# Candid portraits



## Crapking (Jan 8, 2012)

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.


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 8, 2012)

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


----------



## smirkypants (Jan 8, 2012)

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.


----------



## wellfedCanuck (Jan 8, 2012)

daughter's soccer tourney...


----------



## AprilForever (Jan 12, 2012)

wellfedCanuck said:


> daughter's soccer tourney...



Did she win? Excellent capture!


----------



## willrobb (Jan 12, 2012)

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 :


----------



## JR (Jan 12, 2012)

shot with 5D mkII and 135L...


----------



## Crapking (Jan 12, 2012)

Keep em coming, and include body and lens (and settings if helpful)


----------



## macrodust (Jan 12, 2012)

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.
> 
> ...



Gotta love the man on the metro!


----------



## macrodust (Jan 12, 2012)

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...


----------



## machingo (Jan 12, 2012)

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


----------



## Cosk (Jan 12, 2012)

Street photography in Bolivia, 85 1.8 on a 30D















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


----------



## NotABunny (Jan 12, 2012)

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.


----------



## Crapking (Jan 12, 2012)

Here it is again - not sure why it is different




ButlerJan614


----------



## NotABunny (Jan 12, 2012)

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)


----------



## ghosh9691 (Jan 12, 2012)

NotABunny said:


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



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.


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (Jan 12, 2012)

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.


----------



## NotABunny (Jan 12, 2012)

ghosh9691 said:


> NotABunny said:
> 
> 
> > Crapking said:
> ...



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.


----------



## ghosh9691 (Jan 12, 2012)

NotABunny said:


> ghosh9691 said:
> 
> 
> > NotABunny said:
> ...



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 (Jan 13, 2012)

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.


----------



## ghosh9691 (Jan 13, 2012)

Crapking said:


> 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.



Looks fine to me on a caliberated monitor using IE9...


----------



## martinelliminimo (Jan 13, 2012)

Beautiful!


----------



## NotABunny (Jan 13, 2012)

ghosh9691 said:



> As you will find out, Chrome completely ignores the embedded color profile!



Exactly what I was saying. The support is partial. Chrome is partially color managed because it can still properly display sRGB photos on aRGB displays (when using the above command line parameter).


----------



## NotABunny (Jan 13, 2012)

Crapking said:


> 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



"ProphotoRGB" is the problem. If you'll export it in sRGB, it will display properly in Chrome as well. However, since that requires the browser to be started with a specific command line parameter, the people who don't do that will still not see it color managed (sure, they'll see properly on an sRGB display, but not on a aRGB one).


----------



## Tijn (Jan 18, 2012)

First one was unexpected, second one was candid. 350D body, 18-55 kit lens. (Still saving for 60D and some real lenses, thats why I came here  )

I'd used a larger aperture if was more aware of the small apertures I was shooting with it at the time. Still, I like how these came out.


----------



## smirkypants (Jan 18, 2012)

Miami Airport. Canon 7D + Siggy 50 @ f1.4, 1/250, ISO 1600. Processed in Lightroom 4.


----------



## JR (Feb 3, 2012)

The Look! This picture is actually crop at 100%, otherwise I would have removed the baby's nose...


----------



## picturesbyme (Feb 3, 2012)

The Bird Whisperer I.





Double Candid





Packing

www.picturesbyme.com


----------



## Beautor (Feb 3, 2012)

Snapped this of my son on a nature walk. 40D, 70-200 F4L


----------



## bainsybike (Feb 3, 2012)

50D, Sigma [email protected], ISO 100


----------



## BL (Feb 3, 2012)

5D classic / 16-35 II @ 35mm





5D classic / 16-35 II @ 35mm





5D classic / 16-35 II @ 16mm


----------



## Wrathwilde (Feb 3, 2012)

Southern California, Ren Faire.


----------



## rh18 (Feb 3, 2012)

JR said:


> The Look! This picture is actually crop at 100%, otherwise I would have removed the baby's nose...



SOON.​SOON.​


----------



## Wrathwilde (Feb 3, 2012)

On another note... Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't candid supposed to be without the subjects knowledge? There are some good pics in this thread, but I seriously doubt some of them are "candid", especially the ones where the subjects are looking intently at the camera.


----------



## Beautor (Feb 3, 2012)

Wrathwilde said:


> On another note... Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't candid supposed to be without the subjects knowledge? There are some good pics in this thread, but I seriously doubt some of them are "candid", especially the ones where the subjects are looking intently at the camera.



I could be wrong about this, but my understanding of a candid photo is one that is captured in a moment, without being posed. I don't feel that just because the subject of the photo noticed and looked just before the picture was taken its not a candid shot. 

I can't speak for any pictures but mine, but in the case of my photo I had just taken my family to a park to go for a winter walk along the river. My son had gotten out of the truck and was wandering around while my wife and I got our equipment out. I took out my camera to check my settings and focused on the only subject nearby (my son) as he was wandering towards the trail. My wife called him told him to wait causing him to turn just as I took the picture. If you think that's not candid, fine. But I think it is.


----------



## Wrathwilde (Feb 3, 2012)

Beautor said:


> Wrathwilde said:
> 
> 
> > On another note... Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't candid supposed to be without the subjects knowledge? There are some good pics in this thread, but I seriously doubt some of them are "candid", especially the ones where the subjects are looking intently at the camera.
> ...



I guess it's open to debate about what constitutes a candid photograph. My dictionary defines it as "(a photograph of a person) taken informally, esp. without the subject's knowledge." So I suppose there might be some overlap. But I tend to take the view that once the subject has awareness of / reacted to the camera then it's no longer candid. Don't know how I'd classify the photo of your son, he may have turned at the sound of your wife's voice, but his eyes locked onto the camera, not above it, or to the side as would be expected if he was looking at the person who was to calling him, demonstrating an awareness of the camera. Grey area is Grey.


----------



## Beautor (Feb 3, 2012)

Wrathwilde said:


> Beautor said:
> 
> 
> > Wrathwilde said:
> ...



Ah, well I appologize. If my picture offends you, I'll happily remove it for you. It was never my intention to offend anyone, I just wanted to share. My understanding of a candid photo was slightly different, and who am I to argue with Webster?


----------



## wockawocka (Feb 3, 2012)




----------



## Wrathwilde (Feb 4, 2012)

Beautor said:


> Wrathwilde said:
> 
> 
> > Beautor said:
> ...


I didn't say it offended me, I thought I was implying that your photo fell into a grey area based on your description of the event. The dictionary didn't state that only pictures taken without the subjects knowledge qualified as candid, but that it related especially to pictures where that was the case. Hence the "grey area is grey" comment. 

Sorry if I'm being too pedantic, I tend to treat words as having fairly strict meanings instead of fluid ones. 
My love for words and meanings gets me into trouble fairly often. 

Cheers,
Wrathwilde


----------



## the-ninth (Feb 4, 2012)

My sister in a small boutique in Berlin.


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 4, 2012)

Setting up an event for next week, I was 'checking the light levels' when this person 'walked infront of the camera' ;D ;D


----------



## NotABunny (Feb 6, 2012)

Wrathwilde said:


> I guess it's open to debate about what constitutes a candid photograph. My dictionary defines it as "(a photograph of a person) taken informally, esp. without the subject's knowledge."



I don't know for whom and why this would be open for debate, but the dictionary says "Candid = Informal or natural; especially caught off guard or unprepared" not "unaware".


----------



## Crapking (Feb 6, 2012)

As the OP, let me add that MY intent was to share images we took 'spontaneously', not those where our subjects posed, not those where we artificially adjusted lighting, and definitely not those with models. If the subject happened to look at the camera, that is ok by me, but if the shooter asked them to look, smile or say cheese, not so much....

I would like to learn from those with more experience, and in particular, I was curious as to how shooters 'quickly' decide on settings, etc. A much older thread discussed custom settings which can be preset, but I was hoping to add to that discussion with candid examples, so keep posting and feel free to add to the 'practical' technical discussion on settings, and quick setup procedures. We all have our own visions, composition styles, etc, but the newbies who follow along might benefit from how we set our equipment.


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 6, 2012)

This was in a Dickens event so I was set up for those in costume .... I had setup 2 flash by a window. This lady had sat in the chair in the middle of it all when I was out and she was talking to the Dickens people ... so that was an easy one ;D ;D ;D


----------



## jeffryTanudjaja (Feb 13, 2012)




----------



## Tijn (Feb 15, 2012)

60D with 70-200 f/4L IS.
ISO 100, 127mm, f/4, 1/640s.
Ice skating outside at sunset. The light was gorgeous.


----------



## candyman (Feb 15, 2012)

Canon 7D
TV 1/80
AV 6.3
ISO 400
Spot AF
Tamron 18-270


----------



## Crapking (Feb 15, 2012)

Nice shots, looks like a little catch light in the eyes - off camera flash or ambient lighting ?


----------



## candyman (Feb 15, 2012)

Thanks.
Ambient lighting. I have a favourite corner in the house with good light ....when the sun is shining ...


----------



## Kamera Obscura (Feb 18, 2012)

summer.


----------



## smirkypants (Feb 19, 2012)

Wrathwilde said:


> I guess it's open to debate about what constitutes a candid photograph. My dictionary defines it as "(a photograph of a person) taken informally, esp. without the subject's knowledge." So I suppose there might be some overlap. But I tend to take the view that once the subject has awareness of / reacted to the camera then it's no longer candid.


Soooo... if I have a person in the studio and I am shooting her. Then we start chatting and she's not expecting the shot, and I snap it when she's giggling, is that candid? Even though she's in makeup and surrounded by lights? Avedon was actually quite famous for tricking people into letting their guard down and then snapping a shot. Were these candid?


----------



## smirkypants (Feb 20, 2012)

Clementina waiting...


----------



## bchernicoff (Feb 20, 2012)

7D, Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS


----------



## wellfedCanuck (Feb 20, 2012)

I love both of these last two shots. They each capture the essence of childhood, that sweet innocence that burns off somewhere in the teens. I'm a father of 3, my oldest has long since passed that stage but my youngest is still there, hopefully for another year or two...


----------



## bchernicoff (Feb 20, 2012)

wellfedCanuck said:


> They each capture the essence of childhood, that sweet innocence that burns off somewhere in the teens.



Well, that innocence wore off two seconds later when she made the face she always makes while being photographed. The only keepers with her are the candids ;-)


----------



## wellfedCanuck (Feb 20, 2012)

haha... awesome!


----------



## Sc0tt White (Feb 21, 2012)

Crazy Frenchman


----------



## rebelphil (Feb 22, 2012)

7D, EF 85mm 1.8, f/ 2, 1/100 sec, ISO 1000

I sat on my living room floor by a window, my granddaughter came by, gave me a quick glance, and I took the shot. After that, all I saw was tail lights and a cloud of dust…she was gone!


----------



## facedodge (Mar 20, 2012)




----------



## Crapking (Mar 21, 2012)

Don't forget to include camera settings, situation, etc. We are trying to learn from each other how to quickly capture candid moments, NOT how to set up lights, position models, etc.


----------



## theqspeaks (Mar 21, 2012)

Here's a couple of my favorite candid portraits:

A kid having fun at the Maryland Renn Faire
http://www.flickr.com/photos/theqspeaks/5055254913/#

Another Renn Faire attendee
http://www.flickr.com/photos/theqspeaks/5061808077/#

A Communist sympathizer
http://www.flickr.com/photos/theqspeaks/4453686254/#in/set-72157623668853168

An angry woman at the 2010 Glenn Beck rally in DC
http://www.flickr.com/photos/theqspeaks/4944691233/#in/set-72157624836727518

A patriotic woman at a 2010 Tea Party rally at the Capitol
http://www.flickr.com/photos/theqspeaks/4456168208/#in/set-72157623550298395

A girl at a bar
http://www.flickr.com/photos/theqspeaks/4617002685/#

Jane Rigby of NASA, at the TEDx MidAtlantic event (what perfect light!!)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/theqspeaks/6334033668/#in/set-72157628102038646 

For most of these shots, I was planning on getting candid, spontaneous pictures, so I usually preset my camera to be prepared for when the moment arose. These days, that either means setting my shutter speed to something that I know will freeze the action w/o costing too much in noise or setting the aperture wide open to decrease DOF and maximize shutter speed and ISO.


----------



## smirkypants (Mar 22, 2012)

Canon 7D & 70-200mm/2.8 II & 580EX II. f2.8, 1/2000, ISO 100 with high speed sync on camera flash. AV mode, -1 exposure to the background, 1/4 color temperature orange gel. 

Next time I'll shoot this with my new 5D3.

Edit: I swear it doesn't look that crappy and gray on my computer. Any clues what the upload problem could be?


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 22, 2012)

Michael Laverty, British Superbike rider in the pit garage at Brands Hatch.

1D4, 400 f/[email protected]/2.8, iso 400, 1/250 on tripod/gimbal


----------



## Narcolepsy (Mar 26, 2012)

5D2 24-105 1/640 f10 ISO400
Shot in RAW - NikSoft RAW presharpener and Dfine. Cropped


----------



## keithinmelbourne (Apr 8, 2012)

Here are three candids of greengrocers in the Melbourne market


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 8, 2012)

Handheld, uncropped, no pp


----------



## rcarca (Apr 11, 2012)

Here is a candid photograph of my daughter...

This is my first attempt at posting here. Be patient while I get this sorted!


----------



## Crapking (Apr 12, 2012)

I enjoy checking back from time-time to see what others are seeing. Still curious as to the 'go-to' settings people use. I just set up my Custom functions button on my 5d3 this AM as a trial to:

1/120s, 
F5.6, 
auto ISO (limit at 3200),
Single shot AF with center point and surrounding 8 point expansion 

and will be doing some 'crowd' shots at a VB match tonite - hope to have some to display


----------



## dans_perspective (Apr 12, 2012)

From a recent trip to Jerusalem.


----------



## JR (Apr 12, 2012)

Lots of great shot posted recently here. Sure is different from talking about equipment delays! Nice to look at some nice pictures for a change...wha am I saying, am going back home and shoot some of my own now! Lol


----------



## KitFireburn (Apr 12, 2012)

keithinmelbourne said:


> Here are three candids of greengrocers in the Melbourne market



Oh wow, i absolutely adore that third shot, amazing lighting!


----------



## bornshooter (Apr 12, 2012)

One of a little girl from i party i was photographing the venue was extremely low light this was taken with a 5d mk2 + 70-200 f2.8 L is usm mk2 at 6400 iso.



Dreaming by abledestroyer, on Flickr


----------



## CHL (Apr 12, 2012)

Barcelona, Canon 40D, EF 70-200/2.8 IS @ f/2.8, 1/3200, ISO 200


----------



## Crapking (Apr 13, 2012)

My 'preset' candid settings didn't work out as planned, but in a break in the action, I caught one of the players messing around with the ball...maybe not exactly a candid, but shows off the 5d3 135/2 combo. 

Camera	Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Exposure	0.001 sec (1/800)
Aperture	f/2.2
Focal Length	135 mm/F2 lens
ISO Speed	2500




SV5D0316 by PVC 2012, on Flickr


----------



## the-ninth (Apr 14, 2012)

Two candids from a recent trip to Iran.


----------



## untitled10 (May 4, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Setting up an event for next week, I was 'checking the light levels' when this person 'walked infront of the camera' ;D ;D


I really like this, little less motion blur would be wonderful, but hey, its candid, what can I say?


----------



## briansquibb (May 4, 2012)

One from Wednesday - she was just walking by our shoot


----------



## lady (May 13, 2012)

Exif data can be found here.


----------



## jtee (Jun 2, 2012)

From the 2012 Kentucky Derby


----------



## dturano (Jun 2, 2012)

good point, I love the thread, nice posts, always interested in the settings. I have some great candids that my wife grabbed with my 5dmk3 while im not home, she is trained to always spin it to "green" and fire away, if the flash is mounted to turn it on. Im curious to see others settings or what they used in a pinch. While not all candid are completely random and can be captured with some pre thought to settings if they are in manual and require an adjustment. For example a 2nd/3rd shooter whose goal is a photo journalistic approach is setup for getting great candids, im assuming your goal in getting settings was making adjustments in a pinch. even an expected situation requires an adjustment. Although, I had a good laugh with a friend who is an amazing photographer, he handles sales for a photography studio and found out he has a gift for grabbing shots, he does branch into manual settings but has no problem when doing 2nd/3rd shooter, especially 3rd using all auto and jpg. When all the shots are reviewed with the clients they (like many today, whole diff post, take for granted of good portraits and posed shots at events and are thrilled by the shots from a 3rd shooter off in the distnace capturing random moments.) use most of his shots for the album or request digital proofs to show off and post on facebook/etc

anyway sorry for the long reply, nice thread, keep the photos coming. 



Crapking said:


> Don't forget to include camera settings, situation, etc. We are trying to learn from each other how to quickly capture candid moments, NOT how to set up lights, position models, etc.


----------



## Tammy (Jun 15, 2012)

200mm, F/5.6, ISO 500


----------



## DianeK (Jun 15, 2012)

Captured this of our granddaughter just as my husband was wheeling her out of the shadows along a nature trail in the late afternoon. 60D, 300L f/4 IS, Av priority, spot metering, ISO 200, 1/1600, f/5.6
This is a crop of the original.
Diane


----------



## RobertG. (Jun 15, 2012)

My nephew Jonas seeing my 5DII for the first time 

5DII with EF 85mm f1.8 at f1.8 1/100 ISO 800


----------



## distant.star (Jun 15, 2012)

.
I LOVE this. Gorgeous picture! Thanks for posting it.




DianeK said:


> Captured this of our granddaughter just as my husband was wheeling her out of the shadows along a nature trail in the late afternoon. 60D, 300L f/4 IS, Av priority, spot metering, ISO 200, 1/1600, f/5.6
> This is a crop of the original.
> Diane


----------



## Jettatore (Jun 16, 2012)

Tijn said:


> First one was unexpected, second one was candid. 350D body, 18-55 kit lens. (Still saving for 60D and some real lenses, thats why I came here  )
> 
> I'd used a larger aperture if was more aware of the small apertures I was shooting with it at the time. Still, I like how these came out.



Here's a sample of what your 2nd image would look like after some added cropping... I think it helps focus the image and give it a more intimate character this way, bringing more interest to the subject.


----------



## Northstar (Jun 16, 2012)

i like this shot i took of a little girl sitting on dad's lap. we were on a boat, while heading down the river. this particular boat has a rear view mirror and i took several shots while they gazed at the beautiful scenery along the river - river bluffs, beach, tall hardwoods and wildlife were all out that day....this was my favorite shot though.

i'm sorry, gasp....i took the shot w/ my Nikon d7000 and the 28-300, which is my vacation/travel camera. (of course i much prefer my 5d3 though)


----------



## Cfunkexplosion (Jun 16, 2012)

Trying out my new 5D3 and 85L


----------



## DianeK (Jun 16, 2012)

Thank you for the compliment. I consider it one of my best "accidental" captures.



distant.star said:


> .
> I LOVE this. Gorgeous picture! Thanks for posting it.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## dr croubie (Jun 22, 2012)

I think it was Briansquibb was talking somewhere about using a tripod-mounted 400/2.8 for taking candid street-portraits at night.
I always thought that was a bit over the top ... until I read this.


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 22, 2012)

dr croubie said:


> I think it was Briansquibb was talking somewhere about using a tripod-mounted 400/2.8 for taking candid street-portraits at night.
> I always thought that was a bit over the top ... until I read this.



I have done some with the 600 as well during the day. Hardest thing is to get a good line of sight.


----------



## gary samples (Jul 5, 2012)

He Love's to shoot 
but he is a little heavy on the trigger finger 

200mm f2 great-grandson Trayvin take's after his papa 
Start them young


----------



## gary samples (Jul 5, 2012)

START THEM YOUNG. GIRLS RULE
granddaughter she is a shooter for sure


----------



## dr croubie (Jul 5, 2012)

I just wish my grandparents had gear like that... (although, at least my mum had some nice Pentax Spotmatic and Takumar lenses that i'm, uh, "borrowing")


----------



## gmrza (Jul 5, 2012)

dr croubie said:


> I just wish my grandparents had gear like that... (although, at least my mum had some nice Pentax Spotmatic and Takumar lenses that i'm, uh, "borrowing")


I wish that too! My grandfather reckoned "Wer zuviel Geld hat fotografiert oder hält sich Tauben" (Those who have too much money either get into photography or keep homing pigeons), so unfortunately, no gear from him! At least I got a Zeiss Ikon from my father!


----------



## nightbreath (Jul 5, 2012)

We started experimenting with self-portraits few weeks ago, here are first examples:


----------



## Northstar (Jul 5, 2012)

gary samples said:


> START THEM YOUNG. GIRLS RULE
> granddaughter she is a shooter for sure



I like both of those shots Gary, cute kids. Is that a 1.4 extender on a 600mm?


----------



## gary samples (Jul 5, 2012)

Northstar said:


> gary samples said:
> 
> 
> > START THEM YOUNG. GIRLS RULE
> ...


 1.4III and it works great most of my work is at 840mm here in Utah you need all the len you can get. but I just don't like the 2x would like the 1200mm but my wife like's living indoors I would have to sell the home to get it LOL


----------



## n0iZe (Jul 5, 2012)

Here's one "candid portrait".
Shot with a Canon EOS 450D and a 50mm f/1.4 USM mounted to it. 
ISO 100, f/1.8, 1/60sec

Let me know what you think.


----------



## gary samples (Jul 6, 2012)

old pro


----------



## Andy_Hodapp (Jul 8, 2012)

I take all of my portraits with a Canon T1i and 50mm 1.8 II because thats pretty much all I have. I find the most beautiful pictures of my girlfriend and just people in general to be when they are not paying attention to the camera. Here are some of the photos I've taken of people, many my girlfriend when they were not paying attention.


----------



## Crapking (Jul 8, 2012)

nightbreath said:


> We started experimenting with self-portraits few weeks ago, here are first examples:



Nice images, but not exactly 'candid' portraits. Every now and again, we debate the meaning of 'candid', but as OP, I am really hoping to keep on-thread by having posters display and discuss settings/strategies used to quickly capture unplanned/unposed moments in time. My intent with the thread is to see/learn what and HOW others use their cameras to spontaneously and quickly make memories worth sharing. 

I guess using a self-timer is a strategy I hadn't thought about till now, so maybe it actually does meet the criteria. 

Just hoping all posters remember to describe their settings/situation more in detail so we all can learn to step out of our comfort zone of controlling the lighting/posing, etc.


----------



## Crapking (Jul 8, 2012)

n0iZe said:


> Here's one "candid portrait".
> Shot with a Canon EOS 450D and a 50mm f/1.4 USM mounted to it.
> ISO 100, f/1.8, 1/60sec
> 
> Let me know what you think.



Nice composition, thanks for including exif info! Love it when they are unplanned and spontaneous. I guess indoors and hoping for some bokeh you needed to shoot more wide open (1.8, but ISO only 100? I'd thought you be willing to go a little higher to allow quicker shutter speed, but that's what making these candids is all about. Quickly setting camera, do you remember which mode you had set?

My only 'critique' is post-processing (lack thereof). Skin tones look a little off. But, this thread is NOT the place to get into that?


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 8, 2012)

Crapking said:


> n0iZe said:
> 
> 
> > Here's one "candid portrait".
> ...



Do you mean bokeh or bg blur?


----------



## Crapking (Jul 8, 2012)

The bokeh around the lights in the mirror, intentional or just good luck


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 8, 2012)

My new assistant. Saw good light and took the photo. 8)


----------



## gary samples (Jul 9, 2012)

pixel peeping


----------



## wickidwombat (Jul 9, 2012)

window shopping


----------



## wellfedCanuck (Jul 9, 2012)

gary samples said:


> pixel peeping


love the look of concentration...


----------



## Northstar (Jul 9, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> window shopping



This is a great candid portrait.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jul 9, 2012)

Northstar said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > window shopping
> ...



Thanks


----------



## Kamera Obscura (Jul 10, 2012)

sad.

dario./


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 10, 2012)

1DS3, 200 f/2

Yes her hair really is that soft and silky


----------



## Northstar (Jul 10, 2012)

Kamera Obscura said:


> sad.
> 
> dario./



I'm curious about this photo....could you expand on "sad"?


----------



## RichATL (Jul 10, 2012)

Getting into street photography with the shorty 40.




Peanut Connoisseur by RichMeade, on Flickr




Tucker Market by RichMeade, on Flickr




Watermelonman by RichMeade, on Flickr


----------



## cemsen (Jul 10, 2012)

have been following CR for a very long time now. time to stop being a lazy arse and post something, for what it's worth.

Mark III / 135mm


----------



## westr70 (Jul 10, 2012)

@samples. Is that kid on this forum? I bet he is. Great shot and well done.


----------



## Kamera Obscura (Jul 10, 2012)

That's the first thing that came to my mind after I took the picture.

May I kindly ask what prompted you curiosity? It could help my Photo eye ball.

Thanks,
dario.


----------



## bornshooter (Jul 10, 2012)

one from george square in glasgow during queen visit 



proud to be british by abledestroyer, on Flickr


----------



## bornshooter (Jul 10, 2012)

one from edinburgh a girl having a good phone call by the looks of it 



It's good to talk by abledestroyer, on Flickr


----------



## tphillips63 (Jul 10, 2012)

ghosh9691 said:


> NotABunny said:
> 
> 
> > Crapking said:
> ...



I never noticed until I read this but comparing IE and Chrome side by side it is obvious.
http://mansurovs.com/is-your-browser-color-managed


----------



## bfmawhinney (Jul 10, 2012)

Howdy


----------



## candyman (Jul 10, 2012)

tphillips63 said:


> I never noticed until I read this but comparing IE and Chrome side by side it is obvious.
> http://mansurovs.com/is-your-browser-color-managed




There is color difference as well when using IE 9. However, it is minor compared to Chrome. Wow.
I, however, worry more about seeing/working on color in post processing of my photos. I sometime deliver a photo that looks good on my laptop, but looks less good on someone elses laptop. That worries me. I want to make sure that my post processing is coming out in a way that it looks good on other screens as well. Don't know how to manage that...... :-\


----------



## robbinzo (Jul 10, 2012)

Took this with 550D and 100mm L f/2.8 macro through a glass screen.


----------



## dawgfanjeff (Jul 10, 2012)

Can you really have a "candid portrait"? Assuming a portrait is posed, it seems impossible
Anyway, 
7D+70-200 f/4 L IS, 0.008 sec (1/125), f/4.0, 70 mm, ISO 160 Exposure Bias	-1/3 EV




Untitled by dawgfanjeff, on Flickr

Couldn't resist this one:
7D+70-200 f/4 L IS, 0.003 sec (1/400), f/8.0, 183 mm, ISO 100 Exposure Bias 0 EV



Portrait Outtake by dawgfanjeff, on Flickr


----------



## AprilForever (Jul 10, 2012)

cemsen said:


> have been following CR for a very long time now. time to stop being a lazy arse and post something, for what it's worth.
> 
> Mark III / 135mm



Thanks for sharing! Post some more! This picture says a whole lot.


----------



## cayenne (Jul 10, 2012)

Just curious about most of these...

Are they only for your private collection and enjoyment...or, did you get signed waivers and try to make some $$ for these?

I noticed many have watermarks and copyright symbols on them, so that made me think they were likely trying to be protected for sales reasons.

I'm trying to learn what and when you need as far as model releases, especially if just taking street photos....and possibly wanting to market them.

Thanks in advance,

cayenne


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 10, 2012)

cayenne said:


> Just curious about most of these...
> 
> Are they only for your private collection and enjoyment...or, did you get signed waivers and try to make some $$ for these?
> 
> ...



Mine are not commercial so do not need model release


----------



## Kernuak (Jul 10, 2012)

In a legal sense, you only need a model release for commercial use and not editorial (if taken from a public area). However, if a portrait appears in a magazine, it can cause issues, that complicates things, so I think publications are getting a bit more careful, therefore it's always better to have one for either purpose, especially if it doesn't fit as an event photo or fits a specific purpose/article. It's one of the reasons I mostly steer clear of people, as I try to avoid comlications as much as possible. Also, sometimes people can get a bit annoyed at having their photo taken and there is always the chance of problems (especially with children of course)


----------



## wickidwombat (Jul 10, 2012)

cayenne said:


> Just curious about most of these...
> 
> Are they only for your private collection and enjoyment...or, did you get signed waivers and try to make some $$ for these?
> 
> ...


if you have an iphone the easiest way of dealing with model releases is to use this app

http://www.vmrelease.com/

you can customise it with you businese logo and its sooo much more convenient than carrying papers around which tend to blow everywhere in the wind. and you will always have it with you, unless you lose your phone that is. it would be good if they made it back up to the icloud though.


----------



## newbieshooter (Jul 11, 2012)

she sad that day


----------



## roumin (Jul 11, 2012)

Santa Monica Beach, California. Canon 5D3, 24-70 f/2.8, ISO250, 1/640, Aperture-priority AE. I did not think she noticed me, until I saw the picture.


----------



## Jotho (Jul 11, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> window shopping


Wickid, I love this pic. It leaves you thinking.


----------



## ddhacor (Jul 11, 2012)

One of my favorites. My daughter decorating her little brother's birthday cake. Canon AE-1P, 400 iso, 50mm 1.8.


----------



## Kathode-Ray (Jul 11, 2012)

Here's one of my 2.5 yr old daughter.

Shot with a 60D and EF-S 60mm macro.

Ray


----------



## distant.star (Jul 11, 2012)

.

I love this guy's look. Take a few pictures of him every time I go to the farm market. This one's better than most because of EF-135mm L.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jul 12, 2012)

cemsen said:


> have been following CR for a very long time now. time to stop being a lazy arse and post something, for what it's worth.
> 
> Mark III / 135mm



nice first post!

I like the composition of this even though her head is in the center of frame the oof british flags and underground symbol kept in the top provide nice context and fill that space nicely


----------



## Northstar (Jul 12, 2012)

Kamera Obscura said:


> That's the first thing that came to my mind after I took the picture.
> 
> May I kindly ask what prompted you curiosity? It could help my Photo eye ball.
> 
> ...



Hi...I guess I noticed the background images first...they're unique and "crazy".


----------



## Kamera Obscura (Jul 16, 2012)

and the cat came back.

dario.


----------



## blaydese (Jul 18, 2012)

tphillips63 said:


> I never noticed until I read this but comparing IE and Chrome side by side it is obvious.
> http://mansurovs.com/is-your-browser-color-managed



Ha ha, tested this on IE both on my work PC and on my home PC, and both times the pictures looked different. I'll try chrome at home and see what happens.

Peace! 8)


----------



## Tammy (Jul 24, 2012)




----------



## MrKorney (Jul 25, 2012)

Don't Know if this is considered candid or not, but hope you enjoy nonetheless


----------



## Ew (Jul 25, 2012)

Another one heavy with a heavy trigger finger... just have to teach 'em to review and delete the duds before the card fills up..


----------



## sandymandy (Jul 27, 2012)

Not sure if this is called candid but i just played around with my 50/1.8 and my friend in the park


----------



## Northstar (Aug 5, 2013)

MrKorney said:


> Don't Know if this is considered candid or not, but hope you enjoy nonetheless



Really great shot...love the face!


----------



## BoneDoc (Aug 5, 2013)

MrKorney said:


> Don't Know if this is considered candid or not, but hope you enjoy nonetheless



Love the facial expression


----------



## Northstar (Aug 5, 2013)

A candid portrait...i couldn't make up my mind about whether to leave the other two young ladies in the picture or not, but finally decided it would make the image more interesting as a sign of the times.

1dx
300 2.8


----------



## matt2491 (Aug 5, 2013)

Northstar said:


> A candid portrait...i couldn't make up my mind about whether to leave the other two young ladies in the picture or not, but finally decided it would make the image more interesting as a sign of the times.
> 
> 1dx
> 300 2.8



Haha, good shot!


----------



## Eneade (Aug 5, 2013)

I used to take lots of candid portraits with 600D + 70-200 f/4 IS but finally stopped. It is not really honnest to take pictures of people with such a zoom (equivalent of 320mm on FF).




hair twisting par Eneade, sur Flickr




297-RTC-2+bandes par Eneade, sur Flickr




641-RTC-1-2+bandes par Eneade, sur Flickr




184-1-RTC3 par Eneade, sur Flickr


----------



## cayenne (Aug 5, 2013)

Eneade said:


> I used to take lots of candid portraits with 600D + 70-200 f/4 IS but finally stopped. It is not really honnest to take pictures of people with such a zoom (equivalent of 320mm on FF).
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, if you're doing it for personal shots, and not doing anything commercially (I'm guessing by reading your post you didn't talk to them and get a released signed)...what's the problem with taking these shots in a public place?

I think they look wonderful...thanks for sharing!!

C


----------



## BoneDoc (Aug 5, 2013)

I was the "third" shooter at our neighbor's wedding 




IMG_0288 by BoneDC, on Flickr


----------



## BoneDoc (Aug 5, 2013)

My Sister - Version 4 by BoneDC, on Flickr




IMG_0090 - Version 2 by BoneDC, on Flickr


----------



## Eneade (Aug 5, 2013)

*@ cayenne* : you got it, I did not talk to people. I took so many pictures of people at that time and only keeping a few that it would have been a terrible waste of time to ask to every single person I took a picture of. Only the first shot uploaded made it to my Flickr page, the three other ones I had never shown.

As far as using the zoom, it was not really honnest as people don't see you taking the picture from that distance. It's more of an honest battle to go with a shorter lens. The old "street photography" thing...




361-RTC-1 par Eneade, sur Flickr


----------



## sarakoth (Aug 6, 2013)

Was trying out my 100mm macro lens for portraits when I first got it and captured this pic of my son sitting down playing. I loved the sharpness and shallow DOF.

http://500px.com/photo/3810990


----------



## Lloyd (Aug 6, 2013)

These are from photos I took at a friend's wedding reception a few years ago from which I cropped out this brother and sister.


----------



## Harry Muff (Aug 6, 2013)

Bowler Man by Marked Improvement Photo, on Flickr


----------



## Harry Muff (Aug 6, 2013)




----------



## niteclicks (Aug 6, 2013)

Don't know why I like this muddy pic.


----------



## niteclicks (Aug 6, 2013)

and a couple more.


----------



## Jim O (Aug 19, 2013)

My daughter...


----------



## Jim O (Aug 19, 2013)

No one said they had to be human, did they?

This was taken with a 60D and a 300mm f/4 IS wide open. She was probably 60 feet from me, or so. Focus point was at the dog's nose and you can see the narrow depth of field. Even with her very small snout her left eye is slightly out of focus.


----------



## Jim O (Aug 19, 2013)

One more of the same dog, same setup.


----------

