, it is good enough on the 7D. But if you have really fine eyes you might see a slight difference.
 
Upvote 0
Let me start by saying that I think you take beautiful pictures.
When that is said, I know exactly what you mean with the image quality that seems unobtainable on a crop camera like the 7D. A full frame camera just adds that extra pop...an almost 3D'ish effect. Medium format cameras adds even more of that effect.

Am I the only one seeing this?

Odd first post perhaps but reading this thread is kinda like twilight zone...why won't anybody give this guy a straight answer?
 
Upvote 0
Gumbum said:
Let me start by saying that I think you take beautiful pictures.
When that is said, I know exactly what you mean with the image quality that seems unobtainable on a crop camera like the 7D. A full frame camera just adds that extra pop...an almost 3D'ish effect. Medium format cameras adds even more of that effect.

Am I the only one seeing this?

Odd first post perhaps but reading this thread is kinda like twilight zone...why won't anybody give this guy a straight answer?

Thank you so much! This is one of the factors I was looking for.

Also wanted to achieve good results in color transformation, so when I desaturate Reds and saturate Oranges a little more than I do it with 7D I don't see wracked texture on my monitor.
 
Upvote 0
nightbreath, I've spent a lot of time trying to reverse engineer other people's pictures, and a lot of time photographing weddings and developing my own style, I've learned quite a few things in the process, so here are my 2 cents:

Your photos are very good, and your self-criticism reminds me of my own self-criticism. Believe me, the only way to improve is to look at your work with the most critical eye and check your ego at the door. Your mind is definitely in the right place. So here are some concrete comments:

Keep in mind that what people post on their website is their absolute best work. Some wedding photogs take it further and actually stage shots with models in order to get a mind blowing portfolio (i.e. not real weddings). There is good evidence on the pictures you posted that the photographer may have done just that, or at the very least, took these at a really slow wedding because of the more elaborate shot setups.

On the picture of the bride by the window where bridesmaids are buttoning up her dress, the main light is window light but you can see that he used a flash for back lighting, 45 degrees to the right of the camera and behind the bride. You pointed out different warm/cool areas in the image and were asking how to do it. In this window example I mentioned, the photog cooled down the entire scene via WB setting, used a golden reflector to warm up the bride’s face, and probably put a warm gel on the strobe in the back as well because the highlight looks white to me. This is why the background looks so cold, and subject looks warm-ish.

Anyway, this is the point I'm trying to make - during a real wedding, I would never go through the trouble of setting up strobes with gels in order to get that one shot. It's just not time-effective, and there are too many things going on. However, if I wanted to get a kick-ass portfolio, I would get a model, and take my time perfecting the lighting for that one portfolio shot.

You can clearly operate the camera, you have lots of creative thought, and it’s a real shame you are in a market where you can’t flourish. In north America, you could easily charge 3K+ for your work. I think the area of improvement that you need to focus on is post processing. And I know some people here are saying your images are “color correct” etc, and that you shouldn’t try to copy the other processing… but “correct color” is not what you necessarily want in modern wedding photography. In fact I go out of my way to make my colors incorrect if it creates the kind of mood I want.

Lastly, a bit of a sobering thought: In my personal experience, I realized after a long time that hard work and continuous improvement and learning will make you realize your potential, but there is still that extra 10-15% that some people have, and some will never be able to attain. It’s like anything else – there are great singers, and there are legendary ones. A long time ago I realized that I’ll never be nearly as good as Sean Flanigan, but that didn’t stop me from trying to get as close as my talent would allow.

If you want to reverse engineer a photograph, I encourage you to ask these questions:

-What kind of lighting setup did they use? On-camera? Off-camera? Natural? How many light sources?
-Look at the white balance in the image (by looking at white areas for example) and figure which (if any) gels were used to warm up certain areas.
-If it’s an outdoor shot, determine whether it was taken in a cloudy day or sunny by looking at the shadows
-Open the image in photoshop, and using the color picker tool determine if any tints were applied to shadows or highlights
-Don’t forget to look at the environment where the original image was taken. For example – in that bathroom picture that you posted – there is a lot of naturally occurring blue in the scene (wall tiles etc) so the image naturally looks cold, which is why it’s easy to make the face pop out, if you only put a mild orange gel on your flash.

You don't need a new camera, you just need a militant approach to image analysis. Good luck with everything and feel free to email me.
 
Upvote 0
Your original + edit is here:

_mg_raw.jpg


y_8ddb5f37.jpg


I don't know what much there is to explain further. You have 100% control over the colors in editing if you know what you are doing, practice. Give me a black&white photo and I can give you back a color image that you can't tell wasn't originally a color image to begin with.

I did a sample test in a few moments for you quickly, quality isn't as good as you could do because I don't have the original files to work with so just pay attention to the color changes that are possible (and the possibilities are infinite). Enjoy.

Both options below are edits from your original (not a comparison). I think you can do even better edits, I just wanted to whip something back to you quickly to impress that the possibilities are endless and this isn't a "I need a new camera" concern. Best of luck to you.

edit: p.s. the deterioration I was talking about is where you lost a bit of contrast on the male's suit and turned him into a dark blob in the scene, and as well some subtle color variations in the grasses and whatnot and just blended together and were lost into one solid color.
 

Attachments

  • test.jpg
    test.jpg
    69.2 KB · Views: 991
  • test2.jpg
    test2.jpg
    69.4 KB · Views: 978
Upvote 0
sb said:
...I know some people here are saying your images are “color correct” etc, and that you shouldn’t try to copy the other processing… but “correct color” is not what you necessarily want in modern wedding photography. In fact I go out of my way to make my colors incorrect if it creates the kind of mood I want...

I was shocked at some of the shots I saw of a family member's engagement from someone that has a reputation as one of the best in a large market. They were so over processed and saturated they looked surreal and had an almost non-photograph quality to them. They paid out the nose and though I have no interest in that style, do have to admit they looked pretty cool. But then "surreal" is obviously how the couple wants to remember their engagement, so mission accomplished (and invoice collected). All to say I think you're absolutely correct to take license.
 
Upvote 0
Skitron that's the beauty of the market. There is something for everyone. You will always have traditionalists with the "correct" color reproduction, and you will always have hipster kids with the tilt-shift lenses, grain and faded processing. It comes down to what you prefer. Most younger couples prefer the latter.

That being said, I agree that there's a lot of psychedelic processing out there. But if there are buyers - good for them!
 
Upvote 0
Gumbum said:
When that is said, I know exactly what you mean with the image quality that seems unobtainable on a crop camera like the 7D. A full frame camera just adds that extra pop...an almost 3D'ish effect. Medium format cameras adds even more of that effect.

Am I the only one seeing this?

Odd first post perhaps but reading this thread is kinda like twilight zone...why won't anybody give this guy a straight answer?

I don't really want to provide an answer only emotional and that does not provide any reason, I guess that's because I'm an engineer :-). What exactly makes up this 3D'ish effect you speak of?

The increased vignetting and shorter DoF using wide-open primes does give a specific look which is hard to obtain from a crop camera. I use both a 7D and a 5Dmk2 and I'd say that the differences are:

- 7D has less tonal range at high ISOs - i e color rendition is not as good
- 5Dmk2 gives more usable field of views (for people photography) for common primes and specifically the 70-200/2.8 zoom
- Shorter DoF on fullframe is noticable, I think it is valuable for people photography
- Vignetting becomes more noticable, which often is kind of desirable when photographing people (vignetting can be added
artificially in post of course)
- Using the same primes on a 7D and a 5D you notice the DoF and vignetting differences very obviously when used wide open,
and then the look from the fullframe is generally preferable.
- The 5Dmk2 is apart from the sensor a worse camera than the 7D (lesser AF, lesser build quality)

Note that 50/1.2 or 85/1.2 on fullframe gives as short DoF as you can get from a typical medium format system, since medium format usually don't have that large apertures.
 
Upvote 0
nightbreath said:
sb said:
nightbreath, I've spent a lot of time trying to reverse engineer other people's pictures, and a lot of time photographing weddings and developing my own style, I've learned quite a few things in the process, so here are my 2 cents...

The best post in this thread, thank you for sharing your thoughts and your help :)

+1 Absolutely!

sb gets some good Karma. Although, I wish he'd share his web URL so we can see some of his work...hint...hint.

Plus...I still miss Ukraine. Had the opportunity to go there several times in the 90s and would go back in a minute. Government is a total disaster, but the people...especially the younger ones...terrific!
 
Upvote 0
torger said:
What exactly makes up this 3D'ish effect you speak of?

I don't know...you are the engineer, you tell me ;)
But I'm sure the thinner dof plays a major part...it's not the only thing though.
The only time I have been able to get a similar effect on a crop (I own both a 550D and a 5D2) has been out to sea...something about the light and contrast perhaps?

But please tell me you see it? It's like objects size relation to each other gets distorted and a 3D effect occurs.


Here the Brenizer method has been used to exaggerate the effect:

Group-6-100904-175541-85mm_f1.4_100904-175551-85mm_f1.4-19-images.jpg


lightbox
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.