My first strobist style shots. Idea's?
 

I took my first stobist style shots tonight. Do you guys have good simple tips in making these photos come out well? I was using my d60, 50-150mm f/2.8, and running around the car flashing off my one speedlight on the lowest manual setting. It just seemed really hectic lol. Running around like a crazy person in 15 seconds popping off about 5-10 times. Guys have a good tips on settings or good sites to read up on?

Heres my first shot any critiques?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2772/...2b6eceea86.jpg

i dont know the least thing about strobes or lighting, but it seems like everything is underexposed except the white paint. the hood looks noisy, and the colors dont really pop. id crop the bottom out since it is too dark.

i guess it came out alright considering the lack of equipment you used.

seems theres too much dead space at the bottom of the photo..i would have tried to get a bit higher over the car which would fill the frame better and show the light a bit more. id also suggest a light behind the car or around the top of it..so the roof stands off the background better

OR

use a tripod and a longer exposure to pick up some of the ambient light

True, after looking at the picture again the bottom is actually distracting. Some of it should be cropped out. The camera was mounted to the tripod but only about 20" off the ground. I'm going to try like you said bring the camera up higher, try to get a longer exposure to bring out the background detail, and flash a couple times on the roof and hood. So they don't blend into the background. I cannot go past 30sec. exposures since I don't yet have a remote trigger.(Its on my to buy list.)

Thanks for the input guys.

dude the remote is like 17 bucks. no excuses haha. im on my 3rd one i believe.

I have the wireless remote the ML-L3. But I was under the impression that I needed the remote that plugs into the camera.. After doing some more research the shutter release the owner at the camera store I was talking with was telling me to buy. That release isn't even compatible with my camera. lol. wtf. I fail.

So I have the trigger release, but I can't find the instuctions. Off to Nikon's sight to download them. Thanks Jspek

if the D60 is anything like my D50 or my D70 all you need to do is press the burst button and scroll until you see the remote icon on one of your screens . i love that remote I some times wish it could be used for the D300. I am assuming you are running around with a flash in your hand I would try some back lighting and maybe bring in what is behind the car.

for the D60, you need to go into your settings and change the shooting mode to either the 2 second delay or instant remote. You can also set how you can adjust your shooting mode. Mine is set so that the "self timer button" controls what shooting mode. this is what 95legenddriver is referring to if im not mistaken.

Yes, I went out and used the remote last night with good results.

Set Menu to quick responce remote, set the remote "on" duration to 15min., Put camera on manual mode, set the shutter to "--" pressed the remote trigger that starts the exposure, than once you want the exposure to end up to 30minutes max, you just press the button again. It worked out great.

So one thing I'm working on now is how to blend two photos together, I took a long exposure of A/C from 10 miles away, One shot exposing the low clouds illuminated over the city lights and water, but over exposing the buildings. The another photo exposing the skyline but under exposing the clouds and water. I want to blend the photos together to get the best of everything. I youtube'd and searched a couple videos but all of them were showing how to blend two seperate photos together Picasso style. Anyone have any good tuturiols, using CS3?

The easy (simple) way would be to open your primary image in CS3, then create a new layer. In the new layer, paste the other image, and just erase the layer in the spots where you want the primary image to show through

Thanks, I figured most of the steps where similiar, but I was unsure if the use of the gradiant tool was used or anything like that. Photoshop is still very scary to me. There are sooo many features. I feel overwhelmed. And the fact that I need more memory in my laptop, becuase it gets laggy and I get mad. ha. I primarily just use it to clone out little things wrong with pictures, nothing more. This night photography opens a whole new door of possiblities.

look around for layering masks and things like that. Using layer masks, you can feather out the areas you dont want using the brush tool. What you will do is:

-Open up the photo you want as your background (lets say the underexposed image)
-Open up the overexposed
-Duplicate background layer and rename it
-Create a new layer, Shift+Drag overexposed image onto second layer
-Highlight your second layer click the icon to the left of the "new layer button" shaped like " [ O ] "
-A white box will appear in your layers pallete -- this is your layer mask.
-Click your layer mask so it is bracketed.

Look at your 2tone colors. White/black. Your layer mask is set to automatically allow information through, hense why your image is still the same. If you revert your colors so black is the primary color for your brush tool, you will lock the information on that layer mask, which will allow the underexposed image to come through.

At the top left tool bar, you can adjust opacity (which i recommend at 30% so you build up) and you can select brush size, feather, ect. You can click the " \ " button which will bring up your masking layer info on your image. What you have blocked out on your mask will appear RED.

SHORTCUTS!
x - revert between black and white
\ - Displays blocked masking information
[ - shrink brush
] - enlarge brush

these will improve your work flow. PM me for any questions.

Layer masks can be utilized in many ways, take a look at the little black/white "cookie" icon next to the "new layers" button. This allows you to poke the eye, for example, to see your work with and without the adjustments.

I also noticed you mentioned cloning. Experiment with the stamp tool.

the shortcut for the stamp tool is "s." Before you use it, you need to select where you will pull the information from. hold alt, and a little target will appear. Click on the image where you wish to obtain info from. Once click, you can click anywhere while using the stamp tool, and it will lay that particular obtained info down. I also recommend working with a low opacity and building up to you preferred image. The size of your brush will determined how much information is obtained as well.

example,
If you set your brush size to 300, it will be about an inch and a half, 2 inches or something like that. When you hold alt, your target will be tiny like usual, but you will actually be obtaining the same amount of info as the size of your brush.

I know this can get a little overwhelming, the things photoshop can do is amazing and often far overlooked.

Adobe lightroom is another program you may want to look into. That contains most of the same tools just laid out in a more eye-friendly manner. It makes simple tasks like rotating and de/saturating photos easier.

BTW - Alt for PC, Option or "Open Apple" for Mac.

Wow, thanks for taking the time to write that out! I do also use LR4 to adjust levels/contrast/vignette's and I absolutly love it. Also I think I misspoke about the cloning, I think I was using the stamp tool. The steps you describe are the exact way I use the tool, for the exception of the opacity. I never really touch opacity but I will try to experiment.

Sorry I broke down your instructions a little more to help me understand. Becuase I usually miss or skip some important step the screws everyhing else up.

-Open up the photo you want as your background (lets say the underexposed image)
-Open up the overexposed

So at this point you should have both photos side by side?

-Duplicate background layer and rename it

Now you have 3 layers? Two underexposed(the orignal background, a copy named "Under") and the overexposed?

-Create a new layer, Shift+Drag overexposed image onto second layer

This is the part I don't understand. When you say create a new layer, meaning a completely new one? Or am I just grabbing the overexposed layer and placing it onto "Under"?

-Highlight your second layer click the icon to the left of the "new layer button" shaped like " [ O ] "

Witch one is the second layer?(I feel dumb.)

-A white box will appear in your layers pallete -- this is your layer mask.

I know witch box this is.

-Click your layer mask so it is bracketed.

I understand this part and the black/white box, and painting the black to allow the picture beneath to come through.

Like many tools there are multiple ways to accomplish the same result. For me, having 2 layers, One over exposed, one under exposed and just erasing the unwanted stuff from the top is very simple and can get the same result as the layering mask, just play with your erasers opacity and flow when erasing.

for one, opacity is how you will create seamless edits. The main purpose is to create a realistic image (theoretically). Opacity, especially in regards to stamp and masks and whatnot, is very important so definitely experiment with it. You will be amazed.

You want to start (atleast, this is my workflow) 2 seperate photos opened. Then they get combined. The photo that you pulled the image from can be closed. You said you where running fairly low RAM so closing out what ever you can will help.

I always duplicate the background in order to keep that original photo untouched. I use this as a point of reference. This is called "non-destructive editing." So yes, you will have 3 layers; Locked background (ignore this now until you want to compare the edit to the orginal), background copy (underexposed) and overexposed.

by second layer, i meant the over exposed layer. Like mentioned before, i disregard the original file. I dont throw it away, i just forget about it. So when i say highlight the second layer its actually the third, the over exposed. That is the layer that will be the layer mask since it lays on the top of the entire file.

keep the questions coming man, i do this editing all the time.

This is a different method, i just prefer masking layers because i can, for example, poke the visability eye and see what i did within that masking layer.

Everyone has a different workflow like grimm said. I was taught that using Grimms method is considered "unprofessional," although i think that is BS since it is simply another way or working. I dont think one is more "pro" than another.

yea I generally do the same by turning on and off layers to see what is done to what. I think the reason behind the layering mask being deemed the more "professional way" is that in the end you are not removing data from either image, and you can simply turn the mask off and all is still good with the image, where as erasing is erasing the image and it can not be simply clicked to be brought back. (unless you use revert or you jump thru your history)

I never took a class in PS so my knowledge is a little limited.

regardless, they both achieve the same result. I personally do not think one way is better than the other, each have their own benefits. Ive taken 4 so far for multimedia, so i know a majority of tools related to photoshop, and much of the adobe suite, but i certainly am not a pro. That program is so indepth, it is disgusting.

BTW gtsiawd96, what grimm and i are talking about, can be used to get the "transparent hood" look in photos; the ones that reveal the engine bay through a closed hood :) *wink wink nudge nudge*