|
Thanks everybody, it's all really useful feedback. I've got to start switching up my poses and getting more creative with it in general.
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2011 06:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 19:52 |
|
|
Just started getting my crappy little garage studio up and running, got a nice little network thing with this make-up artist through a buddy of mine and she wanted to do a couple test shots.  Click here for the full 500x720 image. I adjusted the contrast and exposure slightly, I just don't know what constitutes a proper head shot. Shot with a Canon 70-200 4/L @ f/8 - Lit with two strobes shooting through umbrella's to the sides and 1 strobe shooting through a softbox directly in front. I was thinking maybe adding a light for the hair, but I'm not quite sure how to do that with the space I have. edit: :iamafag: DuckBOT fucked around with this message at 16:27 on Feb 8, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 09:11
|
|
|
This was a corporate headshot thingy I did: It looks fine in Lightroom, but the blacks are really black after export some reason. Lightroom on the right :/ 
psylent fucked around with this message at 13:40 on Feb 8, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 13:33
|
|
|
I'm on the fence about this one, but so far it's pretty well received on Flickr. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 21:42
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:I'm on the fence about this one, but so far it's pretty well received on Flickr. I like the composition of it a lot - that sort of frame within a fram you're getting with the shadow/vignette. I just wish you could see more of her eyes
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 21:48
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:I just wish you could see more of her eyes Yeah, that happens a lot shooting with her. That and her elbow crop are my gripes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 22:07
|
|
|
Is she very short or is the lens distorting the proportions ?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 22:58
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:I'm on the fence about this one, but so far it's pretty well received on Flickr. Yeah, the elbow crop is bothering me too, which is a shame because I quite like it otherwise. *deep breath* Right, I'm saying nothing, I'm just putting it up. Please just say whatever comes into your head and what it says to you, if anything at all, of course.  I know it's  but if you could click through to the larger size on Flickr itself, that'd be grand.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 23:23
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:I'm on the fence about this one, but so far it's pretty well received on Flickr. I think I'd like it if she were turned toward the camera a bit more or away a bit more. I think I'd either like a full profile where we don't see the far eye, or more of the far cheek. AIIAZNSK8ER fucked around with this message at 23:43 on Feb 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 23:38
|
|
|
Cross_ posted:Is she very short or is the lens distorting the proportions ? She's 5'6". What do you mean by lens distortion? I shot that with a normal lens- although from slightly high- it really shouldn't be doing much to her proportions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 00:06
|
|
|
Her head looks really big to me compared to the rest of her body.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 00:09
|
|
|
^^^ From shooting high, I guess. Maybe from the crop, too? Not much else of her is shown for a comparison.Gazmachine posted:I think your lighting lets this one down. Right now her nose is almost completely lacking in dimensionality. Something needs to be done to sculpt the stuctures on her face, even if only slightly. Also, get her away from the wall.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 00:10
|
|
|
psylent posted:This looks pretty solid except her skin tone looks a little too grey, I think it might be just a tad underexposed. Gazmachine posted:I like the one with her eyes open a lot more.   
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 07:55
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:This looks pretty solid except her skin tone looks a little too grey, I think it might be just a tad underexposed. You're getting better real quick, man. In the first one, she looks much more relaxed and I'm a fan of incidental detail in backgrounds for portraits, so this ticks that box. All I would say is that I would've liked the cross to have fit in the portrait a little more comfortably and possibly remove the digital clock, but that's just being picky - I think it would've been better if it was a nice, old analogue clock to fit with the other ornaments. Of the other two, I like the chap on the left the best. Lighting works for me and I like his expression, as well as the bits of extra detail like the gloves in his pocket and the water bottle, gives it a bit of a story. The pose of the lady on the right looks a little awkward, like she doesn't know what to do with her hands and I feel she might've needed a spot of posing, or just a little bit of direction, just giving her some options on what she can do with her hands. Thanks for the feedback fellas. Cow, can I ask why you want me to bring her away from the background more? I think I'll go ahead and gently burn in her nose a little to see if I can get a little more shape to it. Thanks. Skater, I'm really glad you clicked through and have a preference between the two: basically I spent a good 20 minutes flicking between them (after spending a good 90 minutes flicking between about 4 to even whittle it down to 2, and before THAT, well, oh god, never mind) but I just can't pick between them. Not that I have to pick, but here's my thinking between the two: the closed eyes is more of a study of her features, because I'm pretty fascinated with them and their symmetry. With her hair as straight as possible, which is unfortunately as frizzy as hell and this is the straightest we could get it, I wanted to sort of split her into three "pieces" - her face, neck and shoulders as one shape, her hair as a second shape, and the space behind / around her as a third shape. I don't know if that's really come across. The open eyes one is one I like too, because the expression is earnest and like she's trying to tell me something. I wanted it to be more hypnotic, and the tones, the slightly open mouth and her gaze are all meant to draw you in and keep you there, in a delicate sort of way. I don't know if any of you got any of that from either of those, but that was sort of the plan in the back of my mind. Probably a bit over-ambitious but this is what I'm trying to do to push my portraiture forward - give it a story and a reason to exist. My sort of overall plan is to have a story in my head that the model will have in theirs without explicitly telling the viewer what that is. Nothing overly convoluted, but enough to make viewers feel like there's something else hidden under the surface. Anyway, thanks for chiming in. Think I'll cross post both of them to PAD and see what happens.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 09:38
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:This looks pretty solid except her skin tone looks a little too grey, I think it might be just a tad underexposed. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 13:48
|
|
|
psylent posted:Thanks, but it seems Lightroom is darkening on output for some reason. I have nothing applied, it's rather annoying Mine seems to do that too. I cant figure out why.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 15:17
|
|
|
Gazmachine posted:Yeah, the elbow crop is bothering me too, which is a shame because I quite like it otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 17:13
|
|
|
Gazmachine posted:Not that I have to pick, but here's my thinking between the two: the closed eyes is more of a study of her features, because I'm pretty fascinated with them and their symmetry. I wasn't going to mention this but since you mention symmetry yourself, her shoulders look uneven to me. Little flaws of symmetry are to be expected of course in any person, but in the shoulders? Though looking at it again, I think it's the lighting that's making them look like that, rather than how she was holding herself. Maybne you could lighten up that lower right corner a bit?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 17:59
|
|
|
Gazmachine posted:Cow, can I ask why you want me to bring her away from the background more? Because I can see her shadow on it (or a shadow from something). It doesn't do anything to improve the picture so there's no reason for it to be in the frame. It's really nothing but a distraction.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 19:00
|
|
|
My favorite from a shoot with my best friend today:
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2011 11:29
|
|
|
It looks like the background was composited in
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2011 12:43
|
|
|
I agree with psylent, but I believe it's because you didn't even try to match the white balance and there's way too much depth of field here. There's also a lot of negative space above her head which doesn't serve much of a purpose? Was it to show off the sky or something? I like the movement in her hairs though, that's a nice touch. Did you use a fan, or did she turn her head? I'd like to reproduce that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2011 18:46
|
|
|
For the love of gently caress use gels.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2011 18:59
|
|
|
For the love of gently caress learn what "negative space" means. Not all space is negative.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2011 23:23
|
|
|
Jiblet posted:For the love of gently caress learn what "negative space" means. Not all space is negative. Do tell how the space above her head is not negative.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2011 23:29
|
|
|
AtomicManiac posted:My favorite from a shoot with my best friend today: getting really bad twilight vibes from this. you need to warm up your light a lot, and have a more "natural" feel to her pose
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2011 23:33
|
|
|
1) It's not a composite. I shot it at like f13, and I don't know if the sun from behind is making her pop out so hard or what. I guess Shallower depth of Field or maybe a not-so-busy background next time. I was hoping that pushing the light harder would get her to pop, which she does but not enough. 2) That's actually fairly close to her actual skin tone, she's incredibly pale. I've wanted to get some Gel's to mess with, but the local camera stores don't sell them and I've been lazy. Any recommendations? Also, should I add some kind of layer-mask to warm her skin up even if I came fairly close to her actual skin tone? 3)I have no idea how to get negative space right, to be honest it usually doesn't cross my mind when shooting, I'm more concerned with getting a good shot of the subject and I kind of get tunnel vision. 4) The hair effect is natural wind. It looks great, but I almost lost an umbrella from it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2011 23:55
|
|
|
AtomicManiac posted:1) It's not a composite. I shot it at like f13, and I don't know if the sun from behind is making her pop out so hard or what. I guess Shallower depth of Field or maybe a not-so-busy background next time. I was hoping that pushing the light harder would get her to pop, which she does but not enough. You need to learn how to say "Thanks for the advice and tips guys!" Instead of posting a bulleted list of why your photo is awesome after you post it in a thread where people critique photos (every single time someone says something you don't like.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2011 00:47
|
|
|
AtomicManiac posted:1) It's not a composite. I shot it at like f13, and I don't know if the sun from behind is making her pop out so hard or what. I guess Shallower depth of Field or maybe a not-so-busy background next time. I was hoping that pushing the light harder would get her to pop, which she does but not enough. 1. We know it's not a composite, we're saying it looks very unnatural and not in a good way. 2. I don't know why you bothered writing this out, all you are confirming is that you're sloppy. 3. Learn to crop. 4. Sandbags.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2011 01:15
|
|
|
Bojanglesworth posted:You need to learn how to say "Thanks for the advice and tips guys!" Instead of posting a bulleted list of why your photo is awesome after you post it in a thread where people critique photos (every single time someone says something you don't like.) I feel like the purpose of a critique is to create a conversation, and some back and forth, I feel like I get more out of that, but if that's how people feel, than thanks for the advice. As for the Umbrella comment, I was holding the light stand, but the umbrella almost flew out of the little hole.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2011 02:21
|
|
|
AtomicManiac posted:I feel like the purpose of a critique is to create a conversation, and some back and forth, I feel like I get more out of that, but if that's how people feel, than thanks for the advice. I am not going to argue with you because its obvious that nothing anyone says will ever get through to you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2011 02:33
|
|
|
Regarding the negative space - Learn the rule of thirds. The face is the focal point, yet it's almost in the very center of the frame. A big no no. It's fine for taking pictures of cats with your mums Cybershot, but not for anything semi-pro. On another note, I've been asked to shoot some editorial and promotional stuff for a local band. Years of strobist workshops and set up shots are coming back to me and I can't decide what I want to go with  I'm doing it for free because they're good mates and they got me a working pass to Bon Jovi, so I'm not fussing too much. http://www.myspace.com/thescarletsrock/photos/albums/album/1512041#mssrc=SitesPhotos_SP_AlbumCover_ViewAlbum These are their current promo shots - They were done by a highly regarded professional, but I think I could do better. At least, I've seen other people do better, and I have their set up shots. What could go wrong.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2011 03:47
|
|
|
AtomicManiac posted:My favorite from a shoot with my best friend today: I think it's the background that's throwing people off. If this were on a while seamless and she filled the frame, it wouldn't be so bad. Also, ditch the hair band on her arm. If it were a piece of jewelry it would look better.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2011 05:34
|
|
|
It's come to the point where I can look at photos without seeing the user name and pick out AIIAZNSK8ER's photos. In other words, congrats on finding a style.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2011 06:01
|
|
|
HPL posted:It's come to the point where I can look at photos without seeing the user name and pick out AIIAZNSK8ER's photos. In other words, congrats on finding a style. 'Bland' is not a style.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2011 06:35
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:'Bland' is not a style.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2011 06:36
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:'Bland' is not a style.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2011 08:22
|
|
|
Big thanks to all for the feedback on my recent portraits. Can I ask what the general consensus is on the evenness of the shoulders (EDIT: With regard to the closed eyes one, that is)? I feel like I might need to crop the tiniest bit off the right hand side. I think. GAH. Then I'm thinking maybe I should carefully 'shop the roots out, at least a little bit, then call her and admonish her for having a slightly imperfect face and head and how she's ruining my life. Maybe. Or maybe I should just retry it from scratch - she's coming back in the next couple of weeks. Cyberbob posted:http://www.myspace.com/thescarletsrock/photos/albums/album/1512041#mssrc=SitesPhotos_SP_AlbumCover_ViewAlbum Yeah, I don't see the big whoop with their existing promos. They look fine, but they're just technically sound photos of studio lit dudes. They look boring. You need to take them out somewhere. Do you have power packs? Even if you don't, I'd still take them on location, although "wheat field", "junkyard", "rickety old house" etc are pretty overdone. I just had an image of them in a greasy diner, sat around a jock, hemming him in, with him looking uncomfortable. The guy without the soul patch is drinking a milkshake and looking sideways at him. AtomicManiac posted:My favorite from a shoot with my best friend today: There's always two things that I'm not sure about with your outdoor portraits. The central composition needs to go for sure but the lighting, as Psylent says, makes the subjects look like they're not really in the scene and have been 'shopped in afterwards. The backgrounds are never exposed well enough. Try finding some fairly simple yet interesting background detail and incorporating the subject into the background more - they always tend to be far, far away from any background detail. Reichstag posted:'Bland' is not a style. Not cool. Gazmachine fucked around with this message at 09:55 on Feb 15, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2011 09:45
|
|
|
HPL posted:It's come to the point where I can look at photos without seeing the user name and pick out AIIAZNSK8ER's photos. In other words, congrats on finding a style. How much other photography do you look at? Not trying to insult the guy, but there really isn't anything noteworthy that should make it memorable unless you only look at photos here in the dorkroom. There are hundreds, if not thousands of people with off camera lighting that do shots that could be slipped in without anyone noticing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2011 10:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 19:52 |
|
|
AtomicManiac posted:My favorite from a shoot with my best friend today: Why is this outdoors? You've ignored the lighting of the scene and used your own, and she is far enough away from it that she isn't a part of it. It might as well be a composite for all the interaction she is doing with it. Next time either shoot her in the studio on a seamless background, or figure out why you want to be outdoors. If you think the woods make her seem more rugged, get some bushes or branches in the fore, middle, and background so it looks like she is there. If you think the lighting or color temperature made it a compelling location, gel or color your lighting in post so it matches. Right now unless you have some crazy meta-explanation, there is no good reason she is outdoors and not in a studio, the background is offering nothing to the final image. No light, no color, no space interaction. It's just "studio lit female" on top of "random trees".
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2011 10:29
|
|