|
Cross_ posted:You were using strobes so there's no excuse for camera shake. In particular the first photo with its 0.5 sec exposure is too blurry. Keep the dawn photo it looks awesome with the sun's back/side lighting.
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 01:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 13:45 |
|
|
EXCUSES! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 01:10
|
|
|
pwn posted:The light from camera right is ambient, hence the shutter drag. I have one strobe so I gotta make it work. The blurry is unnoticeable at normal non-peeping resolution. Maybe so, but who the hell cares about non 1:1 resolution!
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 01:46
|
|
|
Anyone who wants to make a good print bigger than 8x10!
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 02:08
|
|
|
pwn posted:The light from camera right is ambient, hence the shutter drag. I have one strobe so I gotta make it work. The blurry is unnoticeable at normal non-peeping resolution. The picture does not look sharp in low-res form and blurry at 100%. Sorry.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 02:34
|
|
|
pwn posted:My friend wanted to play dress-up and I needed off-camera lighting practice. The first three were right before dawn, going for a walking-home-after-a-party-under-moonlight look. Why is she carrying a lantern if it's totally bright out enough to see? Here is more how I would have balanced it. Probably a snooted strobe with a gel (or post) to make it look like the orange lantern, then killed the ambient till it's there, but barely. I'd also have done a 2nd, very high blue strobe for the moon. Like so:  
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 02:45
|
|
|
I had a blast shooting this weekend!      
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 05:33
|
|
|
We got some freckles up in here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 07:37
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Why is she carrying a lantern if it's totally bright out enough to see? Here is more how I would have balanced it. Probably a snooted strobe with a gel (or post) to make it look like the orange lantern, then killed the ambient till it's there, but barely. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 09:51
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Why is she carrying a lantern if it's totally bright out enough to see? Here is more how I would have balanced it. Probably a snooted strobe with a gel (or post) to make it look like the orange lantern, then killed the ambient till it's there, but barely. I forgot just how much my work monitor sucks. I meant to leave the dark areas able to "see into" which is possible on my calibrated photo monitor at home, but it just looks like a sea of black here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 10:15
|
|
|
Whitezombi posted:This is a great portrait shot. Really stands out for me in this set, even though I liked the others. pwn posted:You're right, I didn't think of that when I shot it. I'm starting to get some ideas, will post back when they've been shot. Thank you for the critique. By the way, the shots you posted in SAD of this girl were very, very nice. Done in ambient with the setting sun, really seemed to get her character. If she'd been posing, I think the light would have played well to your intent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 13:30
|
|
|
Whitezombi posted:I had a blast shooting this weekend! You gonna show this one to her?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 16:05
|
|
|
orange lime posted:You gonna show this one to her? She has seen it. Why? torgeaux posted:This is a great portrait shot. Really stands out for me in this set, even though I liked the others. Thanks! It's one of my favorites as well - it goes with a couple of other shots that I will post later. Whitezombi fucked around with this message at 16:26 on Jun 29, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 16:15
|
|
|
Whitezombi posted:She has seen it. Why? I have found that the vast majority of girls don't like their photos to be...maybe "harsh" is the word? I think it's a great shot, but the high-contrast black and white look on a person with freckles is more interesting than flattering. It's not really what you would consider a traditionally "pretty" rendition of the person, and most of the women I've met tend to prefer that traditionally pretty photo of themselves to one that is visually interesting but less flattering. Depends on the person obviously, but it's the same phenomenon that leads to me not showing people their photos on the back of the camera -- they'll immediately say "ugh, I look gross, delete it." Some men too, but you can get away with high-contrast and sidelighting a lot more with men, because accentuating skin texture and wrinkles generally just makes them look rugged.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 16:41
|
|
|
Whitezombi posted:She has seen it. Why? I think it makes her look like a male that is in his late 40s-early 50s. I agree with the above comments on harsher processing for females. Unless a girl is a soldier or something badass and tough like that, they usually seem to prefer more flattering pictures.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 17:08
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:I think it makes her look like a male that is in his late 40s-early 50s. I agree with the above comments on harsher processing for females. Unless a girl is a soldier or something badass and tough like that, they usually seem to prefer more flattering pictures. Uggg, not everyone woman has to be (or wants to be seen) as a super smooth barbie clone. I love the shot, and if she likes it, I bet she's a cool person to be around, it's a good portrait.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 17:16
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Uggg, not everyone woman has to be (or wants to be seen) as a super smooth barbie clone. Hence why I said usually. I didn't say I didn't like the picture, just that it isn't necessarily flattering.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 17:44
|
|
|
The shot was not meant to be flattering like the others. I understand what you guys are saying. She agrees with you - "I love the B&W one but sort of feel like I could be a drug addict in that one. Smudges around eyes. And you can see every pore on my skin!!" - BUT - these images are for me. I needed a model to practice a wide range of shots on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 18:31
|
|
|
I like this guys face for photography. Lots of character.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 18:35
|
|
|
Whitezombi posted:The shot was not meant to be flattering like the others. I think it would be really interesting to see another set of her that is more traditional. Get her outside and smiling with some colorful shots. It would really show off your skill with being able to show someone in any way you wanted.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 18:57
|
|
|
DevNull posted:I think it would be really interesting to see another set of her that is more traditional. Get her outside and smiling with some colorful shots. It would really show off your skill with being able to show someone in any way you wanted. I will be shooting more with her. A couple of more pics.   
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 00:57
|
|
|
Whitezombi posted:I will be shooting more with her. I really liked all the shots from the first set but these just aren't doing it for me at all. The first batch had really interesting comps and they really played up your model's strengths. These do none of that and sort of fall flat in comparison. Sorry :/
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 01:05
|
|
|
I agree with McMadCow. I like the first set, but not those as much. The first one of the second set has a bit of playfulness that could fun, but doesn't quite work with that picture. I was thinking something more along the lines of changing everything but the model. So have her clothed, in a different location, and different mood (happy/playful) to juxtapose that first set against. Then again, maybe I am crazy and that would be too forced and look like crap.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 05:59
|
|
|
I have taken portraits of lots of adults over the years but my camera has never gotten such a workout since my son was born:        Sorry for the bombardment, just being a proud daddy/photographer. Thoughts are welcome!
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 08:04
|
|
|
Had my first experience with setting up my own lighting rig yesterday... I was really worried incase I messed it all up but the set came out really nicely. I'll update this post with some more later, but here is the first shot I ran through photoshop: The model had never posed before but I think she did really well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 09:19
|
|
|
Hanpan posted:Had my first experience with setting up my own lighting rig yesterday... I was really worried incase I messed it all up but the set came out really nicely. I'll update this post with some more later, but here is the first shot I ran through photoshop: As someone who normally likes texture, you sharpened her pores far far too much. It's jarring with the otherwise glamor esque aspects of the shot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 11:59
|
|
|
Hanpan posted:Had my first experience with setting up my own lighting rig yesterday... I was really worried incase I messed it all up but the set came out really nicely. I'll update this post with some more later, but here is the first shot I ran through photoshop: I agree with Poop, it sort of makes her skin look basketball like. I'm looking forward to the other shots, I think you might have a good set .
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 12:42
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:As someone who normally likes texture, you sharpened her pores far far too much. It's jarring with the otherwise glamor esque aspects of the shot. Hmm, it's odd because the original JPG isn't so bad... does Flickr sharpen up the images or something? I completely agree though, I'll smooth them out a bit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 13:35
|
|
|
Hanpan posted:Hmm, it's odd because the original JPG isn't so bad... does Flickr sharpen up the images or something? I completely agree though, I'll smooth them out a bit. flickr does sharpen images a bit, so it might be that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 13:36
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:I really liked all the shots from the first set but these just aren't doing it for me at all. Don't be sorry. They are just playful shots to help her relax before we shot some nudes. I gave her no real direction on these - just said relax and do whatever you feel like. I really appreciate the input. I'm learning - I think people are the hardest thing to photograph. DevNull posted:I agree with McMadCow. I like the first set, but not those as much. The first one of the second set has a bit of playfulness that could fun, but doesn't quite work with that picture. I was thinking something more along the lines of changing everything but the model. So have her clothed, in a different location, and different mood (happy/playful) to juxtapose that first set against. Then again, maybe I am crazy and that would be too forced and look like crap. I will be shooting her again - with clothes on.  
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 15:22
|
|
|
Whitezombi posted:I like these a lot, very nice focus with #1.. that is some awesome detail.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 15:43
|
|
|
Whitezombi posted:
This is one of the better shots in the series.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 15:45
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:This is one of the better shots in the series. Good going especially on the first bunch, zombie
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 16:17
|
|
|
Whitezombi posted:
Yeah, this one. And really, in all the pictures I think she's loving beautiful.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 17:25
|
|
|
Attempted to fix this up. It's still not perfect, but hopefully it's a bit better? Edit: Another from the set: 
Hanpan fucked around with this message at 23:24 on Jun 30, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 20:47
|
|
|
That skin still looks very mottled in the first. Are you sharpening her skin? The second looks right. EDIT: And by right I mean great. Those are both great shots, just need to fix the skin on the first and I'd call it a day.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2010 07:12
|
|
|
Bojanglesworth posted:I have taken portraits of lots of adults over the years but my camera has never gotten such a workout since my son was born: These are great. I really wish I had been shooting when I had my son. My advice is to shoot that precious little guy every chance you get. Before you know it he'll be six and will be wanting a camera of his own... Congrats! Hanpan posted:Attempted to fix this up. It's still not perfect, but hopefully it's a bit better? I agree - great shots but the skin on the first needs work. Also for some reason I really dislike the color of her fingernail polish. I really appreciate everyone's input on my photos. A couple of more playful pics of Mel.  
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2010 16:42
|
|
|
Hanpan posted:Attempted to fix this up. It's still not perfect, but hopefully it's a bit better?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2010 16:43
|
|
|
Blakles posted:I'm new to photography so forgive me if this is a stupid question to the rest of you experts, but how did you keep her pupils so big? Did you just photoshop them like that afterward or was it something you did with the lighting during the shoot? Her pupils are most likely dilated due to little or no light.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2010 16:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 13:45 |
|
|
Whitezombi posted:Her pupils are most likely dilated due to little or no light.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2010 16:53
|
|