grawlix Posted September 6, 2007 Share Posted September 6, 2007 Given the circumstances [the production line] I’ll give him some leniency. But some of the pictures he’s produced aren’t worth the price charged. I also hate the blue background. At the moment it looks like a passport photo with a celebrity!. Is there anyway you can at least have a movie poster or something displayed in the background?. The backgrounds created for interviews such as dare I say GMTV or C4 would be much more pleasing. The budget must allow for this, unless its all about making money?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RainbowDisney Posted September 6, 2007 Share Posted September 6, 2007 Im assuming the reason Malcolm uses the blue background is because it enhances the brightness of the final piture. I had wondered myself before now about the use of posters or a stand like the large transformers one at the show. But i came to the conclusion that as posters and stands have a gloss finish, the flash would simply just bounce of it and most likely be seen in the picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirsty_ Posted September 6, 2007 Share Posted September 6, 2007 its not telly its a photobooth.i dunno much about photography but i imagine the backdrop is ideal(hence why they used them in passport photos ),posters would have the flash bouncin off them at all angles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Will Rise Posted September 6, 2007 Share Posted September 6, 2007 A poster back ground also distracts from the main point of the photo... you and a celebrity! Also, the poster may not be in focus, hence the reason it is safer to go with a plain coloured backing... However for HEROES, I always though that having the Eclipse backing could work out well..... - maybe have that for the Eclipse convention in March..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grawlix Posted September 6, 2007 Author Share Posted September 6, 2007 Come on! ‘real’ photographers can combat these issues. Else every photograph you’d see would have a blue background. Ever been to a wedding and seen a photographer there?, does he use the same awful background? for those reasons you’ve stated? It’s a fact that anybody could take those pictures, including a machine at your local railway station. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kittygoldfang Posted September 6, 2007 Share Posted September 6, 2007 I like the blue background - its consistent so I know what to expect each time. I think the photographer is ace - I have never had a bad pic. LFACC was a bit of a disaster all around so maybe his quality slipped but unintentionally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen_Sindel Posted September 6, 2007 Share Posted September 6, 2007 (edited) All convention photos I've done have a "monochrome" background. Not necessarily blue, but one color. One exception was a logo on the backdrop at the first ever show I did, but that was a one time thing. Blue is by far not the worst background I've seen. another show Germany used a neon green one two years ago. It hurts my eyes to even look at those pictures. A simple background is easiest to use because so many pictures have to be taken in so little time. It limits the chances for the camera not focussing properly and such errors. You can't really compare those to wedding pictures. These photos of bride & groom posing (I assume these are the ones you mean) will be taken up to 20 times if necessary. I remember when I was a flower girl as a child and it took the photographer 30 minutes until he was satisfied. That won't exactly work in a photo session. Edited September 6, 2007 by Queen_Sindel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charisma Posted September 6, 2007 Share Posted September 6, 2007 The only thing that bugs me is he changes shape, so u can have X amoud of head shots then its body, now most of my time doing cons they have all been the same way but now ive ended up with long ones also.... I did hear that sometimes ppls pics have been blured? i just wana see my milo one i hope its nice as he took like 3 lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peeka85 Posted September 6, 2007 Share Posted September 6, 2007 I've had about 6 photos at SM events and to be honest there has only been one I have been happy with. And it's not because I look awful or anything, it's just not a good photo. The lighting is bad, the way it is taken is far too close - it should be a little further back (personally I prefer portrait). I understand he has a lot to get through and it's good that if he isn't happy with the first shot he'll take another. But we are paying for a service and you expect to get a good final product. Usually I have to edit it on photoshop when I get it i.e. change the light. Also there is absolutely no excuse for him yelling at people. We're not cattle! (Not that I'd yell at a cow). The only reason I get the professional photos is because usually it means you can't have a photo when you get an autograph (something I would much rather have!) I've been to another convention when the use a background which is not as bright, it's mottled and a light beige colour - those photos are by far superior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psychosis Posted September 6, 2007 Share Posted September 6, 2007 (edited) The thing that bugs me is that there are huge shadows on half the photos. I spoke to a photographer friend of mine and she said that's a mistake even amateurs shouldn't make - she said it's a simple matter of adjusting lens or even using tissue paper if you don't have studio lighting. Also, he didn't check my Jack Coleman photo - my eyes are closed and my facial expression is so bad that I had to get someone to superimpose another face of mine over it. Charisma - I thnk he changes between head and body based on the height difference between you. I'm just a touch shorter than Hayden, so it was a head/upper body shot. Yet Jack Coleman is more than a foot taller than me, so it was a body shot... otherwise it would've been just my head in the frame, literally. Edited September 6, 2007 by Psychosis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen_Sindel Posted September 6, 2007 Share Posted September 6, 2007 Charisma - I thnk he changes between head and body based on the height difference between you. I'm just a touch shorter than Hayden, so it was a head/upper body shot. Yet Jack Coleman is more than a foot taller than me, so it was a body shot... otherwise it would've been just my head in the frame, literally. Yes, that's what he does. Happened to me with Brandon Routh at C11. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deap Posted September 6, 2007 Share Posted September 6, 2007 (edited) H I copied this from a thread I started on the "Eclipse - Heroes Conventon" forum It was a thread about the same thing, Photography quality. anyway i though it would be best to show the examples i quickly made showing how just changing the lighting and settings would make a better image. Also a backdrop does not detract from the people in the photograph unless its a crisp photo. Also using posters as backgrops i bad because of the gloss, easy fix use a material banner or flag (this could then be auctioned off, probably for more than the cost) alternately use a matte print backdrop. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ok here are 2 test shots, the 1st is taken using similar conditions to that of the photos at the event. ( I have used a background of one of our home pictures as an example of a backdrop. as the photo is of my partner i figured this would be a relevant background for the subject as it gives an explanation to the scene. it is also a flat image so represents a flat image backdrop at the convention such as the eclipse logo or a picture of New Your Rooftops on a poster. (it has details and depth but its a flat image) Image 1 As you can see the subject is bleached the light casts a shadow on the background tyou get excessive glare from the backdrop and the subjects eyes, everything is crisp and simple, as the light is "harsh" it excessively brightens up all of the highlights and leavs the shadows sticking out as lines in the face, simply it will show your worst features. other than the composition it looks like a standard holiday snap. The next image had simulated studio conditions, basically no flash but instead a single direct light on the subject, lowered aperture to allow the focal point to be the subject and no other part of the image (foreground or background) Image 2 With this image the light is softer so gives better contrast to the whole image. It has no sharp edges like image 1. the background is blurred and although still has an object it does not detract the eye from the subject and in most cases (such as having a relevant background) it complements the subject. All I needed to to to get an image less like a passport or random holiday photo was compose the image better, add a background (lower my camera aperture so that the background was less focused and remove the harsh camera flash lighting. Overall i think the image is 500% better just by adding a little care. it has cost me no extra time or money to get a better image and once I set up the settings I can use it in every image I take as long as I'm the same distance from my subject and they are the same distance from the background. Also the differences here were made with basic equipment Instead of Studio lighting I have a spotlight and instead of a £2500 camera (+relevent lenses) I have a £300 one. Imaging how good the photos would be with "Professional" equipment Edited September 6, 2007 by Deap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators DavidB Posted September 6, 2007 Moderators Share Posted September 6, 2007 My university graduation photo was on a blue background! ... just so people know it's not some 'convention conspiracy' or something Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meivocis Posted September 6, 2007 Share Posted September 6, 2007 I have no problem with a blue background but the framing (heads chopped off!) and lighting bug the hell out of me... especially as they're supposed to be professional photos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swan Posted September 6, 2007 Share Posted September 6, 2007 The blue background is not a problem, it is the lighting. Direct on camera flash is an awful lighting medium to use for portraits. Studio lights should have been used. They were used at the Elijah photo shoot last year at comicon, and the results were fantastic. On camera direct flash, is hard, unflattering, and leaves dark shadows on the backdrop behind the sitters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peeka85 Posted September 6, 2007 Share Posted September 6, 2007 And having your head half chopped off is not very good either!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vbloyce Posted September 6, 2007 Share Posted September 6, 2007 i'm not fussed with the blue background either, but equally my photos aren't great, off centre, shadows, far too close of me & Hayden. I know things are rushed and a great job was done in getting everyone's photo taken but as someone mentioned, we are paying for a professional photo, and I think you should get a professional job. I think it just all boils down to learning from mistakes and not over-selling the photoshoots next time On saying that an eclipse background would be great though if that would work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swan Posted September 6, 2007 Share Posted September 6, 2007 And having your head half chopped off is not very good either!! Eeek... well that should have been noticed when the photographer checked the image on the back of the camera. Mind you towards the end of Milo/Adrian fiasco of a photoshoot the poor photographer did not have time to check the back of the camera. I fear for my photo in that respect! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psychosis Posted September 6, 2007 Share Posted September 6, 2007 And having your head half chopped off is not very good either!! Eeek... well that should have been noticed when the photographer checked the image on the back of the camera. Mind you towards the end of Milo/Adrian fiasco of a photoshoot the poor photographer did not have time to check the back of the camera. I fear for my photo in that respect! He wasn't checking the photo every time even when he was in less busy photoshoots. There's no way my Jack Coleman photo would've got through even if he glanced at a miniscule thumbnail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vbloyce Posted September 6, 2007 Share Posted September 6, 2007 He wasn't checking the photo every time even when he was in less busy photoshoots. There's no way my Jack Coleman photo would've got through even if he glanced at a miniscule thumbnail. I am dying to see your photo with Jack!!! I don't mean to be cruel, but you are making me laugh so much with your description of it - plleease show us?!? x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psychosis Posted September 6, 2007 Share Posted September 6, 2007 (edited) No I didn't know whether to laugh or cry when I saw it LMAO so I just laughed then pouted. My friends and my mum just about DIED. Edited September 6, 2007 by Psychosis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators DavidB Posted September 6, 2007 Moderators Share Posted September 6, 2007 Awww go on, we wanna seeee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peeka85 Posted September 6, 2007 Share Posted September 6, 2007 That's really awful, you should definitely ask for your money back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kittygoldfang Posted September 6, 2007 Share Posted September 6, 2007 I just bobbed down to get to Haydens height. The flash is a bit of a problem as it brings out shiny bits on faces - I now take a powder compact with me and have a quick dab when I get to the front of the queue. Easy for girlies but I doubt fellas want to be seen with a powder puff. Would the head chopping off be due to the processing rather than the photographer, he usually checks his pic before allowing the subject to leave and he doesn't get to see the pics after. Remember he has only seconds to get the shot before the next person comes along, if he was to take his time then the quality would be better but less people would get a picture and the costs would go up because of less people. He really is a good photographer, give him some slack on the disaster that is the LFACC 07. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psychosis Posted September 6, 2007 Share Posted September 6, 2007 (edited) Pssh, fine. I didn't even know I could pull a face like this, LOL. It looks worse on the actual photo, too, there are extra shadows and stuff that aren't showing up on this tha tmake my face all... weird Edited September 6, 2007 by Psychosis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now