|
Oprah Haza posted:The modeling agency let the magazine publish a test? Congrats, by the way! Yep, most editorials in most magazines are shot on a test basis.
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2011 16:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 16:28 |
|
|
Nicely done Paragon! Congratulations. Site is offline at the moment though 
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2011 00:39
|
|
|
psylent posted:Nicely done Paragon! Congratulations. haha yeah, it's only my editorial too.  Only Girl in the World by Steve takes pictures, on Flickr but here's the first page with I nabbed to put on flickr.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2011 01:18
|
|
|
I grabbed a coworker of mine the other day and pulled him into one of the old stairwells in our office building, which haven't been renovated since the thing was built a hundred years ago. They're some of my favorite spaces to shoot in. mister frank by thetzar, on Flickr I had previously, on a different floor, taken this in one of them:  mister rupak by thetzar, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2011 04:06
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:haha yeah, it's only my editorial too. Seriously, that's awesome, nice work.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2011 04:46
|
|
|
Miko posted:Don't forget the little people when you make it big. Haha, I've spent too long slaving as an assistant to forget where I came from! The editorial should be back up at http://www.papercutmag.com/?q=editorials%2F2011%2F07%2Fonly-girl-world-photographed-steven-read - I think they had a bit of a hosting issue.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2011 14:07
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Haha, I've spent too long slaving as an assistant to forget where I came from! Good stuff Paragon! Where do you end up getting the makeup done when you're on location?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2011 16:08
|
|
|
m4mbo posted:Good stuff Paragon! Where do you end up getting the makeup done when you're on location? I always have an apartment (either mine or my friends) nearby to do hair and makeup and never really shoot more than a 5-10 minute walk from there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2011 22:17
|
|
|
 Just got a D7000 a couple weeks ago. I like this one the best so far.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2011 05:45
|
|
|
Okay, so my sister got me to take some headshots of my nieces while I was out visiting last week. What can I do to make these better? http://www.flickr.com/photos/thepaisleyfox/sets/72157627190405730/ My favorite is this one:  Unfortunately I've been shooting on jpeg all this time since I didn't really have a reason to shoot raw until I started messing around with some of my slightly underexposed shots with the same techniques I use for the photographers I do post for. Looks like I'm switching formats. :/
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2011 19:16
|
|
|
paisleyfox posted:Okay, so my sister got me to take some headshots of my nieces while I was out visiting last week. What can I do to make these better? Good exposure, but watch your composition. The angles you take all of the photos at could be better if you a bit lower to match their eye level. Also everything seems to be crazy tilted, especially the one you show here. I would back off just a bit as well to get more of the environment and make the kids fit into it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2011 00:08
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:Good exposure, but watch your composition. The angles you take all of the photos at could be better if you a bit lower to match their eye level. Also everything seems to be crazy tilted, especially the one you show here. I would back off just a bit as well to get more of the environment and make the kids fit into it. Okay, thanks. Yeah, I was using my better lens, which is a longer range zoom, so I was backed up a bit (about 6-7 feet away) and standing. I know it's hard to tell and it makes it look crooked as hell, but that's the garden pavers curving up the hill behind them, but I see what you're saying, I can't unsee it now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2011 05:03
|
|
|
paisleyfox posted:Okay, so my sister got me to take some headshots of my nieces while I was out visiting last week. What can I do to make these better? Unfortunately, you are also cropping the frame at her joints. If it were not for the tiny bit of index finger, it would appear that she has a stump for an arm. As for the background, I think 2 minutes of cloning in photoshop could clean up that corner, and put all the attention back on your subject. Otherwise, nice lighting on her face, and a good smile. I am sure your sister is probably overjoyed with the photos. Nice work!
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2011 06:45
|
|
|
Elemeno^P posted:Unfortunately, you are also cropping the frame at her joints. If it were not for the tiny bit of index finger, it would appear that she has a stump for an arm. As for the background, I think 2 minutes of cloning in photoshop could clean up that corner, and put all the attention back on your subject. So would you have either stepped back a bit more or zoomed in on just her face? Sorry if these are awful questions, I'm really still learning, well, everything. v  vAnd it took her a day to come around and like them (or at least deal with them), actually. My sister is very particular, and she thought that one made her daughter have an evil smile.  Some of the other pictures of the girls she had me take (there are three of them, ages 2, 5 and 7) she kept telling them to smile better, not that fakey smile and expected them all to "sit pretty" and look only at me. I suggested we go to a park instead of just shooting in the front and back yard and she didn't like that idea because they'd be playing.  For example; http://flickr.com/gp/thepaisleyfox/H206ZF "Natalie isn't looking at the camera! And what is Lindsey doing with her shoe?! What else do you have?"  (Also, I just noiced I cut off feet in that one. Oh boy, stumps ahoy, here...)
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2011 14:50
|
|
|
paisleyfox posted:(Also, I just noiced I cut off feet in that one. Oh boy, stumps ahoy, here...) The rule about cropping at joints tends to start a bit of controversy here, but it's a good foundation. In my opinion, the rule isn't some hard-and-fast unbreakable law, but more often than not a picture looks seriously awkward when it's broken. My personal guideline is that if my mind non-awkwardly fills in the blanks where the rest of a limb ought to be, it's worked out ok. If I immediately "see" stumps, then it hasn't.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2011 17:02
|
|
|
paisleyfox posted:So would you have either stepped back a bit more or zoomed in on just her face? If there's any way you could get the kids out for a shoot without their mother, I'm sure you'd get some really great photos. Parents like that just end up loving it all up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2011 17:10
|
|
|
Your sister sounds like the greatest person ever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2011 17:47
|
|
|
paisleyfox posted:"Natalie isn't looking at the camera! And what is Lindsey doing with her shoe?! What else do you have?" That sounds really rough. I will leave photos of the kids doing whacky stuff in the final set because the parents often say "oh, that's sooo Johnny" and eat that poo poo up. I rarely get a 5 year do do what I ask for more than 5 seconds, but I will always get a cute picture that mom wants printed into an 8x10.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2011 17:53
|
|
|
Went to a wedding. I'm too lazy right now to fix stray hairs. Meanwhile, tell me your preferred method for dealing with them in post!
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2011 22:26
|
|
|
paisleyfox posted:So would you have either stepped back a bit more or zoomed in on just her face? God, welcome to the HELL that is photographing children. Did it for two years a while back and now I stick to adults. You know, scratch that. It's never the kids. NEVER the kids. It's always the parents. Get a bad parent and the portrait session is going to go to poo poo. I don't think I've ever had an excellent session with a bad parent. Okay, so, your photos. Not sure if all they wanted was headshots, but some general tips. Think about your background. It's a portrait but in the background you've got all sorts of things, trees, rocks, grass, that is all just becomes a confusing blur that doesn't contribute to the portrait. Think about your composition, foreground, subject, and background. A photograph is all of those elements. The girl looks like she has an evil smile because you're shooting down at her and her chin is tilted down as well. Come down on her level and tilt her chin up. Also, headshots don't always have to be flat to the camera. Experiment with 3/4 views, they can be looking over the shoulder, or they can be laying down in the grass with you above them, or they can be laying on their side and propped up. Lay them on their stomach and have them put their chin on their hands, blah blah blah. I'm going to make an assumption on your group shot. What I think happened was mom wanted to make the little girl smile and was trying to get her attention. But because Mom has no idea what she's doing, she was nowhere near the camera which means the little girl is paying attention to mom and not the camera. If the parent HAS to be involved, seat them as close to the camera as possible. When working with little kids try bringing something that makes noise like a rubber duck. When you've got the smile, squeak the toy, and the smile will usually last long enough for you to take the photo when they redirect their attention to the camera. Working with groups of varying ages is hard because you've got a little one that needs something to get their attention and older ones who are sometimes too cheesy and need to relax. Upside is the older girls can usually hold a pose and a smile while you get the little ones attention. However I will eat my camera if you don't have a difficult time getting them all to look at the camera with an expression that pleases mommy dearest. Instead, try taking some photos of them interacting with each other instead of the camera. It usually helps to get more genuine expressions. Lastly, watch your leg positions. You're shooting up their skirts in a couple of the photos but they are wearing shots so it is kind of okay, but not okay when they're wearing dresses or skirts. Lesson here is just give up shooting kids unless you leave the parents at home. I'm not bitter by any means at all, I don't think.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2011 05:54
|
|
|
Tamgerine posted:Thanks so much for this. I do have some better shots where they are all looking pleasant at me the way my sister wanted it, but yeah. It seems my biggest hurdle is backgrounds and being on their level, which is funny since I tend to practice getting down when I photograph my dog. I won't see them again until January when we all meet up at Disneyworld, but I'll try some of those out next time I see them (and next time I'm around some of the kids in the nursery I volunteer for on Sundays.) I haven't made the album public yet because I was waiting to go through them a final time before showing my sister. :P But I had fun with taking pictures of them playing around in the back yard a little bit, but since I was there for such a short time I didn't have a chance to really take them somewhere fun to goof off, so as a whole I feel they are a little blah. And yeah, Lindsey never notices she's in a skirt or a dress. I've had to toss several photos because she doesn't have her legs together.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2011 20:24
|
|
|
paisleyfox posted:Thanks so much for this. I do have some better shots where they are all looking pleasant at me the way my sister wanted it, but yeah. It seems my biggest hurdle is backgrounds and being on their level, which is funny since I tend to practice getting down when I photograph my dog. I won't see them again until January when we all meet up at Disneyworld, but I'll try some of those out next time I see them (and next time I'm around some of the kids in the nursery I volunteer for on Sundays.) I haven't made the album public yet because I was waiting to go through them a final time before showing my sister. :P But I had fun with taking pictures of them playing around in the back yard a little bit, but since I was there for such a short time I didn't have a chance to really take them somewhere fun to goof off, so as a whole I feel they are a little blah. Sometimes it just doesn't work out. The best session is when the parent realizes that today is just not the day, and brings the kids back when they aren't hungry, crying, sleeping, or sick. They always get better photos coming back a second time than forcing the kid through the session when they don't want to. I think practice is the best thing, honestly. After a while of photographing kids you have a bag of tricks you can call upon depending on their age, and kind of know what they're capable of and what the typical problems are and how to work around them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2011 20:54
|
|
|
Oprah Haza posted:This one is the cat's meow.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 20:08
|
|
|
I haven't been posting enough here, mostly because the standard is really high. Here's a set I did with a friend. Demi-2 by TimFPictures, on Flickr I wish I'd taken a step back for this. but I think I would have lost the fantastic background bokeh (I know I know but I was deliberatley trying to demonstrate the effect). I'm really considering investing in a 35mm f2.0. Thoughts?  Demi-8 by TimFPictures, on Flickr More a landscape than a portrait but I was very happy with how this turned out. I try to push a bit of a cinema edge in my work.  Demi-9 by TimFPictures, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2011 07:45
|
|
|
XTimmy posted:I haven't been posting enough here, mostly because the standard is really high. Here's a set I did with a friend. Totally loveeee that picture. Well done 
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2011 14:50
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2011 08:21
|
|
|
My wife wanted some headshots for her facebook profile and for her corporate profile. I softened the skin by knocking down clarity in LR and then brightened the eyes and teeth in PS. It looks a little overdone to me but everyone who has seen the shots comment on how they like her eyes. I am trying to build a portfolio for portrait, senior, engagement and family shots so they will be a little overcooked to appeal to the "unwashed masses".  Rainy by jefferyhoeft, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2011 17:32
|
|
|
bung posted:My wife wanted some headshots for her facebook profile and for her corporate profile. I don't think the editing is too intrusive but I don't like how her forehead is cut off
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2011 17:33
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:I like this shot but I wish he didn't have printing on his shirt. I found myself inadvertently reading it instead of looking around the rest of the picture. I wish I could see a bit more of his eyes but I do like the expression a lot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2011 19:40
|
|
|
bung posted:My wife wanted some headshots for her facebook profile and for her corporate profile. This desperately needs a longer lens. You're close enough to stretch her features a little, even at 50mm. Also look into short lighting for anyone with even a couple pounds of extra weight. Especially women. I'm not calling her a fatty, but the lighting you used with that angle of her face adds pounds.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2011 00:38
|
|
|
Just some stuff from last weeeeeeek    
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2011 00:53
|
|
|
bung posted:My wife wanted some headshots for her facebook profile and for her corporate profile. Do you have another shot further back? I think you've moved in a bit too close.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2011 04:57
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Just some stuff from last weeeeeeek Do you have something against her forehead? You keep cutting it off Other than that, BRIIIIIIIIGHT! But nice, especially like pose in the first one (other than the head chop).
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2011 12:00
|
|
|
Jiblet posted:Do you have something against her forehead? You keep cutting it off It's an aesthetic choice to maximise what I want in the frame rather than having to step back to fit everything into a composition. To fit everything in frame you'd have to step back more and the model isn't as prominent. I'd always want to take a step forward and crop in tighter than take a step back and have the model be smaller in frame.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2011 13:13
|
|
|
Everyone please take my opinions just as opinions. XTimmy posted:
I think the first is nice, but an exposure mask to bring her out a bit may help. The second one is really nice, but as you mentioned, not a portrait. It is nice though. bung posted:
I would definitely redo this one, you can do better. She fills up too much of the frame and it looks as if she is attacking you. The light is not bad at all though. I would consider doing some dodge/burn to the hair on both sides to give the photo a bit of balance. Paragon8 posted:Just some stuff from last weeeeeeek Foxy lady! I think the first could benefit from some curves/DB to give a bit more depth. The second I personally would have given a bit more on top but I totally agree with you that sometimes cutoff is necessary. I think I would have liked to have seen a smile in the last three with the lightness of the photos (this is very strange to type, as most of my portraits feature no smile). I think it may be a bit bright but that's a personal opinion and most people think I go too dark anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2011 14:42
|
|
|
Oprah Haza posted:Everyone please take my opinions just as opinions. Thanks! The bw treatment in the first was aimed to be low contrast and filmic as I was trying to test out a tri-x action I made. Usually my bw is a bit crisper and the whites are white and blacks are black. I do have some lighter lingerie shots but it's such a hassle to get stuff on here I gave up trying to throw poo poo on imgur- I think you should be able to see this though - https://plus.google.com/115575156595727332410/posts/8G1x8YpnYWE.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2011 15:02
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Thanks! The bw treatment in the first was aimed to be low contrast and filmic as I was trying to test out a tri-x action I made. Usually my bw is a bit crisper and the whites are white and blacks are black. That second shot is really sexy. It may be "overdone" to some people but it's really a classic shot and you captured the mood well. Here are a few from the past few weeks: @an outdoor show, lit only with a lighter   headlights  Outdoor Session   Session - she wanted very serious looks    
Oprah Haza fucked around with this message at 16:18 on Aug 12, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2011 15:42
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Just some stuff from last weeeeeeek I really like those. The lightning is well done and the poses are very nice. Also she looks very comfortable which adds a lot. My only "critique" would be that in a few shots you're cutting the limbs which looks weird. I know you don't want to take steps back but if it's just a hand that doesn't fit you don't have to step that further back. Also, in some of the poses her fingers are hidden, I believe it might look better if they weren't.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2011 16:12
|
|
|
xenilk posted:I really like those. The lightning is well done and the poses are very nice. Also she looks very comfortable which adds a lot. My only "critique" would be that in a few shots you're cutting the limbs which looks weird. I know you don't want to take steps back but if it's just a hand that doesn't fit you don't have to step that further back. Yeah, a lot of that is just the limitations of the bedroom I was shooting in - the mattress was a bit spongy so she tended to sink into it. I like to be in the mindset that you can find more beauty in imperfection if that makes sense? So I try and take ownership of a style rather than strive for "perfection" - there are plenty of amazing photographers that shoot plastic perfect lingerie with crisp even lighting so I'm happy to kind of over expose the edges a bit and frame loosely just to try and get across my mind set.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2011 18:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 16:28 |
|
|
Oprah Haza posted:
If you're gonna show skin, you have to give it time to rebound from the prior clothes/undergarments.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2011 18:25
|
|
