# Do I need a better camera or a better pair of hands?



## nightbreath (Dec 21, 2011)

I want to get out of my camera everything I can, but I feel that I cannot achieve level of few local photographers right now. I'm not sure whether the camera applies limitations or it is me who needs another way of thinking.

I own 7D, use fixed lenses and some additional tools (flashes, reflectors) to achieve the best results I can.

I've formed an opinion that better color transformation (making the colors richer, extending separate colors' depth) can be achieved only on a new camera. Could you please take a look at images below and say what I'm missing.



*Here's how my images normally look like:*


----------



## Freshprince08 (Dec 21, 2011)

I'm sure you'll get different views, but to me your shots look great in terms of colour reproduction and punch. If anything I guess you could push them harder in post if you wanted to, but that's down to personal taste. If anything, on the "other" guy's photos you posted - the shot of the bride next to the window shows some fringing along the left hand edge of the dress. Colours on yours look great to my eyes.


----------



## Narcolepsy (Dec 21, 2011)

I prefer your photos to all but one of the "other guys" shots.
The golf shot is very cool - but that is composition - not camera equipment
Your colors and punch are great!


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 21, 2011)

Watch out for too shallow DOF ( #3 )

Give them space ( #3)

Avoid taking pictures up the nose ( #2, #5 )

Avoid taking wa pictures - unless they are very wa when it is obvious that is what you are aiming for

The 7D is nore than good enough for weddings but you will have to work on the pp to get the best images

5DII, 1Ds3, 1D4 are the only other options and they will introduce new issues, including a big cost.

Just remember that a wedding albumn is reportage, 90% 'standard' images, 10% 'artistic' images. Keep focussed on the standard images as they wont forgive you if the picture of mum and pop look bad.


----------



## nightbreath (Dec 21, 2011)

Thank you for your comments, I appreciate this. I just started shooting weddings, so budget of my clients does not allow celebrating in an extraordinary place. Here in Ukraine we have no many places good for shooting at â€“ broken roads, lots of garbage all over the streets, people don't care. It's a challenge to find good composition in everyday conditions.

What I want to outline here is that on my photos colors look as close to each other in tone range (they are worm or cold). But what that guy does is playing with color warmth on the same picture.


----------



## KeithR (Dec 21, 2011)

nightbreath said:


> But what that guy does is playing with color warmth on the same picture.



His skin tones are just plain _wrong_ on my calibrated monitor - they look like they've got Jaundice.

Yours are much, much better. I wouldn't try and emulate him if I were you...


----------



## nightbreath (Dec 21, 2011)

KeithR said:


> nightbreath said:
> 
> 
> > But what that guy does is playing with color warmth on the same picture.
> ...



I don't like the skin color too, but if I can go that far with color temperature changes I'd be able to look it the way I want.


----------



## JackSw1ss (Dec 21, 2011)

Hey Nightbreak


well as others said I don't see much problems on your pics, they are nicely made.
If I may though I'll give you my critiques, personal critiques which is what maybe you're looking for.

1) I don't think it's primarily a "tool problem". to me it seems you can use your tools quite efficiently and good.
One point might be: are you sure you're doing everything you could on post?just explore that part of your process, because on the pre-production seems like you're squeezing all you can in a very good product already

2) and to me this is essential...
This might be what you're lookin for and therefore I will not critique this and say u don't have to do so but for me you're shots are too fashion-like...as for weddings I see that the most impact pics are the reportage-style ones.
Means you have to change your style?!nope, abs not, but it could be a frontier to analize and look after if you say you see "problems and limits" on your pictures.

3) the above point brings me to the most important thing: composition.
I would work more on the composition side, seeing that your tools are used well and considering you will analyze the post and picture style. The other thing to consider is composition. As some said above, some shots are cropped thight, maybe too much or are simply uninteresting because of the look you give to them...

Just my personal critique. Sometimes you might not agree with it but it opens windows or makes you think to some stuff you weren't considering. This happens when people critique me harsh...I see things I weren't considering which is deeply important

Cheers


----------



## torger (Dec 21, 2011)

This is so much a matter of taste. I think color rendition of your images is better, more natural. It is more about post-processing than camera. It is only at (very) high ISOs and/or poor artificial lighting color capture can be a bit too poor to tune it well to your liking in post.

I'd prefer a full-frame camera like the 5D, but it is not so much for image quality (although it is indeed a little bit better at high ISOs), but because of very high usefulness a 70-200/2.8 gets (very nice field of view range on the fullframe, a bit too much tele on 7D) and also 50 and 85 gets more practical FoVs I think, and the shorter DoFs and nice "lofi" vignetted look you get with wide open primes, very nice for headshots. But that is also a matter of taste. I really like the short DoF looks on faces, like the bride headshot you have (I'd like to have a little bit more air around it though, and then full-frame is better since you can have more air and still have short DoF - f/2.8 on 5D is like f/2 on 7D for the same FoV), but as you see Brian here above thinks it is too short, so it depends on what you and your customers like.


----------



## scottkinfw (Dec 21, 2011)

Imho
Your pics look great. The difference between them is I think a matter of style. His look great too, and I wouldn't say one style looks better than another, just different.

I also agree that you can get a different look in post. 

Keep up the great work.


----------



## Jettatore (Dec 21, 2011)

Nightbreath. The important thing is to get the exposure more or less correct in camera and then focus on your composition and subject content (DOF, capturing the perfect moment, focal length, lighting, etc.). Get the colors looking amazing in editing. Pictures like you've posted don't normally come of the camera like that. I think this is entirely the reason you are frustrated.

To think about the same thing in other words. If you can capture the content of those really nice shots you've posted more or less the same and only the colors are off, then you are doing things behind the camera just fine. If you want to test how well things are going behind the camera for you vs. what you are trying to match, take both your study images and some samples of your own images into an editor and Desaturate (Black and White) them all and you will see if there are other areas that you need to focus on as well. You also have a decent bit of play room in editing to re-adjust overall exposure as well as highlights and shadow areas, especially if shooting in RAW in case just a bit of curves or RAW sliders will get you the match you are looking for.


----------



## Maui5150 (Dec 21, 2011)

Over all I think your shots are great. FF will give you a little more IQ and I find color, but I think for me, your shots are more composition choices like all center focus versus being more rule of 3rds. I would have cropped more of the right and a little of the top on the 2nd shot, and it gives the bride more sitting in light with shadows to the left and just draws me in more than sort of the tunnel dark to the left and right. It is a style preference. 

On the other guys shots, I find them too blue. You may like that, some people prefer cooler to warmer pictures, and all you have to do with that is either add filters post-process or in light room shift the temp up a little higher. 

I don't mind the DOF on the 3rd shot, that is closer to how I probably would have shot it, but I think I would have pulled it back a bit more to give some more space. 

For the shots you are getting, I think you are doing fine


----------



## CowGummy (Dec 21, 2011)

Duvi said:


> a person is only as good as his equipment...



I think I know what you're trying to say, although personally I've always been more of the impression that the equipment is only ever as good as the person operating it.


----------



## nightbreath (Dec 21, 2011)

JackSw1ss said:


> 2) This might be what you're lookin for and therefore I will not critique this and say u don't have to do so but for me you're shots are too fashion-like...as for weddings I see that the most impact pics are the reportage-style ones.


It's the only option for now. Many people in my country won't spend more than $2000 on their own wedding (average salary level is $325 a month). Wedding starts from an old-fashioned (soviet union style) registry office, includes a short journey over the city for photo / video shooting and continues in a cafe for 20-25 people. So one good thing I could do is to get some pictures that are different from what people see every day.



JackSw1ss said:


> 3) the above point brings me to the most important thing: composition.


I'm doing my best to get a good composition, but I feel that I'm not always getting the best one out of situation. Are there any recommendation on this? I've read some books about composition, so maybe I need time to practice more? I want full-frame anyway to make angle of view wider (it's a challenge to think about composition in a small room).


----------



## Rampado (Dec 21, 2011)

I donÂ´t think is a matter of equipment... ItÂ´s a different style...

Anyway, your pictures are not bad!


----------



## torger (Dec 21, 2011)

nightbreath said:


> I'm doing my best to get a good composition, but I feel that I'm not always getting the best one out of situation. Are there any recommendation on this? I've read some books about composition or maybe I need time to practice more?



I think practice is the best thing, photo a lot all the time (remember, it's digital, so it is cheap these day to practice), and in post-processing look at your own pictures and think "why is this good/bad?" and "how could this have been made better?" and try to find some key items to think about. Looking at other photographers pictures too to get inspiration, and also think about them what makes them good/bad. When I look at your pictures it seems to me that you have enough artistic talent to just let it grow by practice, you don't need to read that much, although that does not hurt of course. If you have friends/colleagues with good taste for photographs and good at giving constructive criticism it can be worthwhile too.

When working you probably don't have much time to think, and then you need good intuition and that you get by a lot of practice.


----------



## danski0224 (Dec 21, 2011)

I think your shots look great.

If I was to offer something, I would say that they look a touch overexposed to me... but I do not make money with a camera, and my monitor is not calibrated so take it for what it is worth.




nightbreath said:


> I want to get out of my camera everything I can, but I feel that I cannot achieve level of few local photographers right now. I'm not sure whether the camera applies limitations or it is me who needs another way of thinking.
> 
> I own 7D, use fixed lenses and some additional tools (flashes, reflectors) to achieve the best results I can. The guy who's photos I've posted below uses 1D IV, 5D II, 1Ds III, fixed lenses, flashes and reflectors.
> 
> I've formed an opinion that better color transformation (making the colors richer, extending separate colors' depth) can be achieved only on a new camera. Could you please take a look at images below and compare the results we've got to identify what I'm missing.


----------



## nightbreath (Dec 21, 2011)

Jettatore said:


> To think about the same thing in other words. If you can capture the content of those really nice shots you've posted more or less the same and only the colors are off, then you are doing things behind the camera just fine. If you want to test how well things are going behind the camera for you vs. what you are trying to match, take both your study images and some samples of your own images into an editor and Desaturate (Black and White) them all and you will see if there are other areas that you need to focus on as well. You also have a decent bit of play room in editing to re-adjust overall exposure as well as highlights and shadow areas, especially if shooting in RAW in case just a bit of curves or RAW sliders will get you the match you are looking for.



This shot was made at f/2 on 85mm:






You can compare it to this one:






I've got a feeling that when I edit photos in Lightroom texture starts to disappear to soon comparing to what I could get on full-frame. Or it's self-deception, I don't know.


----------



## 92101media (Dec 21, 2011)

For composition, you can take 2 'L' shaped pieces of non-transparent paper or cardboard, and place them at opposite diagonals, and then move them both up & down and left & right over your screen or print, thereby masking different amounts & areas of the photo, to see the effect of different compositions. 

For instance in your 2nd photo (the one of the bride gazing off to the side) you could crop the entire left 3rd of the picture, that way the subject wouldn't be dead center, and with the left side of the picture cropped, the open space she is gazing into on the right side of the picture would gain more impact, creating a more wistful or dreamy look. BTW, I love the rich colors in this photo.

I like the shot through the foliage of the 1st photo, but again you could crop the right 1/4th and the bottom 1/6th to eliminate uninteresting detail & draw the eye more to the couple in the center.

The tight crop on the 3rd pic is fine, and the pic overall is nice, if not terribly exciting. It's a serene look, but I'd rather see her eyes or some emotion on her face.

I'm not a big fan of the 4th pic. I understand that maybe you/they were going for something fun, but by doing so they've completely covered their faces, thereby missing out on potentially the most interesting element of the shot (the expression/emotion on their faces).

Also, while I do think both sets of photos look great, they seem to indicate 2 slightly different styles to me. The 1st set are more classical, tender & serene; while the 2nd set seem more carefree & playful (except the shoe shot, of course). While some classical/wistful shots are great, you could also research some tips or strategies for bringing out some of the emotional or playful sides of your subject's personalities. Not always easy to do, for sure, but something worth considering.


----------



## bycostello (Dec 21, 2011)

i guarantee you it is nothing to do with camera, but your camera craft and post production... once u got the look u like, u prob can sort an action for it to create it at a touch of a button..


----------



## unfocused (Dec 21, 2011)

Nightbreath: There is nothing wrong with any of your photos and most of the "advice" you are getting here is bad. 

Compositions are great, lighting perfect, post-production excellent. 

Do the other photographer's images look slightly different? Yes. Different photographers, different styles. There are an infinite number of variables in shooting and post production, so it's impossible to tell from the images what he is doing differently. If you see something you like in his work, then experiment. No matter what happens, it will be a learning experience.

One thing though, you have a really unfair advantage living in Ukraine, since it has one of the highest ratios of beautiful to ugly. Feel sorry for those poor blokes who have to try to make plump, pasty-faced brides and grooms look good.


----------



## nightbreath (Dec 21, 2011)

92101media said:


> For composition, you can take 2 'L' shaped pieces of non-transparent paper or cardboard, and place them at opposite diagonals, and then move them both up & down and left & right over your screen or print, thereby masking different amounts & areas of the photo, to see the effect of different compositions.



I like the idea of playing with composition, I think the discussion was turned into wrong direction. Here are few examples of what I like in terms of composition:

















I know that the examples I gave before are not the best composed ones, but I found them the best to show what my concerns are.


----------



## Jettatore (Dec 21, 2011)

nightbreath said:


> Jettatore said:
> 
> 
> > To think about the same thing in other words. If you can capture the content of those really nice shots you've posted more or less the same and only the colors are off, then you are doing things behind the camera just fine. If you want to test how well things are going behind the camera for you vs. what you are trying to match, take both your study images and some samples of your own images into an editor and Desaturate (Black and White) them all and you will see if there are other areas that you need to focus on as well. You also have a decent bit of play room in editing to re-adjust overall exposure as well as highlights and shadow areas, especially if shooting in RAW in case just a bit of curves or RAW sliders will get you the match you are looking for.
> ...



You've improved the shot a decent bit in editing vs. the original but you've also deteriorated it in spots, this is exactly where your weakness is. You've over-saturated areas in the edit and have made the entire image a bit florescent and haven't leveraged other options that are available and that would have worked much better. You don't need a new camera if color is your issue and concern, you need to work on your editing skills. Best regards.


----------



## nightbreath (Dec 21, 2011)

unfocused said:


> Nightbreath: There is nothing wrong with any of your photos and most of the "advice" you are getting here is bad.
> 
> Compositions are great, lighting perfect, post-production excellent.
> 
> ...



Thank you so much for this input. Frankly speaking, what I want from a new camera is the same jump I've felt when I moved from 400D to 7D. It was a huge new world to experiment in and the images taken out of the camera looked quite different.

What I personally want to achieve is the ability to do photos in any style I saw to be able to get out the best of every possible situation. It's not about being a good photographer to earn money, it's about inspiring yourself when you see results.

Tool in my eyes is sort of a toy that gives you additional inspiration. In this post I wanted to hear everyones thoughts about the direction I should follow. Any comments (including critiques) are welcome.


----------



## nightbreath (Dec 21, 2011)

Jettatore said:


> You've improved the shot a decent bit in editing vs. the original but you've also deteriorated it in spots, this is exactly where your weakness is. You've over-saturated areas in the edit and have made the entire image a bit florescent and haven't leveraged other options that are available and that would have worked much better. You don't need a new camera if color is your issue and concern, you need to work on your editing skills. Best regards.



Thank you for your comment. Could you be more specific on the "deterioration it in spots"?


----------



## torger (Dec 21, 2011)

nightbreath said:


> I've got a feeling that when I edit photos in Lightroom texture starts to disappear to soon comparing to what I could get on full-frame. Or it's self-deception, I don't know.



Technically speaking, the 5Dmk2 has better tonal range than the 7D. ISO400 on the 5Dmk2 has about the same tonal range/precision as ISO100 on the 7D. You can look at DxOmark measurements for example. At base ISO I don't think it has makes much of a difference though, it is good enough on the 7D. But if you have really fine eyes you might see a slight difference.


----------



## nightbreath (Dec 21, 2011)

Can anyone share a RAW headshot from a full-frame camera to play with it?


----------



## Gumbum (Dec 21, 2011)

Let me start by saying that I think you take beautiful pictures.
When that is said, I know exactly what you mean with the image quality that seems unobtainable on a crop camera like the 7D. A full frame camera just adds that extra pop...an almost 3D'ish effect. Medium format cameras adds even more of that effect.

Am I the only one seeing this? 

Odd first post perhaps but reading this thread is kinda like twilight zone...why won't anybody give this guy a straight answer?


----------



## nightbreath (Dec 21, 2011)

Gumbum said:


> Let me start by saying that I think you take beautiful pictures.
> When that is said, I know exactly what you mean with the image quality that seems unobtainable on a crop camera like the 7D. A full frame camera just adds that extra pop...an almost 3D'ish effect. Medium format cameras adds even more of that effect.
> 
> Am I the only one seeing this?
> ...



Thank you so much! This is one of the factors I was looking for.

Also wanted to achieve good results in color transformation, so when I desaturate Reds and saturate Oranges a little more than I do it with 7D I don't see wracked texture on my monitor.


----------



## nightbreath (Dec 21, 2011)

Does anyone know if the street pictures I want to get might be done by combination of artificial and natural light at the same time (flash to fill shadows / freeze the moment and reflector to add warmth). Or would it be a bad kind of experiment?


----------



## sb (Dec 21, 2011)

nightbreath, I've spent a lot of time trying to reverse engineer other people's pictures, and a lot of time photographing weddings and developing my own style, I've learned quite a few things in the process, so here are my 2 cents:

Your photos are very good, and your self-criticism reminds me of my own self-criticism. Believe me, the only way to improve is to look at your work with the most critical eye and check your ego at the door. Your mind is definitely in the right place. So here are some concrete comments:

Keep in mind that what people post on their website is their absolute best work. Some wedding photogs take it further and actually stage shots with models in order to get a mind blowing portfolio (i.e. not real weddings). There is good evidence on the pictures you posted that the photographer may have done just that, or at the very least, took these at a really slow wedding because of the more elaborate shot setups.

On the picture of the bride by the window where bridesmaids are buttoning up her dress, the main light is window light but you can see that he used a flash for back lighting, 45 degrees to the right of the camera and behind the bride. You pointed out different warm/cool areas in the image and were asking how to do it. In this window example I mentioned, the photog cooled down the entire scene via WB setting, used a golden reflector to warm up the brideâ€™s face, and probably put a warm gel on the strobe in the back as well because the highlight looks white to me. This is why the background looks so cold, and subject looks warm-ish. 

Anyway, this is the point I'm trying to make - during a real wedding, I would never go through the trouble of setting up strobes with gels in order to get that one shot. It's just not time-effective, and there are too many things going on. However, if I wanted to get a kick-ass portfolio, I would get a model, and take my time perfecting the lighting for that one portfolio shot. 

You can clearly operate the camera, you have lots of creative thought, and itâ€™s a real shame you are in a market where you canâ€™t flourish. In north America, you could easily charge 3K+ for your work. I think the area of improvement that you need to focus on is post processing. And I know some people here are saying your images are â€œcolor correctâ€ etc, and that you shouldnâ€™t try to copy the other processingâ€¦ but â€œcorrect colorâ€ is not what you necessarily want in modern wedding photography. In fact I go out of my way to make my colors incorrect if it creates the kind of mood I want. 

Lastly, a bit of a sobering thought: In my personal experience, I realized after a long time that hard work and continuous improvement and learning will make you realize your potential, but there is still that extra 10-15% that some people have, and some will never be able to attain. Itâ€™s like anything else â€“ there are great singers, and there are legendary ones. A long time ago I realized that Iâ€™ll never be nearly as good as Sean Flanigan, but that didnâ€™t stop me from trying to get as close as my talent would allow. 

If you want to reverse engineer a photograph, I encourage you to ask these questions:

-What kind of lighting setup did they use? On-camera? Off-camera? Natural? How many light sources?
-Look at the white balance in the image (by looking at white areas for example) and figure which (if any) gels were used to warm up certain areas.
-If itâ€™s an outdoor shot, determine whether it was taken in a cloudy day or sunny by looking at the shadows
-Open the image in photoshop, and using the color picker tool determine if any tints were applied to shadows or highlights
-Donâ€™t forget to look at the environment where the original image was taken. For example â€“ in that bathroom picture that you posted â€“ there is a lot of naturally occurring blue in the scene (wall tiles etc) so the image naturally looks cold, which is why itâ€™s easy to make the face pop out, if you only put a mild orange gel on your flash.

You don't need a new camera, you just need a militant approach to image analysis. Good luck with everything and feel free to email me.


----------



## Jettatore (Dec 21, 2011)

Your original + edit is here:











I don't know what much there is to explain further. You have 100% control over the colors in editing if you know what you are doing, practice. Give me a black&white photo and I can give you back a color image that you can't tell wasn't originally a color image to begin with.

I did a sample test in a few moments for you quickly, quality isn't as good as you could do because I don't have the original files to work with so just pay attention to the color changes that are possible (and the possibilities are infinite). Enjoy.

*Both options below are edits from your original (not a comparison).* I think you can do even better edits, I just wanted to whip something back to you quickly to impress that the possibilities are endless and this isn't a "I need a new camera" concern. Best of luck to you.

edit: p.s. the deterioration I was talking about is where you lost a bit of contrast on the male's suit and turned him into a dark blob in the scene, and as well some subtle color variations in the grasses and whatnot and just blended together and were lost into one solid color.


----------



## skitron (Dec 21, 2011)

sb said:


> ...I know some people here are saying your images are â€œcolor correctâ€ etc, and that you shouldnâ€™t try to copy the other processingâ€¦ but â€œcorrect colorâ€ is not what you necessarily want in modern wedding photography. In fact I go out of my way to make my colors incorrect if it creates the kind of mood I want...



I was shocked at some of the shots I saw of a family member's engagement from someone that has a reputation as one of the best in a large market. They were so over processed and saturated they looked surreal and had an almost non-photograph quality to them. They paid out the nose and though I have no interest in that style, do have to admit they looked pretty cool. But then "surreal" is obviously how the couple wants to remember their engagement, so mission accomplished (and invoice collected). All to say I think you're absolutely correct to take license.


----------



## sb (Dec 21, 2011)

Skitron that's the beauty of the market. There is something for everyone. You will always have traditionalists with the "correct" color reproduction, and you will always have hipster kids with the tilt-shift lenses, grain and faded processing. It comes down to what you prefer. Most younger couples prefer the latter. 

That being said, I agree that there's a lot of psychedelic processing out there. But if there are buyers - good for them!


----------



## nightbreath (Dec 21, 2011)

sb said:


> nightbreath, I've spent a lot of time trying to reverse engineer other people's pictures, and a lot of time photographing weddings and developing my own style, I've learned quite a few things in the process, so here are my 2 cents...



The best post in this thread, thank you for sharing your thoughts and your help


----------



## torger (Dec 21, 2011)

Gumbum said:


> When that is said, I know exactly what you mean with the image quality that seems unobtainable on a crop camera like the 7D. A full frame camera just adds that extra pop...an almost 3D'ish effect. Medium format cameras adds even more of that effect.
> 
> Am I the only one seeing this?
> 
> Odd first post perhaps but reading this thread is kinda like twilight zone...why won't anybody give this guy a straight answer?



I don't really want to provide an answer only emotional and that does not provide any reason, I guess that's because I'm an engineer . What exactly makes up this 3D'ish effect you speak of?

The increased vignetting and shorter DoF using wide-open primes does give a specific look which is hard to obtain from a crop camera. I use both a 7D and a 5Dmk2 and I'd say that the differences are:

- 7D has less tonal range at high ISOs - i e color rendition is not as good
- 5Dmk2 gives more usable field of views (for people photography) for common primes and specifically the 70-200/2.8 zoom
- Shorter DoF on fullframe is noticable, I think it is valuable for people photography
- Vignetting becomes more noticable, which often is kind of desirable when photographing people (vignetting can be added 
artificially in post of course)
- Using the same primes on a 7D and a 5D you notice the DoF and vignetting differences very obviously when used wide open,
and then the look from the fullframe is generally preferable.
- The 5Dmk2 is apart from the sensor a worse camera than the 7D (lesser AF, lesser build quality)

Note that 50/1.2 or 85/1.2 on fullframe gives as short DoF as you can get from a typical medium format system, since medium format usually don't have that large apertures.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 21, 2011)

nightbreath said:


> sb said:
> 
> 
> > nightbreath, I've spent a lot of time trying to reverse engineer other people's pictures, and a lot of time photographing weddings and developing my own style, I've learned quite a few things in the process, so here are my 2 cents...
> ...



+1 Absolutely!

sb gets some good Karma. Although, I wish he'd share his web URL so we can see some of his work...hint...hint.

Plus...I still miss Ukraine. Had the opportunity to go there several times in the 90s and would go back in a minute. Government is a total disaster, but the people...especially the younger ones...terrific!


----------



## Gumbum (Dec 21, 2011)

torger said:


> What exactly makes up this 3D'ish effect you speak of?



I don't know...you are the engineer, you tell me 
But I'm sure the thinner dof plays a major part...it's not the only thing though.
The only time I have been able to get a similar effect on a crop (I own both a 550D and a 5D2) has been out to sea...something about the light and contrast perhaps?

But please tell me you see it? It's like objects size relation to each other gets distorted and a 3D effect occurs.


Here the Brenizer method has been used to exaggerate the effect:


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 21, 2011)

Gumbum said:


> Here the Brenizer method has been used to exaggerate the effect:



That is a really pleasing image!!


----------



## sb (Dec 21, 2011)

unfocused said:


> +1 Absolutely!
> sb gets some good Karma. Although, I wish he'd share his web URL so we can see some of his work...hint...hint.



 I thought URL was visible on the profile... I guess not. Anyway here it is - http://www.bn-photography.com/lifestyle/


----------



## bigblue1ca (Dec 21, 2011)

I like your pictures! 

#1 I like the natural framing and the reds mixed with the white. 

#2 the colours are so rich and vibrant, with the window light and the bride looking off. If the photo was mine I'd consider cropping the image off on the left at the window frame, as I don't think the image loses anything and it draws more attention to the bride.

#3 I like it and the DOF, there could be a little more breathing room in the image, but whatever each to their own, I'd be more than happy as is. 

#4 Yes it's over saturated, but that works well with the playfulness of the image. Obviously, not all your pictures are going to look like that, but for a fun shot, that looks great. Only one small critique of #4, be wary of trees and poles growing out of heads, unless done intentionally for artistic or humour effect.

Having said that there is certainly nothing wrong with the other guy's pictures, just a slightly different style, although I agree they may be a little too blue. 

As for getting a full frame, I hear you. I'm presently saving my pennies to buy a FF for the improved DOF, ISO, and tonal range it offers over my crop sensor. Not to mention my 70-200 2.8 at the 70 end is sometimes just a little too tight on my crop sensor when I shoot hockey and having the larger FF sensor would eliminate 99% of this problem.


----------



## torger (Dec 21, 2011)

Gumbum said:


> torger said:
> 
> 
> > What exactly makes up this 3D'ish effect you speak of?
> ...



Yes, I'd think that short DoF is the main aspect of it, Brenizer is all about that, and I also think vignetting can give a bit of the same too, you get drawn into the picture, and the main subject pops out of the picture. Contrast helps surely too but I don't think that is a full-frame specific property. However there's not only vignetting, wide open there is typically a larger quality difference between the edges and the center, which may further enhance the pop effect.

In the very nice Brenizer example you show, it seems like focus is closer on the side, like a strong field curvature effect, but perhaps only an illusion.


----------



## distant.star (Dec 21, 2011)

Yep!! Big applause for SB. Great analysis and information -- and perspective!

Thanks.




unfocused said:


> nightbreath said:
> 
> 
> > sb said:
> ...


----------



## XSHINERX (Dec 22, 2011)

How great would it be for some of us North American wedding photographers to shoot a wedding as he described, Govt building, cafe, rundown streets etc. as opposed to the same settings that we shoot? Bride may not like it, but it sure would be cool!


----------



## AprilForever (Dec 22, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> Watch out for too shallow DOF ( #3 )
> 
> Give them space ( #3)
> 
> ...



I actually like the shallow DOF on #3...


----------



## thepancakeman (Dec 22, 2011)

AprilForever said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > Watch out for too shallow DOF ( #3 )
> ...



I think the keyword here is "too"--the shallow DoF is nice, but a half inch to an inch so deeper might be a little better effect, IMHO. Hard to say for sure without comparing directly. When I'm uncertain with this kind of shot, I'll just shoot 2 frames with the second one stopped down a bit and then I can decide which is better after the fact. Of course this could just be do to my lack of experience.


----------



## AprilForever (Dec 22, 2011)

thepancakeman said:


> AprilForever said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...



An eye is in focus, what more do you need? ;D

Anyway, as Henri Cartier-Bresson said, "Sharpness is a Bourgeois concept." 8)


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 22, 2011)

An eye is in focus, what more do you need? ;D

Anyway, as Henri Cartier-Bresson said, "Sharpness is a Bourgeois concept." 8)
[/quote]

Two eyes is normal 

H C-B didn't believe in a really shallow DOF. As H C-B was a rich man for him to speak of Bourgeois concepts is rather amusing


----------



## archangelrichard (Dec 22, 2011)

your pics are fine -- which makes me wonder about your screen or printer having issues???


----------



## Kernuak (Dec 22, 2011)

I'm a fan of shallow depth of field too, but there are certain images where it works and some it doesn't, it's all down to overall style. Personally, I like the idea of a single eye in focus. A different angle and it might not work, but I think it works in #3, based on the overall processing and style. It's very easy to have all wedding photos looking the same, but it's good to see a little more creativity. In fact someone recently asked if I did weddings, as they didn't like traditional wedding photos, but I usually run away from people if I can get away with it . If anything, I find that the colours in #1 are a little oversaturated, based on the green in particular, as it draws the eye too much. However, the skin tones are a little washed out, but that is down to the harsh lighting rather than any deficiency in technique or equipment and you can't exactly postpone the wedding until a day when there are overcast conditions. While in some ways a full frame is a better choice for weddings, I don't think it makes a huge difference, you simply frame differently or make a different lens choice. Of course, the best of both worlds would be to have both full frame and crop.


----------



## AprilForever (Dec 23, 2011)

Indeed... Depends on whether the goal is a more literal representation or a more artistic rendering...


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 23, 2011)

For weddings you have to go with the clients wishes not your own


----------



## AprilForever (Dec 23, 2011)

True at times, but then there are wedding photographers hired expresssly for their look...


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 24, 2011)

I am good looking but am hired for my photos ;D ;D ;D ;D


----------

