|
xenilk posted:I was a backup shooter (mostly helping with equipment and guiding/fixing models) today but I managed to grab a few shots: Just continuing the love for these. Awesome!!
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2011 17:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 15:45 |
|
|
xenilk posted:I was a backup shooter (mostly helping with equipment and guiding/fixing models) today but I managed to grab a few shots: I mentioned this in SAD, but good grief I would pay to have a post-processing class from you. You're doing basically everything I want to do, but I've been doing solely black and white print stuff for so long that I don't even know where to begin with proper processing like that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2011 18:41
|
|
|
Elite Taco posted:You are a raging monster of awesome. You're also the primary reason I've started using more split toning. Those are great!  I'm getting the hang of split toning quite well these days. I'm more than flattered to hear that I was an inspiration! My personal challenge right now is to start using a flash, I shoot solely in natural light right now, which I love, but I need to start using a flash here and thereCarrotFlowers posted:Just continuing the love for these. Awesome!! Aw! Thank you so much. Where are the new pictures! QPZIL posted:I mentioned this in SAD, but good grief I would pay to have a post-processing class from you. You're doing basically everything I want to do, but I've been doing solely black and white print stuff for so long that I don't even know where to begin with proper processing like that. Seriously the only merit I have is that I search a whole lot for lightroom presets and am used to tweak them to get exactly what I like. For example the first picture was made from a preset from that collection: http://www.lightroompresets.com/products-page/lightroom-collections/nostalgic-collection-raw/ called Sweet Lilac. I thought that preset suited it a lot and then tweaked it to my liking. Once I'm good with all that I use the LR brush and do my thing (mostly a modified version of Iris Enhance + Burn/Dodge). I would like to say that I create my presets from scratch but I like experimenting with existing presets more. Hope that helps
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2011 19:11
|
|
|
xenilk posted:Seriously the only merit I have is that I search a whole lot for lightroom presets and am used to tweak them to get exactly what I like. For example the first picture was made from a preset from that collection: http://www.lightroompresets.com/products-page/lightroom-collections/nostalgic-collection-raw/ called Sweet Lilac. I thought that preset suited it a lot and then tweaked it to my liking. Once I'm good with all that I use the LR brush and do my thing (mostly a modified version of Iris Enhance + Burn/Dodge). That helps a lot! I think really what I need to do is switch from Photoshop to Lightroom for my exposure/levels/curves/color tweaking. That'll help a lot, especially with getting a continuity between photos.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2011 19:24
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:That helps a lot! I think really what I need to do is switch from Photoshop to Lightroom for my exposure/levels/curves/color tweaking. That'll help a lot, especially with getting a continuity between photos. I was really skeptical with LR before but I'm converted now. What's cool with the presets is that you can see what it's made of and which settings it altered, which I found was a great way to learn what does what. Edit: And yes, it's a great way to keep continuity between a set of pictures, definitively! Edit edit: Also, it's very important to look for RAW presets if you shoot in RAW and JPEG presets if you don't... since they might not look as pretty if you use one version on the wrong type of picture, since JPEG has less settings than RAW
xenilk fucked around with this message at 19:51 on Nov 21, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2011 19:46
|
|
|
xenilk posted:Edit edit: Also, it's very important to look for RAW presets if you shoot in RAW and JPEG presets if you don't... since they might not look as pretty if you use one version on the wrong type of picture, since JPEG has less settings than RAW Good call. I shoot film and scan it in, so I guess I'll look for JPEG presets.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2011 19:56
|
|
|
I really like this model and I want to take her picture.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2011 20:42
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:I really like this model and I want to take her picture. Are you from Ottawa by any chances? I could put you two in contact P.S: Way to tell me that you like the model and not my picture, how rude! I'm teasing :P
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2011 20:49
|
|
|
I'm in San Francisco, unfortunately. Well, in this case, I mean. And I like the model because you made a nice picture of her!
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2011 20:54
|
|
|
xenilk posted:
I've been slacking on the new picture thing. I've been revisting old ones and reprocessing them to start building a portfolio. I'm setting a couple up soon though! And seeing what you're doing lately has really inspired me to get off my rear end, so thanks
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2011 23:01
|
|
|
XTimmy posted:The bridal one looks like a tad under, I feel like that dress and the highlights on her face should be a great deal brighter. QPZIL posted:Agreed, there's no real true white point in the image. The other one's got a good tonal range though. xenilk, as usual your stuff is looking great
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 01:36
|
|
|
          Got around to putting some stuff on flickr which means I can use the bbcode stuff. Quality is poo poo unfortunately, you can see it better on https://www.500px.com/smread
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2011 00:14
|
|
|
I think the freckle ones are good modeling portfolio material because they show what she looks like normally. I was doing a shoot the other day and the model mentioned to me that agencies don't like over-photoshopped photos and that often when a model is up for consideration, they'll do a test shoot with the agencies' own photographer just to be sure because there can be some real doozies with regards to photoshop vs real life.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2011 00:51
|
|
|
HPL posted:I think the freckle ones are good modeling portfolio material because they show what she looks like normally. I was doing a shoot the other day and the model mentioned to me that agencies don't like over-photoshopped photos and that often when a model is up for consideration, they'll do a test shoot with the agencies' own photographer just to be sure because there can be some real doozies with regards to photoshop vs real life. Yeah, that's why agencies send me girls because I just do white wall stuff usually without a makeup artist and get the images back to them in 2-3 days just lightly touched up. Really anything more than that and you're not really doing them a huge service as the photograph becomes more about the photographer than the model. I know this one photographer in London who's incredible but they really push their retouching to the point where the model looks like a different person and a booker was telling me they have a hard job putting those images in the model's books because they know that's not who is showing up for work those days.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2011 01:07
|
|
|
Here's a shot with the Canon 135mm f/2.8 soft focus. It's largely untouched except for white balance and contrast tweaks. This is at f/4. In hindsight I probably should have upped it to f/5.6 or something as I feel the soft focus effect is a bit strong. The main upshot of the lens is that you get a soft blur in the photo, especially in the background, but the in-focus parts retain detail. If you're wondering what the white vertical lines in the background are, those are rain drops. It was a nasty day. The lens was originally a marriage of convenience for me because I needed a telephoto and this was available cheap. In the last year or two, I've seen prices for the lens double or more because it has gone from a largely forgotten lens to something people actually want. It's one of the trickiest EOS lenses I've ever used though and it demands a ton of chimping shots before you get what you want because so many things affect the quality of the soft focus. It's also a very flattering lens for people with skin blemishes and could potentially save time and money spent on a makeup artist and post-processing depending on the style of shot. The more I use the lens, the more I want to get an old 5DMkI to use with it because it kind of sucks for convenience when using it on a crop sensor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2011 02:30
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:
I just love the processing and vibe on that one, wow. Great work as always.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2011 07:13
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Really anything more than that and you're not really doing them a huge service as the photograph becomes more about the photographer than the model. Why in the hell would you care what the modeling agency wants unless they're paying you?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2011 11:44
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Why in the hell would you care what the modeling agency wants unless they're paying you? Depending on the agency I get paid, but it's good to do smaller tests for some agencies here and there as it'll give you great access for picking girls for editorial projects as you've proven you're reliable. Unless you're super upper tier you're always going to have to make concessions to agencies, stylists, makeup artists and a lot of other factors. It's important to stay true to your style but if you want to keep working with people you have to keep them happy for the most part. I've gone on a stretch of not using makeup artists or stylists because I had a bad run of having really controlling and bossy ones who try and take over the shoot and direct it. Paragon8 fucked around with this message at 13:58 on Nov 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2011 13:55
|
|
|
xenilk posted:I just love the processing and vibe on that one, wow. Great work as always. Yeah, she was amazing as a model. It's just natural light from a big window. I actually did a write up on the processing - http://blog.smread.com/2011/11/peeling-layers.html, it's not horribly detailed but the key thing I think the takes it stand out is a slight pink gradient.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2011 14:21
|
|
|
Self portraits are portraits too, right? Self Portrait by iantuten, on Flickr  Self Portrait by iantuten, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2011 14:36
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Yeah, she was amazing as a model. It's just natural light from a big window. I actually did a write up on the processing - http://blog.smread.com/2011/11/peeling-layers.html, it's not horribly detailed but the key thing I think the takes it stand out is a slight pink gradient. Very well written, I'm impressed the amount of work put into that picture was that minimal, wow. will you shoot more of her?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2011 16:48
|
|
|
xenilk posted:Very well written, I'm impressed the amount of work put into that picture was that minimal, wow. umm, not sure actually. I could probably request her out again. I have a pretty decent relationship with that agency (they sent me a free tote bag - which isn't exciting as the topless calendar and sexy bookmark another agency gave me though) She's from Canada and is sort of on loan to a London agency for about 3 months. She's travelled to bejing and stuff too. Super sweet girl.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2011 17:33
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:umm, not sure actually. I could probably request her out again. I have a pretty decent relationship with that agency (they sent me a free tote bag - which isn't exciting as the topless calendar and sexy bookmark another agency gave me though) Aw those models are the best.  IMG_3604 by avoyer, on Flickr That girl was just back from Tokyo doing shoots, incredible girl with not an once of arrogance, loved it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2011 17:37
|
|
|
Yeah, that's why I tend to get protective and defensive of my models when people imply they're just sluts and bimbos. It's sad how many people have that attitude.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2011 17:38
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Depending on the agency I get paid, but it's good to do smaller tests for some agencies here and there as it'll give you great access for picking girls for editorial projects as you've proven you're reliable. For some reason I took the original post to mean the whole shoot was geared toward this. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2011 19:17
|
|
|
I shot some photos of a girl about a month back, I posted them here, gave her the jpegs and dropped some prints off at her house the other day. So her parents saw the prints and liked them so much they want to pay me to take photos of their other two girls. Eeep. I hate getting offered money for photography because I really don't consider myself good enough yet nor am I out to earn money through photography, I'm just glad for every chance I get to take photos (especially portraits and people, because that doesn't always happen). Think I'll just take money only to cover the printing costs, or is there another course of action I should take dorkroom?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 06:16
|
|
|
Auditore posted:I shot some photos of a girl about a month back, I posted them here, gave her the jpegs and dropped some prints off at her house the other day. So her parents saw the prints and liked them so much they want to pay me to take photos of their other two girls. Eeep. I hate getting offered money for photography because I really don't consider myself good enough yet nor am I out to earn money through photography, I'm just glad for every chance I get to take photos (especially portraits and people, because that doesn't always happen). On the one hand I always feel uncomfortable getting paid for photos when I don't feel my absolute best, but on the other hand in your position I feel you could just charge a nominal fee like 50 dollars a head to help cover expenses etc. - you're doing a much better job than a mall portrait studio.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 13:11
|
|
|
Just charge them, they are paying for an end product (the photos), which are obviously good enough for them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 20:46
|
|
|
Oprah Haza posted:Just charge them, they are paying for an end product (the photos), which are obviously good enough for them. my exact thoughts Starting to undercharge your services right away will make it hard for you to have decent prices in the future.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 21:54
|
|
|
xenilk posted:my exact thoughts I agree with this, but I also completely understand where Autidore is coming from. People are starting to ask me to take pictures for them, and while right now I am doing it for free because my portfolio is tiny, I am concerned that they will undervalue my product when I do (if I do) decide to start charging money for it. I am worried right now that I don't have enough experience to consistently provide good shots. If I do a shoot and I don't like any of the pictures, then whatever, it's no big deal. But if I do a shoot for someone and don't like any of them, then I will feel terrible for charging. That being said, charge them! It's the smart thing to do, and will benefit you in the end. Especially since they like what they see and are willing to pay
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 22:03
|
|
|
http://shouldiworkforfree.com/
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2011 23:06
|
|
|
friend needed some headshots  
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2011 01:57
|
|
|
dakana posted:friend needed some headshots nice, I bet she's thrilled. headshots are mad $$$
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2011 02:07
|
|
|
dakana posted:friend needed some headshots I like this one a lot but clean that schmutz off her lower lip.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2011 02:15
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:http://shouldiworkforfree.com/ Insider's secret: she's actually my mum. I still think I won't charge them except for the prints, I know that it may give off the impression that I'm "cheap" but I've only been doing photography for a year, and although some of my work may be (slightly) better than the stuff posted in the "terrible photos" thread, I still don't know whether it's good enough to charge for. Perhaps I'm being too harsh on myself and have set the bar too high, I'm not sure. PS, dakana that first one is a bit under, compared to the other two at least.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2011 02:38
|
|
|
I'd say the first one has the best exposure out of all three of them, I think the other two are too bright. I don't think you needed two lights for those.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2011 02:55
|
|
|
Auditore post those pictures that you took that made their mom want to hire you - maybe others can tell you if you should charge or not!
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2011 03:51
|
|
|
I posted them a few pages back, but here's my set on flickr. http://www.flickr.com/photos/nebuchadnezzariii/sets/72157628008074176/ And here is a few I printed for her:    As you can see, I know my processing but my posing (stuff like looking at the camera etc), isn't that amazing yet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2011 04:52
|
|
|
dakana posted:
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2011 05:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 15:45 |
|
|
Auditore posted:I posted them a few pages back, but here's my set on flickr. http://www.flickr.com/photos/nebuchadnezzariii/sets/72157628008074176/  This was taken on set, while shooting a webseries I'm a 1st AC on. I like shooting actors, they tend to be more expressive. XTimmy fucked around with this message at 11:34 on Nov 29, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2011 11:31
|
|