|
http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/09/28/2429170/pentagon-launches-slick-war-court.html You have to scroll to the last picture in the little slide show. Kinda small, but hey, it looks better at that size/resolution than otherwise. edit: Third picture. I definitely did not take the last picture. edit: Ok, now it's the fourth. Sheesh. torgeaux fucked around with this message at 02:40 on Sep 29, 2011 |
#
?
Sep 28, 2011 22:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 01:22 |
|
|
I could get used to having 2-3 shoots/week.   We started late and lost our sun before she really relaxed. I'll have to start earlier next time. I'm learning a TON about lightroom working these up!
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2011 03:52
|
|
|
Elite Taco posted:I could get used to having 2-3 shoots/week. I like those  Same happened to me today... greyish day so the shoot ended up quite quickly. IMG_0934 by avoyer, on Flickr xenilk fucked around with this message at 05:34 on Sep 29, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2011 05:19
|
|
|
Auditore posted:After this, I asked a friend (girl) to do some posing for me (clothed ftr). I have the location set because it gets good directional light in late afternoon. I don't have any proper flashes, can I take good portraits in natural light without the need for flashes? Absolutely yes, the best light is natural light.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2011 05:36
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:Absolutely yes, the best light is natural light. Yea, I always hear stuff going around like oh man strobist strobist you need a whole lighting setup to take portraits.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2011 06:18
|
|
|
Nah, you can do a lot with sunlight and a reflector. And a reflector can be an actual reflector, some white cardboard or a brick wall or anything really Here's a couple of my wife that I was pretty happy with. Taken in the afternoon with some nice light coming in from the window, and one taken at a friend's wedding, again with natural light bouncing in through a window:  
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2011 07:28
|
|
|
Auditore posted:Yea, I always hear stuff going around like oh man strobist strobist you need a whole lighting setup to take portraits. Take a fleky or, my personal favourite, a sheet of polystyrene.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2011 09:42
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:Yeah, and her lopsided expression is distorting the effect of the lighting on her face, making her look weird. Agreed! So that's what it was. Wish I'd spotted it when we did our shooting. I knew the full-on side light wasn't ideal in that situation. I could have made her point her face toward the light I suppose? However I'm not quite sure how I could have posed her differently to get the arm in the back in a different position? Is there a book I can read on posing?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2011 15:12
|
|
|
Auditore posted:Yea, I always hear stuff going around like oh man strobist strobist you need a whole lighting setup to take portraits. I'm never sure why either, considering TONS of portraits are all natural light or one light, very rarely do you see 16 light setups for people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2011 17:41
|
|
|
Yeah, as long as you're not in  DIRECT SUNLIGHT you shouldn't need lighting to shoot a portrait on location.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2011 17:42
|
|
|
IsaacNewton posted:She's built sort of like a pear, the picture is pretty much as she is. the one of the first page of this thread is pretty solid: http://blog.kitfphoto.com/Zeltsman/ It helped me a lot Also, I always go on 500px/piccsy/flickr for inspiration when it comes to posing and store a couple in my dropbox account when I run out of ideas.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2011 18:11
|
|
|
Thank you, hadn't noticed the links in the first post. That site is super useful. *Print it out* I've tried something different than I usually do, yesterday. I went right up the model's face and took a close up picture. I was afraid of it being intimidating to her, but I eased her up into it, going closer and closer, the eyes being the focus.  Marie Pierre by Maxime Theriault, on Flickr You guys' critic have been the only reason that I've got stuff half worth selling to the models. So I welcome them arms wide open. I have so much to learn.. Edit: BTW you can clearly see that she's forcing her mouth shut. She's super concerned about her teeth, and it look like that when she closes her mouth. IsaacNewton fucked around with this message at 00:11 on Sep 30, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 00:02
|
|
|
IsaacNewton posted:Edit: BTW you can clearly see that she's forcing her mouth shut. She's super concerned about her teeth, and it look like that when she closes her mouth. A good tip I learned from a seminar to relax the jaw/mouth is to ask the model to stretch your mouth and let it relax, it won't show her teeth and she won't look like she's forcing it shut Hope that helps!
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 01:30
|
|
|
Just printed this one tonight. Actually shot it last summer but ignored it until now for some reason. Lindsay by McMadCow, on Flickr McMadCow fucked around with this message at 08:10 on Sep 30, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 07:36
|
|
|
xenilk posted:A good tip I learned from a seminar to relax the jaw/mouth is to ask the model to stretch your mouth and let it relax, it won't show her teeth and she won't look like she's forcing it shut It does! Thanks very much for the help, I'll give that a shot next time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 15:43
|
|
|
nonanone posted:I'm never sure why either, considering TONS of portraits are all natural light or one light, very rarely do you see 16 light setups for people. Obviously you don't need lights to shoot a portrait, but you do need lights to engineer the lighting for a portrait. If you really dig lighting and want to start playing with soft vs hard light and direction, well, it's kind of hard to move the sun, and window lighting is great, but it's pretty safe and can be boring. You don't need lights, but they sure are fun.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 16:37
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Obviously you don't need lights to shoot a portrait, but you do need lights to engineer the lighting for a portrait. Definitely- if some of you want to see scenes that have some serious lighting applied to them, check out Gregory Crewdson's work. Amateurs or even semi-professionals do not do stuff like this, as they require entire crews and huge budgets.   For instance, for that second photo they hired a crane and mounted it with some huge spotlight and then they had lighting for the foreground, etc. Personally I like using strobes more than natural light because I enjoy using them to depict something that is very hard (or impossible) to find using natural light.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 17:43
|
|
|
I meant to say something about this one earlier. I like the mood in this shot, but her darkened eye sockets don't work for me in this situation. If you find yourself in tough lighting and you don't have an assistant with a reflector on hand, just have the model raise their head a bit. It gets rid of some of those shadows, and it has the added bonus of looking more dramatic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 23:12
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:Definitely- if some of you want to see scenes that have some serious lighting applied to them, check out Gregory Crewdson's work. Amateurs or even semi-professionals do not do stuff like this, as they require entire crews and huge budgets. gently caress me sideways. That is crazy awesome. Stuff like this inspires me, but it also makes me want to give up completely.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2011 00:12
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:I meant to say something about this one earlier. I like the mood in this shot, but her darkened eye sockets don't work for me in this situation. If you find yourself in tough lighting and you don't have an assistant with a reflector on hand, just have the model raise their head a bit. It gets rid of some of those shadows, and it has the added bonus of looking more dramatic. That's a really good tip, thanks a lot There's going to be a lot of days like this one in the upcoming month so I'll put that to use
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2011 00:17
|
|
|
xenilk posted:That's a really good tip, thanks a lot As an addendum to that, if they raise their head to keep light in their eyes, don't have them positioned in a way where we can look straight up their nose either.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2011 00:39
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:Definitely- if some of you want to see scenes that have some serious lighting applied to them, check out Gregory Crewdson's work. Amateurs or even semi-professionals do not do stuff like this, as they require entire crews and huge budgets. Yeah, I can't imagine what kind of budgets these set-ups have. If you have friends in construction maybe you could pull it off... I remember they were filming one of the big movies (Ides of March, at Umich) and they had these HUGE lights surrounding the entire building, pouring in from every single window.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2011 03:55
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:As an addendum to that, if they raise their head to keep light in their eyes, don't have them positioned in a way where we can look straight up their nose either. Hahah yeah that make total sense. Here are some other pictures from another shoot I did earlier this week (when it was nice out)  IMG_0348 by avoyer, on Flickr  IMG_0596 by avoyer, on Flickr  IMG_0618 by avoyer, on Flickr  IMG_0820 by avoyer, on Flickr  IMG_0793 by avoyer, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2011 04:20
|
|
|
^^^ Those are great, may I ask what the 2nd and 3rd were shot on lens wise?nonanone posted:Yeah, I can't imagine what kind of budgets these set-ups have. If you have friends in construction maybe you could pull it off... I remember they were filming one of the big movies (Ides of March, at Umich) and they had these HUGE lights surrounding the entire building, pouring in from every single window. On the subject of gently caress off massive lighting extravaganzas I thought this might interest you folks.  That's a lighting plan from the The Brothers Grim. You can see how they simply fire hundreds of thousands of watts of lights at a area then just control it as needed. Any number on that plan can be multiplied by 3-5 to get the incandescent equivalent. XTimmy fucked around with this message at 05:03 on Oct 1, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2011 04:45
|
|
|
xenilk posted:Hahah yeah that make total sense. I hate to be a sperg but I think this would look really nice rotated just a little bit to just straighten out the bottom sleeper - the tracks give it a real sense of depth but it just feels just a smidge off kilter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2011 14:52
|
|
|
XTimmy posted:^^^ Those are great, may I ask what the 2nd and 3rd were shot on lens wise? They were both shot with the 50mm @ 1.8 It's the lens I use the most when I go for portrait. About 80% of my shots will be on the 50mm and 20% will be on the 24mm 2.8. Hope it helps Paragon8 posted:I hate to be a sperg but I think this would look really nice rotated just a little bit to just straighten out the bottom sleeper - the tracks give it a real sense of depth but it just feels just a smidge off kilter.  IMG_0348-Edit-2 by avoyer, on Flickr Much better P.S: totally not sperging, ha ha! xenilk fucked around with this message at 16:58 on Oct 1, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2011 16:34
|
|
|
Completely spur of the moment shoot outside a fashion show. Thoughts? What one(s) do you like/dislike? I've been hopeless at judging my own work recently. Can't tell what to keep and what to trash.    
Cyberbob fucked around with this message at 23:08 on Oct 3, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 23:06
|
|
|
Fashion show or steam punk convention? 3rd is the best for me I think - the slightly stiff pose works well with the formal garb.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2011 00:14
|
|
|
Cyberbob posted:Completely spur of the moment shoot outside a fashion show. I like all of them except for the last. And it's not like the last is a bad picture, I just don't like that he's smiling and that his hat is so cocked. It doesn't seem to fit the scene. I do really like the color pallette you've used. I think the only thing I can suggest would improve these would be to get rid of the bannister and pillar in the background. In the shots they range from merely out of place to straight-up distracting. I like the shots enough that it doesn't kill them for me, but when I see these I want to see the kind of old-school deep backgrounds that we get in old large format portraits. Having him in front of details that don't matter to the picture takes away from that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2011 00:17
|
|
|
Are there any more like the second? That's the only one that I feel he's positioned relative to the light where he should be. Nice post, though the second one is a tad more yellow than the rest. As for posing, I like all of them except for 4 - I'll echo McMadCow regarding his smile in the last frame.With this subject, the more regal and 'old-rear end oil painting' looking, the better. edit: also, I'd really like the context the railing and pillar give in the last one if he was moved over to camera right and not covering any of it
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2011 00:22
|
|
|
Really like the second and third one! I agree that the fourth one, while nice, is out of context and the vibe does not fit the scene. Great post!
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2011 00:34
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Fashion show or steam punk convention? It was a fetish/alternative expo/fashion show, and I was there doing photography for the show on behalf of one of the designers They had a few minutes to spare at the end of the show, and the designer wanted a few shots outside. All I had on me was the speedlight I was using for the show, so I threw a 1/2 CTO gel on it, sat it on a pillar, and shot against the outside of the building (an old town hall). Thanks for the comments so far. My screen isn't calibrated for colour unfortunately, so thanks for the too yellow comment too, I'll adjust it. 'Old rear end oil painting' was definitely in my mind while post processing them too, so a little 'yellow highlights, blue shadows' split toning helped me out there. Cyberbob fucked around with this message at 01:25 on Oct 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2011 01:23
|
|
|
I think #2 is the best by far and I like the yellow.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2011 06:56
|
|
|
I personally feel the split toning is too strong, I try and keep mine out of the skins tones. This can also help separation of subject from background but you're not having troubles there
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2011 10:08
|
|
|
I like the second but I feel his right hand is doing something I'm missing. I think it should have been brought up a little to be included in the frame. I don't know how you could have done that without making him look awkyard. Strong image though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2011 17:33
|
|
|
IsaacNewton posted:I like the second but I feel his right hand is doing something I'm missing. I think it should have been brought up a little to be included in the frame. I don't know how you could have done that without making him look awkyard. Good eye, I agree with that. Maybe a slightly larger framing would have been better. Gotta love sperging about cutting limbs!
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2011 19:56
|
|
|
xenilk posted:Good eye, I agree with that. Maybe a slightly larger framing would have been better. Gotta love sperging about cutting limbs! I totally agree. My pet hate is usually cutting off guitar heads when looking at gig photos.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2011 22:51
|
|
|
I realize they're boring as poo poo portraits, I almost feel like they don't fit in here. Let me know if I should stop posting. These guys were awesome, dad & daughter -- Both of them were very outgoing and made it super easy for me to connect with them. Also, that teen likes contact sports, and you'd see her frame and never believe she played football in HS with the boys.  Père, Fille by Maxime Theriault, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2011 04:17
|
|
|
IsaacNewton posted:I realize they're boring as poo poo portraits, I almost feel like they don't fit in here. Let me know if I should stop posting. ?! You shouldn't stop posting That's a cute portrait. How did it look in color?!
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2011 15:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 01:22 |
|
|
I don't know why, but he's pinkish in the color version and she has normal-ish tones. Edit: Plus, the light bleed shows up pretty bad on her hair. IsaacNewton fucked around with this message at 15:34 on Oct 6, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2011 15:31
|
|