Pet pics thread

[marko138]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Coolpix s210

Thank you. And correct.

[marko138]

Originally Posted by Rangerscott

Yea. What camera was used on the face shot?

That shot was with a Canon Digital Rebel XTi.

[marko138]

Originally Posted by Tsunami

What kind? I have a sony cybershot and it sucks so i am in the market for a new camera.

You can take a quality picture with nearly any camera. You just have to know what you're doing. Mainly, holding still. Shitty shots are usually caused my people shaking like Michael J. Fox.

[Tsunami]

Originally Posted by marko138

You can take a quality picture with nearly any camera. You just have to know what you're doing. Mainly, holding still. Shitty shots are usually caused my people shaking like Michael J. Fox.

I have steady hands! When I take face pics they come out really harsh and unflattering esp when I use the flash. Its fine in outdoor lighting though . And its really blurry in low lighting. Not sure if the settings can be adjusted but I usually just set it to an auto mode. My pictures always came out nice with film though.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by Tsunami

I have steady hands! When I take face pics they come out really harsh and unflattering esp when I use the flash. Its fine in outdoor lighting though . And its really blurry in low lighting. Not sure if the settings can be adjusted but I usually just set it to an auto mode. My pictures always came out nice with film though.

Consumer cameras, especially compacts, usually have too much sharpening applied to pictures by default. This highlights every skin flaw and imperfection, which especially women tend not to like in shots of themselves. With a man, depending upon his general appearance, such flaws tend to add 'character.'

Some cameras allow you to alter the default settings, so in-camera sharpening can be reduced. There are a variety of software 'filters' available that can be used to edit pictures, after the fact, and smooth skin tones. "Portraiture" is one of them: http://www.imagenomic.com/pt.aspx

Or you can just end up with harsh shadows, when using flash. It's rare for professional photographers to use just one flash, when shooting portraits. Three is pretty much the minimum, plus reflectors, umbrellas, and diffusers.

[marko138]

Originally Posted by Tsunami

I have steady hands! When I take face pics they come out really harsh and unflattering esp when I use the flash. Its fine in outdoor lighting though . And its really blurry in low lighting. Not sure if the settings can be adjusted but I usually just set it to an auto mode. My pictures always came out nice with film though.

I rarely use flash. Natural light FTW...even in TV when I can get away with it. That's b/c of what Papa said...harsh shadows.

[OneSickPsycho]

Originally Posted by Tsunami

I have steady hands! When I take face pics they come out really harsh and unflattering esp when I use the flash. Its fine in outdoor lighting though . And its really blurry in low lighting. Not sure if the settings can be adjusted but I usually just set it to an auto mode. My pictures always came out nice with film though.

The camera makes a HUGE difference... I've had a few over the years that consistently gave me shitty pictures... So far, my Canon SD1100 has given me consistently top quality pictures (for a point and shoot)... I did a LOT of research when buying that thing and it was a fantastic purchase.


I have a new Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS3 on the way (should be here Monday)... got it because it seems to be the best all around waterproof/rugged camera on the market today, but from what I gather the ol' Canon will probably still take better pictures.

[Archren]

Originally Posted by marko138

I rarely use flash. Natural light FTW...even in TV when I can get away with it. That's b/c of what Papa said...harsh shadows.

This. I was really reticent to take a lighting class, but I did learn a lot about how to help reduce the harsh shadows when you have specular sunlight. Plus I'm a wee bit lazy and cheap.. lugging around a strobe kit (or even constant lighting), plus reflectors, soft boxes/umbrellas, etc., ad nauseum, just seems too much for my particular style (I tend to prefer candid shots in most cases).

My Brigade CSM's picture always gives me the biggest twitch.. I can tell they used only one tungsten lamp (the pic looks yellow, so they didn't adjust the white balance) and no fill lighting (either via another lamp or a reflector). He's already pretty stern looking, but the harsh side-lighting just makes it even worse.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by Archren

This. I was really reticent to take a lighting class, but I did learn a lot about how to help reduce the harsh shadows when you have specular sunlight. Plus I'm a wee bit lazy and cheap.. lugging around a strobe kit (or even constant lighting), plus reflectors, soft boxes/umbrellas, etc., ad nauseum, just seems too much for my particular style (I tend to prefer candid shots in most cases).

My Brigade CSM's picture always gives me the biggest twitch.. I can tell they used only one tungsten lamp (the pic looks yellow, so they didn't adjust the white balance) and no fill lighting (either via another lamp or a reflector). He's already pretty stern looking, but the harsh side-lighting just makes it even worse.

Usually, in bright sunlight, all that you really need is a little fill flash. For example I used fill in this shot where the subject was in bright sunlight, but the sky behind was heavy clouds.

http://www.morallyambiguous.net/mult...andid/R7183401

[Mudpuppy]

Originally Posted by marko138

I took that with a point and shoot.

you could still edit it in lightroom or photoshop i would think..