|
poopinmymouth posted:Does the fact the photo isn't representative of the subject matter to the viewer in any way unless the subject is famous enough for the viewer to know them? Not unless they know the subject, I was just saying, you know?
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 18:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 20:35 |
|
|
TheLastManStanding posted:You're supposed to let the model bring a friend (if they want). NO. Seriously. It's not like the model having an escort will absolutely ruin the shoot, but I've never seen it improve anything. More often than not, an escort is someone for the model to be MORE self conscious in front of.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 19:30
|
|
|
Ive heard that attitude a lot, but I've also had a model tell me a story about how this guy said he was going to have a shoot with like 9 girls, and when she got dropped off, there was no one else there, and then he locked her in his house when she tried to leave so... Basically if an escort is a problem, I'll ask them to leave the area, but otherwise, I'm not going to begrudge a model for wanting to bring someone along. I will not hesitate to tell them to leave the shoot though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 19:40
|
|
|
nonanone posted:Basically if an escort is a problem, I'll ask them to leave the area, but otherwise, I'm not going to begrudge a model for wanting to bring someone along. I will not hesitate to tell them to leave the shoot though. That's actually been my policy as well, but the more I do this, the more restrictions I put on escorts and eventually I'll stop allowing them altogether. You'd never find an escort on a professional set, and since I'm trying to head in that direction I feel like I should operate the same way. I keep a list of all the models I've worked with. A new model can do their research before hand.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 19:56
|
|
|
It depends on the situation. It should be important to exercise caution with random shoots on MM especially. I for sure as hell won't go to some strange girls house with $$$ in camera gear, and I don't expect the reverse to be true either. When you start out you should expect escorts, because there's nothing really showing you're not some crazy scrub. However when you get to the point of where McMadCow is - to me bringing an escort is a little insulting as an artist. It's obvious from McMadCow's portfolio he's worked with a variety of women and if he was a creepster it probably would have come out. It's obvious McMadCow is a professional. For a photographer and a model it's mainly about using common sense. When you start out you shouldn't feel too insulted if a model asks to bring an escort, there's some scary poo poo that happens. Prove you're legit and if she knows other models that'll go a long way in establishing credibility. Personally I've had some great experiences with escorts - even the dreaded boyfriend escort! Dude was really nice and complimented me on my professionalism and everything. He also was great at minding bags and helping with location changes etc. Now that I've reached a point where I work with a full creative team it's pretty obvious I'm not sketchy unless they think I've convinced 2-3 other girls to side with me in my sinister photoshoots.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 20:06
|
|
|
That is true, I mean, I don't really run into the problem that often as it is, presumably because I'm female and about as threatening as a twig, but now that I think about it, it never happens on big shoots anyways, I suppose I'd be really annoyed if it did.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 20:27
|
|
|
nonanone posted:That is true, I mean, I don't really run into the problem that often as it is, presumably because I'm female and about as threatening as a twig, but now that I think about it, it never happens on big shoots anyways, I suppose I'd be really annoyed if it did. Haha, yeah I'm very jealous of female photographers because you don't have to work as hard to build trust. Guys who act flamboyantly gay seem to get away with a lot too. A great stylist who understands the look you're going for well is really great for a male photographer as you can defer a lot of the more delicate stuff to her without worrying about being taken the wrong way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 20:59
|
|
|
I have found that the simplest and easiest thing to do is to give the model a list of references that are willing to talk to new models.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 21:18
|
|
|
The model DID know that she was going to be shot by two photogs, she seemed to enjoy the idea (in theory at least). In addition, she did bring an escort, who stayed in the car for most places since it was cold. In my *limited* experience with escorts it usually seems to help. It feels like the person they pick is usually supportive and can open them up, and sometimes they suggest poses I never would have thought about. The first shot is with on camera flash (bounced into the low ceiling of this weird structure thing), and I do feel like it could have been more dramatic, same with her pose, but we were kind of just throwing poo poo against a wall and seeing what stuck because it was cold so we worked too fast and we're all kind of new at this thing. Composition wise, I'm not really sure what was going through my head at the time, I was looking at the shots and thought they looked good, but not great. So I guess I need to fill the frame a bit more next time. Lighting wise, I have a reflector, but I never pull that thing out. Especially with two of us (and an escort), I don't think there's any excuse for that. I've been meaning to get off of the "Shoot a bunch and see what sticks" amatuer style and more into a "Plan the shot, then execute it" style, so I guess I'll have to take charge at the next shoot. Thanks for the advice everyone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 22:10
|
|
|
Nowadays I try to shoot a little wider than what I think is good at the time because it's a lot easier to crop the photo a little than to shake your fist at the screen and curse because you cut off a toe or something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 22:13
|
|
|
HPL posted:Nowadays I try to shoot a little wider than what I think is good at the time because it's a lot easier to crop the photo a little than to shake your fist at the screen and curse because you cut off a toe or something. I don't think there is anything wrong with shooting wide, it just depends on the types of shots you are taking. When I go for a more editorial style that displays a scene rather than just a headshot, etc. I always shoot wide. If you want to avoid weird distortions just keep the model in the center of the frame where it's least likely to occur. Also if you are wanting to take a real friendly looking image wide works great... I think telephotos are more important when doing beauty/fashion where stuff like a big hand or foot can totally ruin an image. Good:  Bad:  Obviously the 'bad' example isn't terrible in this particular photo but you get the point. Also obvious, this isn't a rule but more of a guideline. Lens distortion can be awesome when used creatively. In fact that just gave me a few ideas, oh ho ho ho Also HPL I'm not directing this at you personally as I am pretty sure you already know all this, it's just for the people still getting into portrait photog.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 22:44
|
|
|
I think HPL is talking more about framing than focal length. Shooting with an eye to crop later. I've sort of come away from that because it just makes going through selects much harder just in terms of choice but it's a good way of building confidence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 22:55
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Not unless they know the subject, I was just saying, you know? My apologies, then.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 23:22
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Haha, yeah I'm very jealous of female photographers because you don't have to work as hard to build trust. Guys who act flamboyantly gay seem to get away with a lot too. If you read or study even the slightest bit into feminism or the theory of patriarchy, you should have no problems figuring out why a woman would be on guard in front of a relative stranger dude with a photographic instrument. Also FYI you don't even have to be flamboyant, just being gay is enough with plenty of women to be a lot less worried.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 23:29
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:I've sort of come away from that because it just makes going through selects much harder just in terms of choice but it's a good way of building confidence. That's interesting you would say that. My one professor wouldn't let us crop at ALL- also for confidence building. I suppose either method can work, depending how you're approaching it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 23:32
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:That's interesting you would say that. My one professor wouldn't let us crop at ALL- also for confidence building. I suppose either method can work, depending how you're approaching it. It's more about avoiding those situations where you have a 99% awesome shot except you left a fingertip out of the frame for one reason or another. I'm not really talking about shooting with fifty miles of space around the subject, more like finding the shot I like then taking a half step back just to be sure. I've also found it helped for composition like if I wanted the person a little more over to the side or a little higher or lower in the frame or whatever. It takes a nice photo and puts a little more polish on it. Or polishes the turd as often happens in my case. HPL fucked around with this message at 23:40 on Jan 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 23:38
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:If you read or study even the slightest bit into feminism or the theory of patriarchy, you should have no problems figuring out why a woman would be on guard in front of a relative stranger dude with a photographic instrument. Also FYI you don't even have to be flamboyant, just being gay is enough with plenty of women to be a lot less worried. Yes, I know why women would be on guard in front of a relative stranger dude with a camera and I don't have a problem with that, and understand completely why that happens. I'm more upset with other straight male photographers that reinforce negative stereotypes that make my job harder than a female or gay photographer's job being easier. I aim to come across as a professional rather than gay or straight. Fortunately I've managed to be successful with that. I'm sorry if I caused offense! You're one of my favorite posters on the forum, and I'd hate to think I offended you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 23:44
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:That's interesting you would say that. My one professor wouldn't let us crop at ALL- also for confidence building. I suppose either method can work, depending how you're approaching it. Yeah, I can see that working. I think shooting to crop later helps at first when someone might be a bit overwhelmed with camera settings, managing the shoot etc. so it takes a little bit of that load off. Once those things become second nature then you can focus on making aesthetic decisions in camera.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 23:46
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:I'm more upset with other straight male photographers that reinforce negative stereotypes that make my job harder than a female or gay photographer's job being easier. Get married. That works. Either that or network well so that your good reputation precedes you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 23:55
|
|
|
HPL posted:Get married. That works. Either that or network well so that your good reputation precedes you. Which is what I've done! The latter at least.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 23:57
|
|
|
I'm about as close to getting married as I am to being elected president of Mars.  I'll have to settle for networking as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2011 00:00
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Which is what I've done! The latter at least. Wear a huge wedding band!
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2011 00:02
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Yes, I know why women would be on guard in front of a relative stranger dude with a camera and I don't have a problem with that, and understand completely why that happens. I'm more upset with other straight male photographers that reinforce negative stereotypes that make my job harder than a female or gay photographer's job being easier. I'm not offended, I just felt like commenting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2011 14:48
|
|
|
So I'm trying to get a little (a lot) better at doing portraits and photography in general. A little while ago, I took my friend around campus and tried to get a few decent shots of her. These are with natural light (I'm a poor college student) and little to no post-processing. Critiques pleeease, but don't kill me! =)  
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2011 18:14
|
|
|
akulol posted:These are with natural light (I'm a poor college student) and little to no post-processing. Critiques pleeease, but don't kill me! =) Natural light is always the best light, no need for excuses there. They are both nice portraits. Some might see a problem with her fingers cut off on the first one, but you've framed her nicely with the tree branches. Her expression seems like of sleepy or bored. I'd say you're off to a good start.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2011 19:39
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:Natural light is always the best light, no need for excuses there. They are both nice portraits. Some might see a problem with her fingers cut off on the first one, but you've framed her nicely with the tree branches. Her expression seems like of sleepy or bored. I'd say you're off to a good start. Why do her finger tips matter at all to the photo? People seem to be focusing so much on things getting cut out lately when for 90% of the photos the extremeties add nothing to the photo at all. I understand that you said "some people" indicating not necessarily yourself... People need to remember that when offering criticism they don't have to go over a checklist of things that a photo must be. That being said, I think her complexion looks like poo poo in #1 but otherwise I like it. I like her expression and it is well composed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2011 06:11
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:That being said, I think her complexion looks like poo poo in #1 but otherwise I like it. I like her expression and it is well composed. I think it looks fine. You know, brown people and all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2011 06:14
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:Why do her finger tips matter at all to the photo? People seem to be focusing so much on things getting cut out lately when for 90% of the photos the extremeties add nothing to the photo at all. I understand that you said "some people" indicating not necessarily yourself... Cropping at joints creates a false impression of the limb's dimensions. McMadCow fucked around with this message at 08:17 on Jan 9, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2011 08:14
|
|
|
HPL posted:I think it looks fine. You know, brown people and all. Because all brown people have bumpy skin, oh yes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2011 15:13
|
|
|
The only thing bugging me about #1 is the fact that the hand is seemingly coming out of nowhere, I don't mind the tips being cut off as much. It's like she's a mutant in Futurama and have a hand growing out of her forehead. The light is awesome, by the way. Nothing wrong with natural.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2011 16:24
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:Because all brown people have bumpy skin, oh yes. What? She has great skin. It's just not airbrushed to hell like a mannequin (no offense, Mannequin). If that's how she looks with little or no makeup, then that's damned good compared to a lot of women. On the other hand, if she looked like that after a full-on professional makeup session, then yikes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2011 17:24
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:Why do her finger tips matter at all to the photo? People seem to be focusing so much on things getting cut out lately when for 90% of the photos the extremeties add nothing to the photo at all. If he had taken the same photo with the fingers in, it would look better. Completing the visual information always looks just a bit better. I don't think it ruins the photo and the composition is still very interesting. IsaacNewton posted:The only thing bugging me about #1 is the fact that the hand is seemingly coming out of nowhere, I don't mind the tips being cut off as much. It's like she's a mutant in Futurama and have a hand growing out of her forehead. I think the pose looks fairly natural to me, it didn't second guess where the hand was coming from and it's not foreshortened into a weird proportion relative to her body.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2011 18:42
|
|
|
The first one is good. It's obvious the eyes/face with a strong central composition is the main focal point of the photograph. Everything else melts away. Moving the frame further back to include all the finger tips etc would reduce the strength and placement of the face. The choice is fine. The second one the pose I think goes against the lightness you're portraying. Looking down at the camera she looks haughty and imperial something more suited to a more imposing model and styling. I think shooting more from an angle rather than perpendicular to her body would produce a better image. Great shots for someone looking to learn.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2011 19:10
|
|
|
Thanks everyone. For the first picture, she was literally climbing a tree - I had to stand on part of the tree to get the shot. I was super conscious about getting her fingers all the way in the shot, but I couldn't back up any more without falling over, haha. As for her complexion, I don't have photoshop yet, and I was way too lazy to sit there and spot fix everything. Hmmm.. paragon8.. I never thought about the angle making her looking haughty in the second picture, but I can kind of see it now. I'll definitely try different angles next time. What do you guys think about these? For this one, she wanted to incorporate her bike in some way, and I'm not sure if I think the spokes look stupid or interesting, but I kind of like it anyway. I think it might have been awesome without the spokes there. Also, I should've fixed her skin! grr.   Is the crop ok in this one? Does the tree behind her get distracting? I could never get her to smile. Also, AIIAZNSK8ER, I am a girl 
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2011 20:42
|
|
|
akulol posted:Thanks everyone. Shooting through things is good, you framed it well and showed that it was a bike. I think you might have gotten a more interesting effect if the spokes were even closer to your camera rendering them more abstract - but if you goal was to use the bike you executed it successfully. The bokeh is p. awesome. The second one isn't great. With shots that obscure the face it's important to have something that communicates emotion - body language being the main thing. The crop doesn't really let her pose do much in the way of communicating anything and that framing would be more suited to a photo that shows the face. The problem I have with the try is that it creates such a harsh edge that I initially thought that was where the picture ended but you've still got a fifth of a photo after it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2011 20:59
|
|
|
Yesterday I helped my friend run his workshop on lighting. It was very informative and super fun, check out his blog post on it since he already took the time to explain everything etc: http://www.sondersphotography.com/blog/2011/01/09/the-awesome-photography-workshop-aftermath-january-2011-edition/
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2011 00:43
|
|
|
My best portrait shots were all candid and spontaneous. I recommend everybody try it. Just hang out with whoever you're taking a photo of, have a deep conversation and every so often take a photo. Don't let/give them time to pose. Forgive me for posting from my facebook, they're not in flickr for some reason. Please comment and critique.  I met this man from craigslist, I ended up buying a kayak from him. Coincidentally, he builds $1,000 acoustic guitars from scratch.  Asked a friend to pose with him. Colors a little washed out, could use some post processing.    This one is on my flickr, I think the noise and colors add to the atmosphere.  Untitled by khleboyko, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2011 03:45
|
|
|
What's the policy for hotlinking to facebook ? Anyway, the first two snapshots I don't care for. White balance is way off, junk in the background, weird crop, tilted, etc. Without the explanation I would not have guessed he builds guitars, he looks rather confused. Photo #3 is awesome. Needs some sharpening and dodging of the shadows and you're done. #4 bothers me mostly because of the dude on the right. Even when cropped more tightly you still have blown out highlights and somewhat noisy background. I like his look and that flower.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2011 21:02
|
|
|
8 more weeks to go until our due date  What are some good resources to learn more about baby photos? The books I have seen at my local store were pretty much all bad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2011 20:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 20:35 |
|
|
Cross_ posted:8 more weeks to go until our due date I would also be interested in this! I have a newborn shoot coming up and would like to follow it up with a few more, but I haven't studied a whole lot in this genre because frankly they weird me out a little and I've never been in the position to shoot them myself in the past.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2011 23:18
|
|
