# Fashion Show FQM 2014 70-200mm mk ii and 6D Bokeh



## PureShot (May 5, 2014)

This weekend i make picture for the Festival Québec Mode in Quebec city i will show you a few shot 
www.pureshotstudio.com
www.surmesuremag.com


----------



## Andrew Davies Photography (May 5, 2014)

PureShot said:


> This weekend i make picture for the Festival Québec Mode in Quebec city i will show you a few shot
> www.pureshotstudio.com
> www.surmesuremag.com



Doesnt make me want to rush out and buy a 70-200 2.8ii thats for sure. Lets see some better ones ?


----------



## mackguyver (May 5, 2014)

Andrew Davies Photography said:


> PureShot said:
> 
> 
> > This weekend i make picture for the Festival Québec Mode in Quebec city i will show you a few shot
> ...


Andrew, if you wonder why people give you crap, it's because of this type of comment. You may not like the photo, but that doesn't make it a bad photo. Also, whether it's good or not has nothing to do with the lens. If you want to offer constructive criticism, go ahead, but if you don't have anything nice to say, maybe you shouldn't say anything at all.

Personally, I think it's a nice shot from a technical perspective - nice angle, good bokeh, nice color and contrast, and a good catchlight, but the model's expression is a bit dull. Back when I used to shoot a lot of runway shows, I remember that being one of the more difficult parts. The models are told to be expressionless, but that doesn't make for the best photos. 

PureShot, the links don't seem to go to more photos from the fashion show - and I don't understand French. Please post more photos here or a direct link to your shots.


----------



## PureShot (May 5, 2014)

i post few other picture, if you want see more, just ask me


----------



## gabriele (May 5, 2014)

The main problem with this pictures is the horrible, horrible light.
I'm not sure if you used an external (and direct) flash or if it was just the lights they used to the catwalk, but they surely ruin everything.
They ruined the color, the skin tones and make people look worse and older, also they underline the veins which is all you want to avoid in portraits.
Just my 2 cents.

P.S. It would be nice to know also the settings of the camera and the ISO speed.


----------



## PureShot (May 5, 2014)

When you shot fashion show the light change every time , 
its very difficult to make a perfect shot.


----------



## gabriele (May 5, 2014)

PureShot said:


> When you shot fashion show the light change every time ,
> its very difficult to make a perfect shot.



This depends a lot on the fashion show of course, guess you had bad luck with that one!


----------



## Andrew Davies Photography (May 5, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Andrew Davies Photography said:
> 
> 
> > PureShot said:
> ...



Actually I dont wonder, people dont give me crap so i dont have an issue. Are you one of these people who likes to wade in and be all protective over someone elses post . I did not see anything worth critiquing in the shot other than a blatant plug to a website. The other shots were not showing, now they are to be fair there is only the last one that is sharp.


----------



## mackguyver (May 5, 2014)

Andrew Davies Photography said:


> Are you one of these people who likes to wade in and be all protective over someone elses post .


I'm not protecting anyone, I'm just tired of reading negative posts which have the habit of discouraging people from posting and sharing their work.


----------



## mdmphoto (May 5, 2014)

Having taken runway shots at fashion shows several many times, I can attest to how difficult it can be. For me the shooting is more about the event itself and not aesthetics - beyond focus and composition, mind you. I think the photos are fine and are a testament to the 70-200 AF speed and accuracy, 6D ISO prowess, and the op's eye. Just my dos centavos....


----------



## FEBS (May 5, 2014)

Andrew, your answers tell me that you didn't shoot any fashion show.

I will tell you why. At a fashion show the subject is the fashion, and NOT the model wearing that fashion. She must look good, that's true, but the most important point is the fashion itself. So the face of the model and that also means there eyes shouldn't be the most sharpest but the clothes must be!!! That's for sure the case with these 3 first photo's. The Fourth photo of the girl in the bikini isn't that good mine impression. Nothing is speaking in that picture and to much distraction of the background, but that's my personal opinion. The fifth photo is NOT correct sharp. Why because the face of the girl is sharp, but the clothes are less sharp. I think OP has focused there on here face as it was not easy to focus on the white clothes the girl is wearing.

The first 3 pictures are really great as the fashion immediately gets my attention. And that's the idea behind shooting a fashion show. Nice job !!!

Concerning the remark that you don't need a 2.8 for those pictures. I'm sure you will need it. The subject separation in the first 3 pictures are hard to get with a 4.0 lens. This is really a great lens for a fashion show. As already mentioned, you don't control the light in such a show, and then with al those changing light conditions on which you have no influence a 2.8 is really needed. 

I fully agree on mackguyver last post:
"I'm just tired of reading negative posts which have the habit of discouraging people from posting and sharing their work". 

@ Andrew: please do read this, you can learn something yourself and tell people why you don't like a photo, only then they can learn, just like you for a fashion show !!

Francois


----------



## SwampYankee (May 5, 2014)

How is this one with a 70-200 f4?


----------



## Sporgon (May 5, 2014)

SwampYankee said:


> How is this one with a 70-200 f4?



How is it ? Nice !


----------



## Jack Douglas (May 5, 2014)

"I'm not protecting anyone, I'm just tired of reading negative posts which have the habit of discouraging people from posting and sharing their work."

CR tends to be a pretty "friendly" environment and I value that. There is a way to offer constructive criticism without being offensive but those with the knack generally were taught it as children, and those who were not may not even be aware of their negativity. Best to ignore negative posts that are aimed at stirring the pot.

Nothing wrong with the odd reminder to all of us to be respectful, though.

Jack


----------



## FEBS (May 5, 2014)

SwampYankee said:


> How is this one with a 70-200 f4?



nice portrait photo of this girl. I would however apply a negative clarity (LR or PS) on the girls face as you see so much detail of the skin right now. Please do make that the skin more soft. Also do remove some luminance noise.

Concerning the separation of this 4.0 lens. Done a good job for the right top of your photo. the difference however with the 2.8 is that the 2 persons (left at the lower side, or parts of them) have still more detail as they are closer, for this reason a 2.8 might help. However, seen the amount of noise in your photo, I think you made that photo with a APS-C sensor, which give a narrower DOF then a FF.

Francois


----------



## privatebydesign (May 5, 2014)

Andrew Davies Photography said:


> Doesnt make me want to rush out and buy a 70-200 2.8ii thats for sure.



Why not?


----------



## Andrew Davies Photography (May 5, 2014)

Please could the original OP explain how it is that the simple procedure of servo focus and correct shutter speeds in gaining an in focus sharp shot has been missed , obviously its not from the pressure of having trained models experienced in posing walking down a catwalk for you simply to photograph from the comfort of your pre planned position ?

Are you a beginner in the field or do you have experience, are you asking for help in correcting the shots ?


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 5, 2014)

Jack Douglas said:


> "I'm not protecting anyone, I'm just tired of reading negative posts which have the habit of discouraging people from posting and sharing their work."
> 
> CR tends to be a pretty "friendly" environment and I value that. There is a way to offer constructive criticism without being offensive but those with the knack generally were taught it as children, and those who were not may not even be aware of their negativity. Best to ignore negative posts that are aimed at stirring the pot.
> 
> ...



Similarly, I feel those with the knack for making hurtful comments were not discouraged to do so when they were children. 

Constructive criticism doesn't _need_ to be tactful. Just needs to be helpful. I am from India- our teachers did not hold our hands and gently guide us to our mistakes. They told us what we did wrong very simply and bluntly, knowing their care and concern is better expressed in the intent rather than in the manner.

I posted some pictures on the 17-40L thread (http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=306.105) for some critical feedback. Now, any criticism would be more welcome (these galleries are not as frequented as gear talk, so I'm not surprised I haven't got any) than a friendly comment. And I don't mind what tone is used, as long as it helps me do a better job next time.

However, when someone comments on the performance of the lens, especially since there is another running thread where he is considering and sort of dismissing the 70-200 2.8, you know he has nothing constructive for the photographer (except perhaps- outgrow the zoom and embrace a prime).


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 6, 2014)

Andrew Davies Photography said:


> I did not see anything worth critiquing in the shot other than a blatant plug to a website.


I'd say that applies perfectly to your very first post on these forums. 



Andrew Davies Photography said:


> Shot by Newcastle and North East Wedding Photographer www.andrew-davies.com Canon 35mm F2 IS at f6.3 iso400 on 5Dmk3


----------



## wickidwombat (May 6, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Andrew Davies Photography said:
> 
> 
> > PureShot said:
> ...



I agree that was a total douchebag statement and from someone trying to come off as the worlds premier wedding photographer that actually knows nothing about flash... and actually by some of the questions posted here knows very little about photography...

Pull your head in mate


----------



## Andrew Davies Photography (May 6, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Andrew Davies Photography said:
> ...



Actually your right it was and I apologize just having a bad day and should not be taking it out on forum peeps


----------



## Chosenbydestiny (May 10, 2014)

I like this thread. Makes me want to buy a 70-200mm 2.8L IS II even more.


----------



## Menace (May 10, 2014)

Considering poor lighting during fashion shows, I think it's a very good effort.


----------



## David_in_Seattle (May 10, 2014)

Bad lighting and ridiculous deadlines (I'm looking at you, Nordstrom!) is why I turned away from fashion runway shoots early in my career.

It appears you were able to shoot from different positions from the end of the runway, instead of being stuck in a photo box. It's cool they offered that freedom, but I always felt shooting head on (sometimes 5-10 degrees off center) from the photo box offered better results for my client because it enabled me to use the same monolight setup (normally a beauty dish with a grid). Also enabled for quick changes from full body, waist-up and shoulder-to-head shots as the model was walking down the runway.

Mind sharing info on how the fashion show was setup for photographers?


----------



## wickidwombat (May 12, 2014)

the trick with runway is watch where the hotspots are and avoid shooting those 

I prefer to time shots in the best lit positions with short bursts.

I've seen a many just spray and pray the whole thing, but they have 1Dx's and d4s with massive deap buffers
and they often have minions to sort through the 10 billion raw files they just spammed.
to me that involves no skill at all, a trained monkey could do that.

but the whole fashion scene is a bit whacky and perilous. shooting it can be fun but it's also alot of hard work.


----------

