Resident_Mouse6170

joined 1 year ago
 

I bought my first strobe, Godox AD400 not long ago so I could finally use flash outdoors. I know normally this would be for one or two people. I will be doing those but I also want to do a group photo of around 8 people. I know it can't cover all of that but maybe it could add a little to their faces or something?

Should I use a soft box? I've never used the AD400 outside. I haven't had it long and I've done a few test with it indoors. Even if it only works well on the one person shots that is fine as well. ND filter and soft box or HSS?

Also, I plan on doing maybe 85 1.4 for the single people shot or couples, 35mm or 24mm 1.4 for the group photo.

I'm not sure what aperture I should really go for. I've rarely done group shots. I am a Landscape photographer, have also done a lot of videos before but just now really getting more into portraits.

This is my family so it's not like I got to worry about much.

I'll be using the Sony A7RIV, meaning 61 megapixels, I can crop in if needed. I also have two speed lights I could use, I think it's going to be cloudy so they might do something, even outside. I could wait until the evening before the sun goes down to do it as well.

I'll also be doing family video, for that I'll be using the A7IV because it has 10 bit video, 35 1.4 for most things with my DJI Ronin S mini 3, as I prefer it over my full size one. Rode video mic should be good.

I've never recorded a family event to this level. But it's becoming more important because I have moved countries and I wasn't here last year and that affected them. Also my parents are older now and it's really important that I capture this well.

I plan on doing some test shots the day before with my wife. I have heard that using an ND filter yields better results than HSS. However, if I do wait until it gets a little darker outside I may not have to worry about that.

I will be printing some of these on high quality prints. I'm not even sure what the best F stop would be for a group shot like that even without a strobe. Also, lenes have field curve of course. I don't need it to be razor sharp but sharp enough to crop in if needed.

Should I just focus on the person in the middle?

[–] Resident_Mouse6170@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago

Yes, the first thing to do is put a flash on your camera but learn how to bounce it. Don't aim your flash at your subject. Put it on ISO 100, maybe ISO 200, 1/250th of a second, whatever your flash sync speed is. You can use TTL or manual. I'd use manual since you are learning. Point the flash at the ceiling. Notice what happens. Next time point it at the wall, etc. You'll start learning how light bounces around. Then you can take it off the camera put it on a stand put a soft box over it, etc and learn how that works.

The Godox V1's are really nice. I remember when I started it seemed intimidating but it's actually fairly easy and you figure it out pretty quick.

All of my indoor shots are at ISO 100, even if it's just of a cat. You can't tell I even used a flash, (unless you're a pro photographer,) it doesn't have that flash look to it. If the ceilings are too high you might have to bounce it off something else. Or you may have to just take it off camera.

Also, when looking into these things, don't discount just getting a strobe. I know starting out most people would say, "Why would you recommend a strobe and not a flash?" Well you can use strobes outside they are more powerful and Godox has strobes that are about the same price as a flash. Like the AD200's.

Of course that is for off camera though, but you can still bounce it, just got to put it on a stand. I have the AD400. For flash's I use two Godox V1's. All three of these devices also have modeling lamps. Sometimes you can just use that at night time. Especially on the AD400.

Basically, you learn your ambient light and your flash light. For example, if you want a complete black background and want to shoot an object, you can set an object on a table, make sure its not close to wall, stop down the aperture a good bit, maybe f/11, maybe more. And you'll have nothing but the light of the flash and you'll have a black background.

It's mostly about bouncing it around. Until you get it off camera and have soft boxes and things like that, then you can point it directly at the subject.

I like to bounce off the ceiling because I always get really sharp images of my pets and family, even in an older house with dim lighting. Because I can shoot at ISO 100. Since I learned this I haven't shot over ISO 400 in years.

If you buy flash's, I'd go ahead and buy two, because once you go off camera you'll probably find yourself wanting another one very soon. Although you can do A LOT with one flash.

I always shoot in full manual except when I bounce, I just let it be in ETTL mode and if it's not bright enough I turn the flash exposure comp up.

[–] Resident_Mouse6170@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The real question is how did they take the video of the moon landing, as it was landing? hehe I know the official story but don't buy it. How did they get that film through the van Allen belt? not starting anything just joking....kinda.

 

I have been on a journey, comparing different megapixels for quite a while now. For example, using 33 megapixels, using Gigapixel AI to make it larger (which doesn't add detail) but increases resolution for you to see more detail.

It seems that with sharp glass, I do not notice much more detail with 61 MP camera, but I notice more resolution. I do notice some more detail. You can zoom in about 1.4x more than 33 MP. It seems like the lenses have more to do with the actual detail than the megapixels and the megapixels may help but they have to do with resolution.

I started this journey years ago. I remember downgrading from a 36 MP camera to a 20 MP camera and at the time because it was a different brand I had a lens that wasn't super sharp. I felt I made a huge mistake. But then as I got sharp glass, I started noticing I was seeing the same detail, I just couldn't zoom in as much.

Now with Adobe Super Resolution and Gigapixel AI, I am able to make them the same size and see if there is truly more detail. Honestly, if there is, it's hard for me to see when using sharp glass.

I'd rather use the 61 MP because I dont always want to use software (which can cause artifacts sometimes,) to crop. I've read that 61 MP gives you detail about like 16 MP x 2.

What I notice though is, for example, going from 24 MP to 33 MP, seems like a large jump in detail and resolution. Although the gap there is smaller. But going from 33 MP to 61 MP, the jump doesn't seem to be as large although it's about double the megapixels.

Also, the benefit of 61 MP resolution, you want it to be sharp 1:1 if you want to crop any. Some here told me to improve my technique and I did and it definitely did help.

I don't know why this interest me so much but it does. Because I see people claim they went from say 36 MP to 61 MP and are, "blown away," by the extra detail. I do not find that to be the case. For a while I thought something was wrong with my camera. On my last test I thought it was even my IBIS.

I went to Sony's website and looked at Sony A7RIV and A7RV images they took at full resolution 100% zoomed in (and more) and my camera definitely looks as detailed as what they show on their website. So I wonder if people are being hyperbolic.

There is definitely more resolution, which allows you to get a crop you couldn't get with 33 MP unless you used software, there is def an advantage to printing. And there IS, (let me be clear,) more detail. But I guess I have yet to see the detail be so much more that it blew me away.

This makes me wonder, why do you notice such a huge difference going from 24 MP to 33 MP? I definitely in that situation notice a big difference. And that isn't that many more MP.

I am strictly talking full frame here. I have seen medium format images that were at 100 MP for example and there was definitely a lot more detail. But it makes me wonder if with full frame, is it not as big of a deal?

One thing is for certain. The lens definitely makes the biggest difference.

[–] Resident_Mouse6170@alien.top 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Accept yourself. I was probably one of the best musicians in my town growing up and I was so critical of my own music that I have nothing to show for it. I deleted the songs, etc. With photography when you see flaws, it's just something to work on.

For example, I wouldn't get close enough. Being an introvert. I could be taking a family portrait or any kind of portrait and I'd always be too far away. It'd look fine in the camera but on the computer I'd always end up having to crop it way in. Which takes away resolution. Having a higher MP camera saved me on one job.

But then I learned to get closer. But EVEN THEN, I was making crops that looked even better so I learned to get even closer.

Then I developed my own style, a lot of detail. So, say you have two people kissing, I will get so close that their full heads aren't even in the shot, but their facial features out to their ears. Of course you don't want to cut anything off that looks awkward.

But those flaws are helping you develop a style.

Family photographer, you might look at people using good strobe lights and you might not be and might see a big difference and feel inferior.

 

I have both a 33 MP camera and a 61 MP camera; I am CONSTANTLY trying to figure out which camera to make my main camera as they both have strengths. I am starting to think I like less MP because at 100% I get less motion blur. I have to shoot with a faster shutter speed hand held with the 61 MP to get the same amount of sharpness as the 33 MP camera if I want it sharp at 100%.

I noticed if I took the 33MP image, with less motion blur and used Adobe Super Resolution in Lightroom, it changes it to 128 MP and the image is sharper at slower shutter speeds than the 61 MP camera.

Also, the 61 MP camera seems to only give an advantage in detail if you do shoot at fast shutter speeds, are on a tripod, or under ISO 800 or so.

So, I'm trying to decide when to use which. I noticed this because I bought the A7RIV for photos and later on I bought the A7IV planning to ONLY use it for video, due to 10 bit 4k and 4k 60FPS. But each time I took a photo with it I noticed two things, less motion blur at 100%, (although it has 25 percent less resolution, it looks sharper,) and that my photos seemed to look sharper more often because the AF system seems to be far better. There are other things it has that I really like as well.

Is there any disadvantage in using Adobe Super Resolution? Some people told me it leaves artifacts but so far I have not seen any artifacts. Keep in mind I've only tried it with the newest most updated version of Lightroom Classic. I hear there are better upscale software programs though, does anyone use them?

Of course there is the advantage of 30mb per picture vs 130mb.

I also notice that it seems to be the lens that matters when it comes to details even more than pixels.

When I had the 5D DSLR's, I remember it was a HUGE jump in detail and sharpness when I got better lenses.

Some people say the motion blur thing isn't true because if you put them the same size it should be the same but if you're going to put them the same size, then what is the point in using the high MP camera? If I am using 61 MP I want it to be tact sharp at 100%. And this seems harder to do handheld and the lenses also start mattering even more. Especially because I only have IBIS none of my lenses have IS.

People who shoot birds use fast shutter speeds and have IS on a lot of their lenses working with IBIS.

I'd really like to hear peoples opinions on this and why you choose less megapixels or more megapixels. I have HEARD it's not good to have more than 50 megapixels on a full frame sensor and you should go up to medium format but I'm not a science guy so I've never looked far into those details.

I know that I've had 20 MP before and was able to print extremely large or crop a lot, as long as I was using sharp glass.