|
CarrotFlowers posted:
Her right forearm looks brighter than her face. Its the first thing I am drawn to, immediately followed by the dark cleavage next to the bright forearm. And you cut off her fingers. I am anal with the finger thing.
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 07:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 01:43 |
|
|
William T. Hornaday posted:Looks pretty good to me. The colors (shirt, in particular) seem just a tad too boosted for my taste, though; skin looks fine. I don't know if you did anything to them, but she's got nice eyes. I turned down the saturation a bit, but I'll do it a touch more and see how that goes. And her eyes are crazy. I brightened them a bit but they are ridiculously blue. Kung Fu Jesus posted:Her right forearm looks brighter than her face. Its the first thing I am drawn to, immediately followed by the dark cleavage next to the bright forearm. And you cut off her fingers. I am anal with the finger thing. I didn't notice the forearm but now I can see how it would be distracting. I'll dodge and burn her arm and chest. The darker chest was always noticeable...stupid summer tans! As for the fingertips, it doesn't bother me a ton, but that might be because I don't really care about the image so much. Just picked an image at random from months ago to practice on. I think now I'm a little more careful with framing....I hope.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 16:15
|
|
|
CarrotFlowers posted:I didn't notice the forearm but now I can see how it would be distracting. I'll dodge and burn her arm and chest. The darker chest was always noticeable...stupid summer tans! As for the fingertips, it doesn't bother me a ton, but that might be because I don't really care about the image so much. Just picked an image at random from months ago to practice on. I think now I'm a little more careful with framing....I hope. Not sure if you have LR but you can just brush the arm with auto mask with exposure at about -.23, it should do the trick. I'm anal about cutting limbs but fingers don't bother me much as well for some reason. I think it's a good picture, I have the models look away from the camera most of the time, looks more intimate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 16:35
|
|
|
imogen, a set on flickr I love that entire set. I don't know the story behind that, if it's the photographers girlfriend or friend or just a model he works with, but it really shows how many different looks and images you can get out of just one model.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 21:28
|
|
|
the posted:imogen, a set on flickr Holy crap he took so many pictures of her, pretty neat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 21:36
|
|
|
xenilk posted:Holy crap he took so many pictures of her, pretty neat. It just goes on and on  Square crop always fools me into thinking it's a film shot, so I look at the tags trying to figure out what they used and then at the EXIF and go "aw, man."
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 21:48
|
|
|
 I've been trying my hand at some street portraits. Something seems a bit off about this image but I can't really put a finger on it. The first thing that pops out in my head is that he is slightly off-center but that's just a crop error I didn't catch until I was looking over the image one last time. I should also have asked him to move slightly to the right so his shoe isn't right on the border where the concrete ends. His posture as a whole seems wrong, almost like his legs are too short for his body. His red hat also seems to stand out like a sore thumb, is there something that can be done about it in processing? I'm thinking it may have been because I was a bit too high when taking the picture (as in the physical height of the camera) making his body look awkward. Here is the original. What could I have done differently? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 22:04
|
|
|
Here are my critiques: - I would actually off-center him more and/or move in a bit closer. There's not much interesting going on around him so he gets kind of lost in the middle somewhere. - Turn him around 180 degrees, he's backlit! You'd have more interesting lighting on him if the light was actually on him  - Something about the perspective makes it looks like he has tiny little baby dwarf legs. Just a couple little things that popped into my mind. All my opinion, take with a grain of salt, etc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 22:10
|
|
|
the posted:imogen, a set on flickr I could look at these all day!
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 22:10
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:Here are my critiques: Fortunately, I did think to take some different shots and ended up with this one. I should have pulled back a little further because the frame is way too tight especially on top.  Here's another version.  I love a well needed critique because it's the only way I'll improve. I'm always going through my pictures and critiquing the hell out of them. Give it to me with both barrels! 
Bioshuffle fucked around with this message at 22:17 on Feb 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 22:14
|
|
|
Bioshuffle posted:Love that one, could you try rotating it so the lines in the background around tilted?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 22:27
|
|
|
xenilk posted:Love that one, could you try rotating it so the lines in the background around tilted?  I like it better already and it took all of 5 seconds! Then again, I did shave off a lot of the space around the top of his head, maybe I'll settle for a compromise between the two. After all, the building in the background is on a downsloping hill. All things I'll keep in mind. Thanks for all your input so far, guys!
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 22:29
|
|
|
Bioshuffle posted:
It's kind of throwing me off that both lines aren't aligned in the background, it's hard to tell which is the dominating one (I'd guess the bottom one? But maybe someone can give better feedback on that one). No worries, it's always fun to try new stuff. Sorry about the vague response, I'm not so sure ahha but yeah I think that one is the best of the 4, just the way it's framed/lighted.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 23:05
|
|
|
Bioshuffle, what do you want those shots to say about your subject?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2012 00:39
|
|
|
Any book or site recommendations for learning more about product photography, specifically jewelry? I realize this is the portrait thread but it seemed like my best bet. A friend of mine has a jewelry business and I've been shooting her stuff, mostly in a lightbox I made. But every time I have to shoot her wearing anything (rings, necklaces, bracelets) I turn into a damned idiot; I literally have no idea how to pose her, how to frame the shot, etc. I've tried googling it but even then I'm having a hard time finding anything.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2012 00:44
|
|
|
I'd honestly look at something like this: http://shop.nordstrom.com/c/jewelry-watches?origin=topnav If you go to the individual product pages on that Nordstrom site, they have some shots of people modeling the jewelry.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2012 00:47
|
|
|
jackpot posted:Any book or site recommendations for learning more about product photography, specifically jewelry? I realize this is the portrait thread but it seemed like my best bet. A friend of mine has a jewelry business and I've been shooting her stuff, mostly in a lightbox I made. But every time I have to shoot her wearing anything (rings, necklaces, bracelets) I turn into a damned idiot; I literally have no idea how to pose her, how to frame the shot, etc. I've tried googling it but even then I'm having a hard time finding anything. Your best bet is going to be looking at jewelry ads, lots of them. It's the same as any other commercial portraiture, except there are certain poses that stand out. Hand to the face to show off a ring or bracelet is one. The biggest difference is that you're looking for the jewelry to be shown off, so it needs to be a bigger part of the picture. If it's just for product listings though, then just focus on have good even lighting, and take the photo completely straight and simple, with the model smiling. That's it, people just need to see how relatively big it is and how it looks being worn on a person. Head and shoulders straight forward for a necklace or earrings, and hand and wrist (maybe doing something like writing or something else to spice it up) for bracelet/ring.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2012 00:54
|
|
|
xenilk posted:It's kind of throwing me off that both lines aren't aligned in the background, it's hard to tell which is the dominating one (I'd guess the bottom one? But maybe someone can give better feedback on that one). McMadCow posted:Bioshuffle, what do you want those shots to say about your subject? As I said in my reply to xenilk, I want to learn to walk before I run so I'm still preoccupied with trying to master the basics, like good composition and proper exposure instead of trying to convey a message or anything grandiose like that. To answer your question though, I just found his shirt and woolcap really interesting and I wanted to get a picture of it. I hope that answers your question.  I guess a lot of these pictures are a bit boring, especially compared to some of the pictures posted here, but I figure if anything, they will be interesting to me in a few year. Bioshuffle fucked around with this message at 13:34 on Oct 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2012 00:57
|
|
|
Bioshuffle posted:To answer your question though, I just found his shirt and woolcap really interesting and I wanted to get a picture of it. I hope that answers your question. Well, it's not really what I meant, but it does illustrate the point that you're looking to record something when you could be using a camera to say something. I don't know what to tell you to change about those portraits, but that guy is obviously a character, and I'm just not seeing it. Think more along the lines of personality and less about some piece of clothing they're wearing. You see world class fashion photography, and even though it's about the clothes, the model is still extremely engaging. This is in no small part because of the photographer. Try to think of it along those lines.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2012 01:07
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:Well, it's not really what I meant, but it does illustrate the point that you're looking to record something when you could be using a camera to say something. Case in point:  I think this is an interesting picture, but when you look at it- it's still someone just kind of standing there doing nothing interesting. Then again, I have absolutely no idea how to direct someone. I guess the best solution is to continue studying pictures and critiquing my own stuff. Got any book recommendations for me? Thanks for your advice everyone!
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2012 01:15
|
|
|
Bioshuffle posted:Got any book recommendations for me? Anything by Avedon or Cartier-Bresson. Might as well start from the top!
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2012 01:33
|
|
|
Bioshuffle posted:
Two of my favorite "people doing nothing interesting but still being interesting" photographers are Garry Winogrand and Tony Ray Jones (who pretty much specialized in this type of photography). For either one their books are kind of hard to find, try Amazon Marketplace though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2012 01:43
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:Anything by Avedon or Cartier-Bresson. Might as well start from the top! mysticp posted:Two of my favorite "people doing nothing interesting but still being interesting" photographers are Garry Winogrand and Tony Ray Jones (who pretty much specialized in this type of photography). For either one their books are kind of hard to find, try Amazon Marketplace though. Can't believe I didn't think of this before but I'm finally going to set some time aside to read through The Zeltsman Approach on the OP. The length had scared me away initially. Thanks for all the help. Edit: VVV That was it! Thanks! VVV Bioshuffle fucked around with this message at 02:02 on Feb 15, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2012 01:57
|
|
|
Bioshuffle posted:For the life of me I can't track it down, but someone in these forums once posted a flickr page which had street portraits done with a medium format camera that just blew me away. Are you sure you're not thinking of the flickr page of SA user Mannequin?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2012 02:01
|
|
|
the posted:Are you sure you're not thinking of the flickr page of SA user Mannequin? He's also awesome at giving critique. Great guy and I'm glad I was paired with him for the print exchange, love to have some of his work here Edit: To contribute...  IMG_8572 by avoyer, on Flickr  IMG_8617 by avoyer, on Flickr  IMG_8727 by avoyer, on Flickr xenilk fucked around with this message at 04:45 on Feb 15, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2012 02:29
|
|
|
xenilk posted:Sure here's the unprocessed I've been looking at various actions and trying to decode exactly what they do. Instead I took the plunge and purchased the Florabella Luxe set, so now I can try decoding that instead For me, it's a good way of learning the effects of various tools and how they can be combined.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2012 09:46
|
|
|
The bluest eyes in texaaaaaas
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2012 11:05
|
|
|
From the street (crossposting from the street thread):
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2012 11:07
|
|
|
Remember with actions to always fiddle with opacity and tweak some things yourself
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2012 11:56
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Remember with actions to always fiddle with opacity and tweak some things yourself Yeah same goes with LR Presets... they will rarely (never) be "great" when applied.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2012 13:54
|
|
|
Don't forget to make your own presets, too! And tweak them every time they're used.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2012 14:31
|
|
|
xenilk posted:He's also awesome at giving critique. Great guy and I'm glad I was paired with him for the print exchange, love to have some of his work here While I was marveling at the way your models are posed (especially the one where she's walking the dog), I had some more time to think about McMadCow's advice for me regarding my portraits just recording when they could be saying something- and I'd love some more feedback on my thoughts. I feel like one of the charms of street portraits is watching how someone reacts to a complete stranger walking up to them and asking for a picture. I've noticed that some people smile, some grimace, some clam up while others to enjoy hamming it up. I almost feel like by directing them in order to convey a message, I lose touch with my favorite part of street portraits, which is to capture people as they are. I feel like the moment I start telling them what to do with their hands or what kind of facial expression they should have in order to convey my message, I'm starting to assert too much of myself into their portrait. Then again, Ansel Adam once said that you don't take a photograph, you make it. I would love to hear what people think about the difference between street portraits versus studio portraits. I was watching a recently uploaded video of Eric Kim doing street photography and I was surprised to see that he has now gotten much bolder, even directing people, flat out asking people to stop smiling as he was taking their pictures, basically changing him from the role of observer to director. Thoughts on this? For instance, I see the picture by Auditore and I'm left wondering if the person was naturally sitting there or if he was directed to pose that way. It's a great picture regardless of how the results were achieved but I had a chance to sleep on all the great critiques I received and this was what came up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2012 16:18
|
|
|
Bioshuffle posted:Stuff First off, thanks I've never done much street photography so I'm probably not the most reliable guy around the block to express an opinion about it but I'll try to summarize what I've seen/learn. Street photography is all about grasping the person's essence, like you said. Ideally you want to catch the moment _before_ your talked to the model/asked him/her to take a picture. It's not about his/her reaction to you asking to take a picture. That's why most street photographer never ask people to smile, since it's "faking" the moment. Most people feel like the picture will lose it's authenticity if you do it that way. If the person happens to smile out of shyness it's perfectly fine, tho. Other than that, the only thing I would instruct is correcting the posture/turning around if the light isn't appropriate... the rest shouldn't be altered. But yeah that's my opinion/grasp of street photography so take it with a grain of salt
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2012 16:31
|
|
|
xenilk posted:First off, thanks Bioshuffle fucked around with this message at 13:35 on Oct 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2012 16:49
|
|
|
Bioshuffle posted:Well, I do some street photography too, but I was specifically referring to street portraits. Difference (to my understanding) being that street portraiture is where you walk up to someone and ask them if you can get their picture whereas street photography is as you mentioned a candid shot taken without permission or knowledge. I find that street photography leads to much more natural looking shots, but I like both equally. I could never direct someone to pose like this, and I'm sure if I asked her if I could take her picture she would have changed posture or done something differently. I still think that street portrait involves you taking the picture of the person how they looked before you asked them to take a picture... otherwise it kind of lose it's character value, no? I think Mannequin would be the perfect person to answer that
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2012 17:06
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Remember with actions to always fiddle with opacity and tweak some things yourself
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2012 18:00
|
|
|
OK, so I have no idea what I think of these anymore. Also, I couldn't decide between these three, not that I'm necessarily limiting myself to only picking one. These are the first in a series I'm doing where I'm going for zero props, chiaroscuro feel, old, dramatic painting sort of look. I want no backgrounds or background detail, just faces (with some exceptions) and I want there to be some engagement felt by the viewer solely by studying the face, hopefully reading something into what they see, whatever that may be. I have no idea whether these do that or hold any interest for anyone. I feel like I wanted it to work too much, or that I pored over the details too extensively and fussily, that I may have lost sight of the goal. I don't know. Basically, some feedback and some distance from the shots will help me work it out (and maybe some sleep). Thanks Dorkroom creatures in advance.   
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 01:23
|
|
|
Gazmachine posted:Thanks Dorkroom creatures in advance. I like the third one the best. I like the second one but I think both it and #1 are lacking a bit of contrast.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 01:35
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:I like the third one the best. I like the second one but I think both it and #1 are lacking a bit of contrast. I think that's the really crushed tonal range. Looking at the histogram the image doesn't quite verge past the halfway mark. My feeling is you only go a little under on the skin, otherwise the image appears quite flat. GIS chiaroscuro and note how so many of the paintings done in that style have bright areas that draw the eye. While the lighting may be soft it is not direction less and certainly not (always) dull.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 02:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 01:43 |
|
|
Gazmachine posted:OK, so I have no idea what I think of these anymore. I think the contrast thing has been covered, so I will just say that I agree they look a little dull. They don't have to be super contrasty, but they just look really gray right now. Emotionally, the second one is my favourite. First one looks a little myspace emo-y, the third is nice but I think there is a bit too much negative space. I also wish her mouth was a little more relaxed in all of them so it looked more naturally emotionalal rather than a little posey. Look forward to more!
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 02:34
|
|