# Argh! Photos don't look like 7D photos.



## lady (Jul 6, 2012)

I don't know what's going on here. One of the things I look for when shooting portraits is that the skin has almost a "creamy" look to it. I have shot portraits like this before without issue. However when I went to take some pictures as usual in the mid-afternoon sun yesterday I ended up with terrible skin detail/tone.

This is a shot where I actually managed to achieve something: 






It's close to what I want, though not fully up to my standards.

This is one of my best examples, and oddly enough one of my earliest photos with this camera:





However, when I went to shoot yesterday, I got a bunch of really mediocre shots that looked like they could have been shot with my point-and-shoot. Not sure what I did wrong with the settings here.





70mm f/8 1/640 

Almost all of my pictures from that day ended up with sub-tier quality. 

Do you think I should have shot with a wider aperture instead? Help me out here. I've been considering adding a 5d mk iii to my camera collection so I can have a second body that's better at shots of people, but I know it won't help me take better photos.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 6, 2012)

The final image comes down your RAW Processing. I get great skin tones from any camera by getting the exposure correct and processing in LR3. Shooting at a larger aperture will provide the buttery background but your subject may not still have those nice skin tones.

Switching to FF will not magically fix your skin tones, Its your processing that will do that.


----------



## lady (Jul 6, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> The final image comes down your RAW Processing. I get great skin tones from any camera by getting the exposure correct and processing in LR3. Shooting at a larger aperture will provide the buttery background but your subject may not still have those nice skin tones.
> 
> Switching to FF will not magically fix your skin tones, Its your processing that will do that.



Any tips for getting the exposure correct? 

The FF would help with crop factor and IQ moreso than actual skin and individual shots is what I meant. I'll have to download a trial of LR and see what I can accomplish with it...


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 6, 2012)

lady said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > The final image comes down your RAW Processing. I get great skin tones from any camera by getting the exposure correct and processing in LR3. Shooting at a larger aperture will provide the buttery background but your subject may not still have those nice skin tones.
> ...



Use spot meter on your 7D, and get the metering for your subjects skins tones first. Determine if its accurate by your histogram readings because darker or lighter skin tones will throw your meter off. Use that setting you determine and should be perfect skin tones, and if not, Process the RAWs to correct it in post.

Yes, FF is better than crop in every way but I still keep my 7D for strobist/sports/reach that it provides me. I believe you should reach the limits of your camera before deciding to purchase a much more expensive camera.


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 6, 2012)

I would have used the flash for the third picture - that brings out the colour and contrast of the subject and dampens the ambient in the background


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 6, 2012)

lady said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > The final image comes down your RAW Processing. I get great skin tones from any camera by getting the exposure correct and processing in LR3. Shooting at a larger aperture will provide the buttery background but your subject may not still have those nice skin tones.
> ...


Are they jpg or raw images? If you are shooting jpeg, you are letting the camera guess at the right colors, and it might not always come out like what you see. When you use RAW, you are getting information off the sensor, and its pretty easy to change the color to something you like in DPP or lightroom, aperture, DXO, etc.
If the subject is shaded as in the 3rd image, (it looks like shaded), fill flash will help.
Colors and skin tones are very much a matter of personal preference, and you will want to make them look like what your eye saw.


----------



## SandyP (Jul 6, 2012)

These people aren't really bringing up the only real factor here. Yes, editing helps, but you shouldn't have to do any real serious editing to any great natural light portraits. 

The real issue here is light. 

The first image is shot under much higher sun, it's harder light, and can easily wash colors out because it's on a higher angle and generally looks bad if you don't know how to use it. 

The second image, the one you seem to like, was shot indoors, under lower ambient, where it's softer, and coming from "all over" as opposed to from one specific angle up in the sky. 

Don't fall into the trap of thinking that the editing will make the difference, it might HELP fix problems, but if you shoot it really well, you shouldn't have to do much editing at all. If it was all done really well in the camera, then the very minor things will help get an over all better image like white balance.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 6, 2012)

SandyP said:


> These people aren't really bringing up the only real factor here. Yes, editing helps, but you shouldn't have to do any real serious editing to any great natural light portraits.
> 
> The real issue here is light.
> 
> ...



All the posts + this will help. Buy a scrim also. 

+1


----------



## risc32 (Jul 7, 2012)

what sandy said. The shots that you aren't pleased with are taken with harder light. Less so the last shot but the sun is lower and casting a different color. Gear doesn't matter here, unless you are just looking to blow out the background. You should do what i did a few years ago, find the strobist blog by david hobby and read everything there. Even if you don't like certain things you will learn the how's and why's of lighting. BTW- that first shot isn't to far off what i've been doing lately, i just dial the ambient back a stop or so with my aperture and add a rim light, camera left.


----------



## canon816 (Jul 7, 2012)

Also, always be mindful of where your light source is. Unless you are going for a specific effect with side or back lighting try to keep your back to the sun so that there is even lighting on faces etc... Even in harsh mid day light you can increase your chances of a decent photo by eliminating harsh shadows over facial features. 

If you are trying to isolate your subject more from the back ground shoot at a wider aperture (smaller f stop number), longer focal length and fill the frame with your subject. 

When your camera is set to AWB it is always trying to figure out what neutral gray is and bases all other colors off of this assumption. Sometimes a simple WB adjustment in post to "warm" up the scene will help with the harsh lighting and overpower the tones that make skin look pale.

Biggest thing.... shoot, shoot, shoot. And in a wide variety of light. Go out at sunrise and sunset, shoot when overcast etc.... You'll figure it out. Your camera and lens are just fine so have tons of fun learning...


----------



## pdirestajr (Jul 7, 2012)

Like others have said, focus on photographing the light. Find good light first. Then put a subject in it.


----------



## lady (Jul 7, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> lady said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



Thanks for the tip. I shoot raw. It's not just skin tone, though. It's the way the lighting falls on the skin.



canon816 said:


> Also, always be mindful of where your light source is. Unless you are going for a specific effect with side or back lighting try to keep your back to the sun so that there is even lighting on faces etc... Even in harsh mid day light you can increase your chances of a decent photo by eliminating harsh shadows over facial features.
> 
> If you are trying to isolate your subject more from the back ground shoot at a wider aperture (smaller f stop number), longer focal length and fill the frame with your subject.
> 
> ...



I wish I could control the lighting in those scenarios. Unfortunately we were trying to get shots in front of landmarks and city scapes so I had little control over where to put them. I'm wary of using a flash directly in the face of the subject when doing this, but I see no other way to get good skin smoothness otherwise. I have a 320ex. 



Mt Spokane Photography said:


> lady said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



RAW exclusively. The colors aren't what bugs me because I can fix that, it's the smoothness of the skin and how harsh shadows fall on the face. By fill flash, you mean turning the flash power way down to fill up the face just enough to balance with the background? Hmm, I didn't think of that...



SandyP said:


> These people aren't really bringing up the only real factor here. Yes, editing helps, but you shouldn't have to do any real serious editing to any great natural light portraits.
> 
> The real issue here is light.
> 
> ...



Reason I asked for advice is I don't want to spend a lot of time post processing, ESPECIALLY in situations like this where I have to use the shots and show them to people (and half of them must be salvaged with more than basic pp). If it was just me goofing around, shooting for fun it wouldn't be as much of an issue. 

The first picture was shot around 7:30pm (here the sun doesn't set until 9:45pm). The 3rd shot was done around 3:30PM (both were cloudless days). I agree that lighting is an issue here, but one issue I encountered was when I used exposure alone to light up the foreground the faces just looked washed out. 



pdirestajr said:


> Like others have said, focus on photographing the light. Find good light first. Then put a subject in it.



Can't control that when the location is picked for you


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 7, 2012)

lady said:


> Can't control that when the location is picked for you



2 off camera flash is the easiest way to control the light in situations like this. Whilst everyone will tell you about reflectors, scrims and large softboxes these are not practical outdoors unless you have help.

1. Shooting with no diffusers works. Just use -ve FEP for a tickle of flash. Some great movies have been lit in this way - using the raw light to their advantage

2. Shoot with mini softboxes takes the harshness away - again slight -ve FEP

3. Reflector on floor - light bounced upwards works well to remove 'panda eyes' when the sun is high

There are all sorts of things that can be done - even someone wearing a white T works as a soft reflector

Don't be frightened of using flash - it isn't a black art


----------



## Coheebuzz (Jul 7, 2012)

The reason your last photo looks like that is because the red floor is getting reflected on your subjects.


----------



## AprilForever (Jul 7, 2012)

Lighting is bad on 1 and 3... There is no fixing them. Try positioning your subjects so the kight is better, or the light is less harsh. Mayhap take use of shade...


----------



## infilm (Jul 7, 2012)

SandyP said:


> These people aren't really bringing up the only real factor here. Yes, editing helps, but you shouldn't have to do any real serious editing to any great natural light portraits.
> 
> The real issue here is light.
> 
> ...


Well said... Shooting mid-day is almost always going to give poor results when shooting portraits. The hardness of the sun when overhead is difficult to deal with. Try shooting in the early morning or very late afternoon. The sun can then either be a backlight or a key light you'll have much better results.


----------



## photophreek (Jul 7, 2012)

As a former wedding photographer with no studio and formal shots were always done in a park setting, fill flash, not PP, was the way to fix these problems. The first image was shot with the subject facing the sun and that's why he's squinting. The one with the shadows can be fixed with fill flash.

As was previously recommended, try to have the sun behind the subject. Invest in a good ambient light meter and measure the light falling on the subject's face and adjust the camera settings accordingly. The fill should be set at a 3:1 ratio. In other words, the fill should be set at 1.5 - 2 stops less than the metered setting. 

You mentioned that you have the 320ex. I have this flash and it's output is very harsh. Before using it for fill, I'd do some tests with it to get the right ratio because of it's harshness. I'd guess that the fill setting for the 320ex would be 1/2 a stop more. Failing that, use the popup flash for fill. It works really well and you can quickly adjust, test and adjust again to see what the best setting is. You want to use fill so that it picks up the shadows and doesn't look like a flash has been fired. 

Forget about reflectors and get good at positioning your subjects knowing where the sun is and using fill lash and your outdoor portraits will look better. Good luck.


----------



## canon816 (Jul 7, 2012)

photophreek said:


> As was previously recommended, try to have the sun behind the subject.



I think what photophreek meant to say was try to have the sun behind the you (the photographer) so your subjects are facing the sun and have more even lighting on their face.

Unless I am wrong with this assumption and photophreek was suggesting backlighting to produce a nice rim-light effect around your subject... Much harder to pull off though...


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 7, 2012)

Having the sun behind the photographer will make the subject squint


----------



## AdamJ (Jul 7, 2012)

Having a tower apparently protruding from the head of one of your subjects doesn't help the composition.


----------



## SandyP (Jul 9, 2012)

You can still get the sun in front of the subject and not have them squint, but only for a few shots, and with practice. You ask them to close their eyes, get them in their pose/how you want them, and then ask them to open their eyes normally. You take the photo, very quickly. Instantly. It works very well, but of course some people just can't handle it if it's TOO bright. 

So, use open shade. Look for dappled light. You can indeed use the sun facing them, but you have to be far picker about it. Plus, you can always turn them away from the sun, and at least have their face be in shadow profile now. 

I just took this of my girlfriend, testing out a new film camera, as we went shopping in a popular part of the city. Just a candid shot really, but it shows that by easily turning them away from the sun, you can get nice/basic/easy results. And no editing. I don't "edit" my film photos. Purity is fun, sometimes. 




Good evening, square. by Sandy Phimester, on Flickr

Same thing here, the sun is mostly to her side, but by using the cover of these cherry blossom trees, we are getting a very small area of shade, and you can always be tricky with your shooting this way. More film, and no edits on these. Another reason I love me some film shootin! 




Kirsten. Blossom. by Sandy Phimester, on Flickr

Both of those examples were in very harsh light, similar to what the original poster of this topic was complaining about. Yes, it can be harsh, and annoying, but when it's beaming that sunshine out, I like to wait, if I can, or plan to use it wisely to get good results. 

Or you can just get creative with the hard light and use shadows in other neat ways...  




Avery by Sandy Phimester, on Flickr


There are always options. You need to "find the light".


----------

