digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Why Celebrity Photos Look So Great

onemansblog.com — Have you ever gone on vacation and come back wondering why your photos just don ’t look as good as the ones you see in magazines? I do all the time, and let me tell you - throwing more technology at it won’t make that big of a difference.As evidence of this fact, here is a time lapse video of Michael Grecco shooting Martin Scorsese for OnDirecTV.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • spriggig, on 10/12/2007, -9/+39Best photo tip ever:
    When composing in-camera, imagine that the image, be it in the viewfinder or on the LCD screen is the final, actual photo--look at all four corners and everything in between your subject and the corners.

    Most snap shooters don't get close enough to their subject because they look *through* the viewfinder and visually focus on the subject, ignoring the background and surrounding features--the same way they use their eyes alone.
    • dzapffe19, on 10/12/2007, -4/+32Site slow, use this link

      http://www.youtube.com/v/L8wrxlP8Mcg
    • Jo9100, on 10/12/2007, -7/+17"Have you ever gone on vacation and come back wondering why your photos just don ’t look as good as the ones you see in magazines?"

      yeah but why??
    • grouchyman, on 10/12/2007, -4/+52It's not the equipment. Give some credit to the people behind the lens.
    • MrSunshine, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6dzapffe190 links to the pixelated fullscreen flash video, use gamerply5's link further down if you want the usual Youtube resolution.
    • avatarpalin, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Wow, actually in that one or so minutes i learned a hell of allot about the preparation of taking photos, maybe my flickr site might be that good one day.
    • raindogmx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+28I'm more interested in why "candid" pictures like red carpet ones look way better than my vacation photos.

      From experience I know that:

      Those are taken by professional photographers while mine are taken by me, an amateur.
      They waste lots of shots trying to get the best one while I try to nail it in one or two shots at most.
      They have time to plan their shots well beforehand when I shot mine almost from the heart.
      Sometimes my family photos are much more emotive than celebrity ones, as pictures themselves, not because i care for the subejcts.

      I don't like what the title leads to believe since it seems it's about paparazzi or candid photos when it's actually about outdoor professional portraits.

    • mediaphile, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13@avatarpalin:

      I'm going to film school right now for motion pictures, and I can tell you from experience that working on sets and seeing how it works is way more educational than taking classes. There's no substitute for experience. It looks like a lot of work, but what you see in this video is nothing compared to what goes into a typical shoot from a movie. All it took for that shot was a couple c-stands holding flags and screens to block out or reduce the light falling on Mr. Scorcese, a softbox for fill light, and flash for key light. Very simple setup. If this video impresses you, being on any movie set for half an hour would blow your mind. That's not a criticism of still photography or the work these guys did. My point is just that if this is what it takes to shoot a person standing in one spot, imagine how much it takes to film a scene where the camera moves through three different rooms filled with dozens of people interacting with each other.
    • Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4You don't really need a crew and lots of technology to take good portraits.
      Two flashes with omnibounce (which you DON'T aim directly at the target), a dSLR with a good portrait lens (a 50mm prime, say). Position the flashes (the only trick here is the position, aim, and power of the flashes), put a little thought into what the background will look like, frame, and shoot a series of shots (never shoot just one shot).
    • bitcloud, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20I work in this industry, and I can tell you that it is 90% wank..

      did they really need a timelapse camera to capture the guy setting up two lights and a fleccy? It looks pretty busy because 26 hangers-on are moving around having conversations, but the whole thing is a total wank... Sure, get some good lighting a decent lens and an eye for composition, but that photo is no 20 person production. You can charge more if it seems complicated, but it's simply not.
    • Zafras, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Face it, it's because they have better ***** genes than you do, Photoshop or not.
    • codyfrisch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I agree, going to film/video school now, things are way more complicated than you imagine on a film shoot. That said, we can still blow your mind with a few simple lights, a good HD video camera, and decent makeup. It only takes a couple people to set up and tear down and run camera. I often run camera and direct at the same time, which can be a bit of a pain.

      Oh yeah, for video, that microphone in the camera should be turned off at all times. Might as well cut it off.
    • OwdenBowden, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3PHOTOSHOP.

      Mystery solved!
    • m3mn0n, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2LINK TO YOTUBE DIRECTLY FFS!

      Enough with the blog spam, especially when the site can't even handle the traffic or doesn't add anything to make the video more interesting.
  • kirkpoz, on 10/12/2007, -38/+1man... know i understand how they made Roseanne Bar and Heidi Klum look so good! :)
    • chocobomog, on 10/12/2007, -4/+51Roseanne looked good?!? How many gallons of beer did you chug for that to happen?
    • raithetarkon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14I think for some reason he is grouping rosanne barr with heidi klum and being sarcastic about them looking good... but its still a retarded comment.
  • Derferman, on 10/12/2007, -9/+29This video is depressing, as it proves I won't ever be able to get that professional look without a great deal of effort. I guess I am doomed to point and click forever
    • sn0re, on 10/12/2007, -4/+43Take a photography class at your local JC. You may never be a professional photographer, but understanding the basics will improve your photos immensely.
    • indyinno, on 10/12/2007, -39/+1Des these celebrities' photos look great?

      http://indycelebrities.blogspot.com/2007/03/dusky-beauty-koena-mitra.html

      http://indycelebrities.blogspot.com/2007/02/bollywood-hottie-isha-koppikars-haseena.html

      and more
    • daRoach, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18indyinno

      If by great you mean "look like they were taken with a low resolution web-cam" then yeah, they do.
    • Fuckwad, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Not with that attitude. Don't you ever give up damn it!
    • mediaphile, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@Derferman:

      It's not as complex as it looks. Most of those people aren't doing anything relevant to the shoot the whole time. The same work could be accomplished with only the photographer and a couple assistants. It doesn't really take much time to setup the equipment they used; the hardest part is just deciding what tools are necessary to accomplish what you need.
    • Wonotch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8The best advice you could possibly get out of a short digg comment:

      Use an off-camera flash or don't use any flash at all.

      Seriously, a disposable camera can take a better photo than a $3000 DSLR if the lighting is right.
    • lowbot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1A couple tips that have worked for me:

      1. When you take the shot be mindful of the background. Most people are focused on the subject and ignore the background until they get the photo in and complain about 'all the tourists' mucking up the shop.

      2. Think of composition. Google for the rule of thirds.

      3. Take multiple shots if you can.

      4. If its dark out you'll probably get a crappy shot. Theres no fighting low light. If your camera can do a high ISO you might be able to get something usable.

      5. When you get home try to salvage photos by doing an auto color and contrast correction in photoshop. Recrop it if there's too much junk in the background.

      6. If you camera has a vivid color mode, try using it.

      You'll never get professional looking shots from 'off the hip' with a point and shoot but you can get really good and visually pleasing photos with just a little effort by thinking about the composition and being mindful of a few tips.
  • Bi0haZarD, on 10/12/2007, -16/+2...edit..
  • devindotcom, on 10/12/2007, -2/+52They look great because the photographer wants them to look great.... take a ton of shots - like 100 at a single celeb encounter, take the best one, iron out any little wrinkles or freckles, and you're done. People will think they always look like that. It's that simple.

    It's easy the other way around too. Take the WORST of those 100 shots, mess with the colors so they look pale and green, and maybe crop it badly or zoom in too much. Boom, tabloid cover "OMG THIS PERSON IS UGLY"
  • gamerply5, on 10/12/2007, -10/+6Direct YouTube Link
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8wrxlP8Mcg
  • MeanGeno, on 10/12/2007, -21/+4WOW! The discovery of the century. I'm sick of dumbasses posting stupid articles like this on digg. Like nobody knew this. What are you going to tell me next? Water is wet, the sun is hot, bert and ernie are gay?

    Please submitter, stop posting stupid articles like this one.
    • Fuckwad, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Oh god, between clicking 'Ok, this is lame', and 'spam' it's getting ***** ponderous going through the upcoming stories section.
      Then I flip over to the front page only to see this.....
  • The_Mule, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23It's a sad fact of life.... Most photographers wind up with one good shot for every 50+ shots they take.
    • baxtermaddux, on 10/12/2007, -19/+8It's a Sad Fact of Life...but most dudes will hook up with 50 fatties and uglies for every Hottie they snag
    • grouchyman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16The great Ansel Adams said he was lucky if he got one decent print for every 10,000 images.
    • avatarpalin, on 10/12/2007, -9/+6SO true, I am no pro but i have abot 16000 photos and i would call abouta hundred great photos...

      http://www.flickr.com/photos/andrewkneebone/

      kind of a shameless plug but i guess only click if you are interested
  • bobcrotch, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19Kind of cool stop motion sort of thing, but who didn't really know that this is the type of thing that happened at a photo shoot? What did you expect a drunk 20 something teenybopper taking photos with her phone?
    • zdiggler, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15HS kids refused to take a nice and small canon digital cam to a party, because he already got camera on the phone. There goes trying to introduce a kid to photography.
    • mediaphile, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@ bobcrotch:

      It's not stop motion, it's time lapse. And lots of people have no idea what it takes to make a good photograph. Unless you're involved in still photography or cinematography, I bet you have no idea what each and every piece of equipment is doing in that shot. It's one thing to know that a lot of work goes into good photography, it's something else to know exactly how much and why.
    • broeks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I want to meet this twenty something teeny bopper
    • LocoMan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Speaking of cell phone cameras... when I was buying a digital camera last vacation, I was talking to the guy that was selling it while waiting for the check to pass, and he was telling me the hardest part of the job for him is to deal with costumers that want their cell phone pictures printed in full size... and then complain about why they look so bad if they look good on their cell phone's display.
  • smbrower, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2Pretty interesting, No normal person will have the time, resources, or crew to get themselves to look that good in a photo! Also, being a pro with photoshop doesn't hurt a picture either!
    • Wonotch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Photoshop skills will never make up for being a crap photographer.
    • knellotron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Well, if you're REALLY good at Photoshop, you can start with a blank canvas and paint everything from scratch, using your crap photo as an occasional reference.So it is possible.
    • championchap, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1If you are REALLY good at painting you wouldnt use photoshop for it.
      Painter is the digital painting tool, Photoshop is for editing photos.

      See how its in the name? Clever that.
  • zdiggler, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2Sometime just using the AutoTouchup option of your photosoftware will improve your digital pictures by a lot. Nothing wrong with fixing the colors on your pictures to make them look good.

    Thanks for the Direct Link!
  • spiralspirit, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11The simple answer is that they set up the lighting in their shots with various diffusers, reflectors and light sources, as well as taking two hundred shots for every one good one that comes out.

    Just keep taking photos until you figure out what works for you. With digital cameras shooting an extra 100 photos doesnt cost you an extra cent.
  • iamcrazyed, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15"Why amateur websites look like crap"

    Microsoft Frontpage. Geez, what a travesty of a website, dude.
    • jacksixtynine, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2It's called Wordpress. Look into it.
  • inkhead, on 10/12/2007, -0/+71This is bull, this is an example of one photographer. I've spent years working in hollywood, and every single photo gets retouched, don't kid yourself.. celebrities in general get a percentage of photo approvals, for example, Pamela Anderson on a film session would get 25% approvals, meaning that she could kill 25% of all the photos the photographer took. Often in the contract it states that if Pam doesn't send her picks to the photographer in 48 hours, all photos are automatically approved.

    I cannot keep track of the number of times we were called by a celebrities manager to remove "cough... cough.. down there it's showing to much..." aka removing camel toes..

    lol... ALLL celebrity photos are retouched, not only that often we will take a no-name model, and photograph them after the session in the same poses so we have spare body parts, even going so far as to put the celebrities head on a body they don't even own!

    If you ever see a celebrity in person, generally you will notice that most aren't over 5'5, even the ones that appear to be big, tough men in the movies are little twirps in real life. And most of them look really plan, even scarier the "supposedly" super-hot super models are GROSS, seriously if you've ever wondered why most supermodels are dating fat, old, rich white guys instead of leading men, it's because models look good on TV and film but not in real life, all their features are overdraw and they have giant UGLY heads.
    • praisethelard, on 06/06/2008, -0/+26Dude, hook us up with your secret stash of celebrity photos.

    • aukxsona, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Meat Ball Head OMG!

      I have seen so many women around here that look like meat balls on a stick like an appetizer tray!

      That is so funny....really. You just made my day.
    • Sil369, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6Is the pay any good?
    • Achilles, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Do not tell me this, sir. You are a crock. Look at Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt: the most beautiful people on the planet.

      Face it, Hollywood stars are beautiful. Brad Pitt isn't an old and fat guy--he is rich. But you also see Angelina Jolie with him, and that would make her?
    • Canute, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1"Brad Pitt isn't an old and fat guy--he is rich. But you also see Angelina Jolie with him, and that would make her?"
      Straight?
    • inkhead, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Brad Pitt is a practically a little person, he is however a nice guy, when celebrities visit the set or studio everyone judges them. Angelina has had more plastic surgery, well then .... say most celebrities. She's good looking, so much so that she doesn't look real. But she is the exception, most celebs you wouldn't pick out, unless you were in hollywood. Even then sometimes you look twice and say to yourself "Hey that guy kind of looks like Brad Pit." The sad truth is that people in hollywood have non-stop plastic surgery, it's a sad cycle too, because if you don't get it the studios are always talking about how they are going to go with a "younger, better model." Seriously though I think it's comedic, that nobody pays attention to how much celebrities have had plastic surgery. For example that chiseled jaw look that you find yourself staring in the mirror wishing you had? Celebrities aren't born that way, it's plastic surgery and smoking crack cocaine (I'm dead serious about the last) That's how they get the hollow face, that is highly overdrawn, go back 3-4 years or get a yearbook photo, and look at it very, very closely, you'll notice that most celebrities don't even have the same nose!

      Go back to the movie "Hackers" with Angelina, and notice how she's not that beatiful, she doesn't even have the same face!

      Also all celebrities lie about there age, the studios even help them get false information on their drivers license. Women who claim to be 31 are usually 38. Add at least 5 years to every person in hollywoods age.
    • championchap, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Angelina Jolie? You're kidding me right?
      Her lips dont suit her face, she has a MASSIVE jawline and her shoulders are broader than mine.
      She has nice eyes though.
    • mrgreen4242, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"Go back to the movie "Hackers" with Angelina, and notice how she's not that beatiful, she doesn't even have the same face!"

      Um, she's got a bad haircut and is 10 years younger, but looks about the same to me. Her face is a little skinnier now, but overall she looks about the same.

      http://www.megsplace.com/et/hackers/hpictures.html

  • JusticeAK, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5what a waste of money, resources and talent.
    • ethangage, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16my pictures don't look like the ones in this magazine because i don't take pictures of martin scorsese. we've just never invited him on our vacations.
    • gboodhoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@JusticeAK: it sort of happens every day in hundreds of locations around the world. not sure what you're so offended about. image making is a multibillion dollar industry. Every kind of image from the sublime to the banal. What's wrong with that exactly?
  • SweetMercury, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8So what are we to be shocked at by this revelation?

    That time and effort go into professional photography? Or that attention is paid to detail when the pictures are going to go into national publications?

    What'll we find out next, that fight scenes in action movies are choreographed?
  • kpeatt, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Funny thing is the photos that came out of this session aren't even any good.
    • Cimlite, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Yeah, maybe I'm not getting the "artsy" aspect of the picture or something...

      The examples look horrible. One with him just standing on some crates or whatever those are, not very good. This is followed up by Martin Scorsese's best impression of a disbodied head. Finally a shot of him, again on some stupid looking crates, but this time with his back turned towards the camera.

      Exactly what is so impressive with that?
  • MrSunshine, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Next up: the Dove ad.
  • hmhoek, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3This whole issue can be summed up by one word: softbox. That's the big puffy flash enclosure that they spend most of their time setting up in the time video.

    When you see one of those razor sharp full face magazine shots of someone, look at their pupil. You will either see a while rectangle or two that indicates the lighting was done with softboxes, or you will see one or more round white spots that indicate flash umbrella reflectors were used.

    I've read that Annie Liebovitz uses over 10,000 watts of flash power on her shoots. It's all about lighting.
  • AlanLivingston, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9All that work to take a picture of some old guy taking a piss on a couple of crates.

    Why?
  • twertyto, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2What am I missing here? What does going on vacation have to do with your photos?
  • Mormegil2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1You can also get some amazing shots with minimal equipment. If you happen to have the right natural light, great composition, and the perfect moment - you got it.

    Check out celebrity wedding photog Joe Buissink's site (www.joebuissink.com). That guy shoots roams around with just his camera and maybe a flashgun on it - that's about it.


    For someo advice on becoming a better photographer, check out www.photo.net
  • Sil369, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6At least the Dove commercials and ads make an effort to show the common public what really goes into marketing/skin product ads/etc
  • 2Deluxe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5As a model, I can testify to the fact that it takes an astronomical amount of time and resources to do even what look like the simplest shots. Usually for a two-page spread I'm at a shoot from 10 till 5. Pretty amazing when you consider that it's all for two pages.
  • pak314, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1While we are at this topic, can anyone tell me the best kind of artificial lighting for indoor portrait shoots? Is it incandescent, halogen, tungsten, etc?
    • Coffeedemon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Personally I like candlelight... certain lights have different temperatures and "hardnesses" so just experiment with what you like and make sure you balance your whites for whatever colour temperature you're getting from the lighting.
    • themouth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Don't listen to that guy and his candlelight idea, you'd need about 300 or so candles to get any significant amount of light, hope you've got a lot of time on your hands and a few fire extinguishers.

      In general it's going to depend on what you're budget is and what you're trying to shoot. Most common household lights produce uneven lighting at an uncertain temperature. While you could shoot raw, use a white balance card, and set white balance later, life becomes a lot easier if you know what type of light you'll be getting before you shoot. A lot of people start off with "hot lights" or continuous lighting, in other words a professional "normal" light that is on all the time, this allows you to see the effect on your model as you move the light around, etc. The majority of these lights are tungsten lighting, although there are fluorescent and in recent years led lights that are used as well. The downside of this is portability and, of course, cost. Continuous studio lights will also jack up your electricity bill quite a good bit.

      If you'd like to go a bit cheaper you can use flash lighting. Both Canon and Nikon have great flash systems, set them on some light stands, wire them up and go to town. I shoot with the flash metered up quite a bit so that it blows out the room lighting and I get just the lighting I want. "Alien bee" makes great beginner studio flash setups.

      Whatever light you're using, it's important to know that (especially for portraits), QUALITY of light is what gets you that soft, no harsh shadows, look. To get decent quality of light, you need to modify it to your desire by using reflectors, diffusers, softboxes, umbrellas, barndoors, fresnel lenses, etc.

      A lot of people (myself included) swear by the Gary Fong lightsphere as a flash attachment, the difference between using that and a normal, harsh camera flash for on-camera candids, etc is amazing. I use it at every wedding and concert I shoot and in my hobby photography as well.




  • drivenfaroff, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Correct lighting is one of the main things that separates the pros from everyone else.
  • r©ain, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Wow! I was blown away! I've always been wondering why I never seem to be able to take professional looking photos with my kodak disposable while stumbling drunk from too many margaritas while kicking it with my brahs in Cancun!
    Thank you Digg!!1! Digg++++++++++++++++++++

  • kcostello1086, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3indoor portrait shoots are best lit with studio strobes and either softboxes or umbrellas. strobes are generally neutral in color cast (around 5500K) and use xenon lamps:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenon_flash_lamp

    continuous lighting is also occasionally used, but runs warmer than strobes and uses much more power.
  • optimus_maximus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2You can take nice photos with little time. Here is some red carpet celebrity coverage I did:

    http://www.gavinphotography.com/blog/2006-12-09-red-carpet-flaunt-magazine-at-the-edison/

    You get about 15 seconds before they move to the next media source (interviews, etc.). If you are lucky they look directly at your camera. Even then I got all these great shots without the mad setup. The whole gallery is here:

    http://www.gavinphotography.com/galleries/flaunt/

    The trick is I have 3 cameras setup for different types of shots for different lighting and what not. You can take nice pictures without the setup time (my weddings give me no time at all), but you have to be really creative and responsive. The type of shots above are on 5 figure budgets and usually you only get a half hour with "the talent." This means you spend four to six hours setting up your lighting to not piss off and waste "the talent's" time.
  • flintmich, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4get a white foamcore board (any art supply store), some inspiration, some cool backgrounds, a helper, and a digital camera that can take shallow depth of field (meaning the background is blurry) photos, and you'll be amazed at what you can do. have the helper use the foamcore to bounce the available light (sunlight, roomlight, whatever) up toward the face of your subject, will light them nicely. the background will fall off and be blurry, because of your nice digital camera.

    after a while, experimenting with this setup, and of course getting those cool backgrounds and major inspiration, and you're on your way. just keep shooting!
  • Mc_Carter, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7its called photoshop
    • Wonotch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Wrong.
    • textalon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Right!
      How do you think Hefner got those women to look the way they did in Playboy. Hours of actual Airbrush work to cover up wrinkles, scars, blemishes,Acne etc..
      Now it's done in Photoshop or Similar apps.
  • DforSpiD, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Also the best way to get good photos is to just keep snapping, I've got some amazing shots, and it was all by accident. Keep your camera with you and get snap happy, you'll do fine, and some WILL look professional, and you willl begin to see what conditions effect photos by trial and error.
    But i suppose it couldn't hurt to listen to people who know what they're talking about too...

    Also most celebs look like aliens...
    ... You look me in the eyes and tell me Gwen Stefani's human...
  • GamingNews, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1It's interesting to watch, but is this really worth being on the front page?
  • unruled, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2he also forgot to mention: photoshop, namely, airbrush
  • twiddler, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0I always wondered why everyone loved my pics. I guess because I know my cameras and use it to its fullest. At least make a good stab at it. I am far from a pro, but love looking at nice well thought out images. Thinking of the image beforehand is part of good pictures. You have to plan the good shots. Sometimes this is not the case. A good shot is just a good shot.

    You can have a crappy PnS camera and still get nice results. Long as you know how to use the features it does have. When you have a feature rich camera with good glass, then you can go off and get even better results.

    Plus I snap more images then I will ever use. Got to love bracketing. Memory is cheap, so why not use it (in some cases). I have had the best results with a tripod and a remote shutter release.

    Then I hit Photoshop to make sure the final images are perfect. Post processing is as important as the taking of the image.
  • kevincannon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5This just in: Area man surprised professionals are better than amateurs
  • Spiritcatcher, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's so rare when one encounters a man who doesn't think he's a great driver, great lay and great photographer.
  • webjoseph, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2If your photo doesn't look that great... have you thought maybe that's just the way you look?
  • leony, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Pros shoot more, and show less. Statistically amateurs are better at getting good shots... the Pros are good at providing good shots on demand because they shoot a lot more and edit ruthlesly. Only about 1% of all shots is ever seen by anyone outside a photographer's studio.
    Plus just look at how many TEST shots are taken before the subject even arrives... how many tests did you shoot at your last vocation?
  • alceria, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Wow, totally staged looking celebrity photos are in fact staged with a production crew. Did anyone really except anything different? *eyeroll*
  • soapycub, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5A good photograph is knowing where to stand.

    - Ansel Adams
  • knowicki, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Type in "celebrities without make-up" into any search engine. Yikes!
  • dafragsta, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Here is a tip to DRASTICALLY improve your photos if you don't know this already. If your camera supports an external flash, go buy a nice $200 flash with a swivel head. It's not the quality of the flash so much as the ability to diffuse light realistically by bouncing the light off the ceiling, or if outdoors, using an omni hood to not make highlights so harsh. If you have a D-SLR, an $80 50mm 1.8/f lens and a flash that does omni/bounce, you will be able to impress yourself with the most trivial pictures as long as everything is in focus.
    • Coffeedemon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Seconded...

      I used an elan 7, a roll of illford B&W and a 430EX speedlite that has bounce ... I don't even remember taking the pictures I was so blitzed (New Years) but they're all in focus and the best lighting I have gotten so far for some simple portraits I put little work into. (they might be in my flickr but can't recall).

      Another tip is to fix up your own reflector from thin cardboard that can be made white on the inside. You wrap that onto the flashhead with an elastic and with the flash angled up at around 50 degrees the light will hit the reflector and project it out straight nicely diffused (this helps if the ceilings are high or coloured). You can buy them in the stores for 30 bucks but its only folded cardboard.
  • kkalyan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1http://duggmirror.com
  • naio21, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Shotophop.
  • RaulMontana, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I'm a learner and it seems like everyone is on point here.
    Check out my gallery
    http://www.rmpaparazzi.com and http://raulmontana.deviantart.com
  • VeganG, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Yes, I've always wondered why my vacation photos never look as good as those shot by professionals!!!

    Give me a break.
  • iKato, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1As a son of a photographer and a frequent assistant, the video is completely right. The only thing it missed is the amount of agonizing downtime you have between shots.
  • Squidly, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I always thought that the professional photoshoots went just like that scene from Austin Powers.

    Yeah baby, yeah.
  • trubbleshute, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1My secret is that I take a lot of pictures when I'm on vacation at a high resolution. Some come out horrible and even fewer come out amazing. I print the ones that come out amazing and I give them as presents-- so I can save my money for my next vacation.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 56 of 56 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.