First Shoot - C&C Please

[gratefulgordons]

My wife and I, after some years of simple video work and playing casually enjoying photography, have decided to have a go at it. We picked up an OMD E-M1 with a 12-40mm (24-80 equivilant). Its no full frame, but the versatility is great, and the image quality can be as well if used correctly.

At any rate, a friend of ours in the advertising and movie industry agreed to a shoot with both of us. The following is my work from the morning after they shot together. It was the first real shoot for me, and if there is any credit due, then it is for Leanna. My wife's work has more knowledge and experience behind it, so hopefully I can persuade her to post hers as well.

I am thankful for any c&c anyone has to offer, and look forward to becoming more a part of this seemingly positive and constructive community... kudos to the founders of this site, it's been quite an asset.

Brett

I should probably say before anyone has to ask...all natural light, overcast morning unfortunately, white diffuser used as a reflector, shooting on the longer end of the lens.

[Digital]

In my humble opinion (IMHO), on the first shot her arm her right arm seems to be competing with her for the viewer's attention.
On the last shot, the log you use to frame her takes to much space, IMHO.
The second, and third captures shows some potential.
Hope this helps.
Welcome to CiC.

Bruce

[bnnrcn]

Welcome Brett I'm not very experienced but these are my thoughts :

1- Very nice shot, but the grey line in the BG (background) spoils the image and needs cloning out if possible,

2- IMO (in my opinion) the focus is not very good, but nice composition,

3- It is nice , sharp and clear and the woman stands out nicely. But because I don't shoot portraits, I don't know if the posture and the light are right for a portrait, experts might tell you something about them.

4-The wooden handrail is dominating the frame, shooting with a different angle and/or with a different composition might help.

[gratefulgordons]

In my humble opinion (IMHO), on the first shot her arm her right arm seems to be competing with her for the viewer's attention.
On the last shot, the log you use to frame her takes to much space, IMHO.
The second, and third captures shows some potential.
Hope this helps.
Welcome to CiC.

Bruce

That all makes good sense.... thank you Bruce

[gratefulgordons]

Welcome Brett I'm not very experienced but these are my thoughts :

1- Very nice shot, but the grey line in the BG (background) spoils the image and needs cloning out if possible,

2- IMO (in my opinion) the focus is not very good, but nice composition,

3- It is nice , sharp and clear and the woman stands out nicely. But because I don't shoot portraits, I don't know if the posture and the light are right for a portrait, experts might tell you something about them.

4-The wooden handrail is dominating the frame, shooting with a different angle and/or with a different composition might help.

Thanks Binnur, seems I should fix that railing.

[Manfred M]

Hi Brett – you have some very nicely done images that you should be very pleased with.

The overcast sky has certainly worked in your favour; the lighting is soft and diffuse and that certainly helps by providing lighting that is easy to work with. Using a white reflector to drive in a bit more light to give the image more “pop” is a good thing.

The camera you are using is fine, especially if you are primarily looking at viewing the images on a computer or making small prints. The main downside of the mFT sized sensor is that it is more challenging to create shallow depth of field images, where the background is thrown out of focus. Fast glass and a full-frame camera work really well there. I personally find that a 12-40mm is too short for my tastes, even at the far end of the focal length range. My normal portrait lens is a f/2.8 70-200mm on a full-frame body, so effectively, from a compositional standpoint, your lens ends pretty well where mine starts.

As others have pointed out, our eyes are drawn to bright parts of the image, so having a model wearing something white can be a bit problematic. I would suggest trying to get your wife to wear less bright colours in future outings.

When focusing, I generally use spot focus mode (I’m not sure what Olympus calls that mode), and when shooting a single model, will focus on the eye closest to the camera (by partially pressing the shutter release) and then recomposing the shot. So long as the eyes (especially the eye closest to the camera) is sharp, then the image works. Any softness there is usually not a good thing.

Daylight falls from above, and that can mean that you can get a bit of that “raccoon” eye look. The diffuse light is helping you, but I find the eyes are a bit dark for my liking, especially on your third shot. The reflector should help here, and my guess is that it might have been too far away from the model to push enough light into her eyes and face. I often use a reflector that is very close, often just outside the image, especially if the ambient light is soft. I tend to like using white reflectors when shooting women. Another thing to watch is the direction that your model is looking. Another thing that generally looks good in portraiture is if the subject’s eyes are more or less centred, with relatively equal amounts of white on either side of the iris. You have this on your third shot, but not the other three. I think if you can work with your model to pose is such a way that her eyes are centred, you will get better image.

[Digital]

What might have worked also was to use a fill flash to add catch lights to the eyes.



Bruce

[gratefulgordons]

Manfred, you've given me a lot to work with. Thank you. I'll look for you in the future as we progress.

[gratefulgordons]

Just got our flash today. Can't wait to play some with it. Thanks!

[Shadowman]

Nicely done, exposures look great. The perspective seems to be off on the second and third image, as if the figure is elongated.

[ajohnw]

You should try and shoot portrait and people shots at 40mm, camera square to the subject within reason. 40mm is short but not seriously so. The usual range on m 4/3 would be something like 35 to 80mm. This range can be used to produce flattering photo's accounting for peoples features within limits. Don't think your model needs that. The standard general purpose length is 50mm.

The tiny little flash that came with the camera would have very probably provided sufficient fill in light on all of those photo's..

Normally when images on here are right clicked - properties some of the exif information comes up giving basic camera settings. Yours just give copy right info. Mentioned as I see something a little odd about the shots and wonder what the camera settings were and what you used to reduce their size and if you did any post processing on them?

John
-

[gratefulgordons]

Thanks John. Not sure how to keep the file info on the pictures, but I can say that I was shooting at 2.8 (wide open for this lens) between 35 - 40mm, Raw, imported into Lightroom5 for the edit.

Good thought on the small flash as a fill... I have since picked up a proper off camera flash and will begin practicing with it. I realize now I did not use my reflector as effectively as I probably could have.

Thanks so much for taking the time to share experience and advice.

[IzzieK]

I cannot help you with anything about portrait as I just started with it a few months ago and have no real practice yet apart from my dolls. But I can say that you are lucky to have such a willing model and a very pretty one too.

[Stagecoach]

They all look good to me Brett but the only portraits I ever do are bugs and critters.

Grahame

[ajohnw]

Thanks John. Not sure how to keep the file info on the pictures, but I can say that I was shooting at 2.8 (wide open for this lens) between 35 - 40mm, Raw, imported into Lightroom5 for the edit.

Good thought on the small flash as a fill... I have since picked up a proper off camera flash and will begin practicing with it. I realize now I did not use my reflector as effectively as I probably could have.

Thanks so much for taking the time to share experience and advice.

That explains it for me. From the way you started I expected them to look like Olympus jpg's which for jpg's are amongst the best. I feel I can detect a sort of grainy look to them that shows on the skin in particular. On the other hand cameras with sharp lenses are perfectly capable of showing pores on virtually unblemished faces. People often do a lot of PP to get round that.

I thought you had used the lens wide open as I can see some background blur. I'm a little alone in this area but actually I feel that you have that nearly right. A little more wouldn't hurt but a lot more wouldn't be a good idea. You can play with that in some cases by changing subject to background distance. At some point it will start being just a blurred background rather than making the subject stand out. They are not bad examples of this actually. The model does stand out and this area is part of the reason for that - a major part.

If you buy a specific portrait lens there are several options. (Just in case you do) Manual focus 50mm Zeiss, AF Leica Panasonic 50mm F1.4, a used lens such as an Olympus/Nikon 50mm F1.4 plus an adapter. These are all good but old hat in some respects compared with what Olympus tend to do with lenses. The older designs tend to start behaving really well when they are stopped down. This often doesn't matter but in situations where it might an Olympus m 4/3 45mm F1.8 is a better option. Just something to think about if you start buying other lenses. It's very much a swings and roundabouts area. On the other hand F1.4 is 2 stops from where you are where as 1.8 is a bit over 1. The used lens option also has it's problems as coatings on modern digital lenses have moved on some what and processing software is unlikely to automatically correct them. The 2 I mentioned though are both pretty good.

John
-

[Manfred M]

I did not comment on how the backgrounds were handled in my previous response, but now that John has brought things up, I thought I might throw some of my thoughts at you.

The background has to complement the shot. In some scenes, a sharp, fully focused background works well whereas in others, unless it is totally thrown out of focus, it is distracting. Of course, there are all of those “middle” situations where something in between works quite well. Personal taste are often the deciding factor here, and I think this might be where John is coming from in his statement “I thought you had used the lens wide open as I can see some background blur. I'm a little alone in this area but actually I feel that you have that nearly right.”.

I agree with John; I do think you have nailed the backgrounds quite nicely; although I would have been interested in seeing how that shot looked with a bit softer background. There are some minor areas I would have probably played with in all of these images in post.

Image 1: Bluish area on the corrugated background is a bit distracting. Reworking it to more of a reddish brown might be a good approach.

Image 2: The scene is a bit busier than I like for backgrounds, but it works. As I stated in a previous paragraph, a bit more softness might be appropriate.

Image 3 – I would definitely take out the bright area on the upper left side of the image. The bright spot definitely catches my eye and distracts.

Image 4 – Works very well. The only part I wonder about is the out of focus beam on the tight side of the image. It helps frame the shot, but the softness bothers me a bit. I’m not sure if cleaning it up will strengthen or weaken the composition. I would probably try it both ways if this were my image.

[ajohnw]

I think that the soft background method works providing they are fairly evenly toned and contain no strong colours. The basic idea is to fool the brain and take advantage of the fact that we see most clearly in the central region. If the blur is in the right range it adds depth to the scene and makes the subject stand out. I came across the idea a long time ago in the JRPS. The example was a model standing in front of a privet hedge. Just about ideal and I suspect allows more blur than say a fence. Out comes paper and pencil, tape measure, hasselblad and lenses. The difference was staggering.

Going further. I think these 2 show the a gain in one and the problem in the other.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/mrhuggies/6785904066/

http://cdn.lomography.com/downloads/...sunglasses.jpg

Personally I found the foreground wood in 4 fine and wasn't surprised that I didn't really initially notice it, it's blurred. However photography has become stuck in the composition area so ??????? but I have no problem with it.

One other way of obtaining blur especially when the image is going to be reduced is to deliberately focus short. Easier to do with a dslr if the viewfinder has been set up correctly. Probably not so easy using a magnified view on m 4/3. Also move the model a bit etc.

There is a lot to think about when shooting people.

John
-

[gratefulgordons]

That explains it for me. From the way you started I expected them to look like Olympus jpg's which for jpg's are amongst the best. I feel I can detect a sort of grainy look to them that shows on the skin in particular. On the other hand cameras with sharp lenses are perfectly capable of showing pores on virtually unblemished faces. People often do a lot of PP to get round that.

I thought you had used the lens wide open as I can see some background blur. I'm a little alone in this area but actually I feel that you have that nearly right. A little more wouldn't hurt but a lot more wouldn't be a good idea. You can play with that in some cases by changing subject to background distance. At some point it will start being just a blurred background rather than making the subject stand out. They are not bad examples of this actually. The model does stand out and this area is part of the reason for that - a major part.

If you buy a specific portrait lens there are several options. (Just in case you do) Manual focus 50mm Zeiss, AF Leica Panasonic 50mm F1.4, a used lens such as an Olympus/Nikon 50mm F1.4 plus an adapter. These are all good but old hat in some respects compared with what Olympus tend to do with lenses. The older designs tend to start behaving really well when they are stopped down. This often doesn't matter but in situations where it might an Olympus m 4/3 45mm F1.8 is a better option. Just something to think about if you start buying other lenses. It's very much a swings and roundabouts area. On the other hand F1.4 is 2 stops from where you are where as 1.8 is a bit over 1. The used lens option also has it's problems as coatings on modern digital lenses have moved on some what and processing software is unlikely to automatically correct them. The 2 I mentioned though are both pretty good.

John
-

Thanks for the lens tips... I tend to like wide open as well, and you're right, I am definitely wanting of a faster lens at times. There is great talk about the M. zukio 75mm 1.8 (hope I got that right). Little long for some people, but supposed to be a superb piece of glass, m43 or not. Comes with a price, but I have a feeling I would like the FL. Any thoughts?

You've been a great help, very much appreciated Sir,

Brett

[gratefulgordons]

Perhaps a better shot in general for that scene?

At any rate, thanks again for taking the time to help. I can't believe I missed that bit of window in the other image, but have taken care of it now.

You continue to be a big help Manfred, and my wife is now interested in sharing some of her pictures to see what you guys have to offer as well.

Thank you Sir,

Brett

[ajohnw]

Thanks for the lens tips... I tend to like wide open as well, and you're right, I am definitely wanting of a faster lens at times. There is great talk about the M. zukio 75mm 1.8 (hope I got that right). Little long for some people, but supposed to be a superb piece of glass, m43 or not. Comes with a price, but I have a feeling I would like the FL. Any thoughts?

You've been a great help, very much appreciated Sir,

Brett

My portrait days are over. Maybe Colin will express an opinion on one lens 45mm,50,,60mm or 75mm - if he reads the rest of my rambles. If he does he might suggest the zoom I mention at the end.

I's a difficult choice in some ways. The "ordinary" Panasonic lumix and to a lesser extent Olympus tend to offer more even results across the frame sometimes even from wide open. The posh names tend to have spectacular central resolution and even out when they are stopped down. That doesn't stop them from being used wide open though. Odd balls like the F0.95 lens are a bit of a mixed bunch.

Longer focal lengths tend to flatten features and curiously from a "beauty" point of view even with good looking models that is often desirable. Of Olympus's F1.8 lenses I would suggest that the 45mm is of more general use than the 75mm and that the 75mm is a bit on the long side really. I posted a link to one of Olympus's pro photographers. (Thread just out of interest ......) He uses the 60mm F2.8 which is actually a macro lens. It an odd area. To frame the same area - say a head and shoulder shot - the camera needs to be further away from the subject as the focal length gets longer. Distance from the camera increases the depth of field but the telephoto effect will still reduce it. This link should give you the blur from 10cm past the point of exact focus. You may need to move the slider to get it to show from 10cm. The max blur for a 12x8in image is 0.1% on this scale

http://howmuchblur.com/#compare-1x-9...m-wide-subject

Last time I posted a link to this site it got busy and I had some odd results. I also used crop factors but have stuck to full frame equivalents this time. From this you can see if 10cm is a reasonable limit for min depth of field some apertures and focal lengths just wont work out.

I always go here first for lens tests and reviews. Must admit that I have never looked at the 75mm F.1.8 and a 4 1/2 star rating is virtually unheard of on here.. All the lenses I've mentioned are capable of giving good results but the 75mm can probably cope with even more pixels.

http://www.photozone.de/m43

There is also a test on this site that I use which includes high res images - even to show bad points at times.

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/ol...s-review-17667

Really this is complicated by the fact that you have a decent 40mm all ready. If that was me it would push me to the longer lengths such as the 60mm or maybe the 75. Another alternative is the Panasonic 35-100mm zoom lens F2.8. As zooms go it's a pretty capable lens and fits in with what you have. Your camera will auto switch off it's image stability when a lens with IS is fitted and from one test it seems the EM-1 will auto correct another Panasonic lens so if one it should do all. Working from raw it's important that your software can do the corrections which it should. The review for this lens is on the .de site and it suggest that you will get the correction on the EM-1. If not jpg's from the camera may need it doing manually.

John
-