|
dowdy_pants posted:I only take pics of my kids and dogs. I need to branch out a bit. I'll say that the skin is a bit too over-processed.. almost look like a drawing which I don't like. Not sure if you retouched it a lot but kids have a naturally nice skin no need to put much work into it. Tone it down a bit and it should look way more casual, also don't be afraid to get on their level... should make better pictures with bigger eyes (which is always nice for kids pictures) Here's one of mine (bride after she got her makeup/hair done before the ceremony)  IMG_4979 by avoyer, on Flickr
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 19:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 19:59 |
|
|
xenilk posted:I'll say that the skin is a bit too over-processed.. almost look like a drawing which I don't like. Not sure if you retouched it a lot but kids have a naturally nice skin no need to put much work into it. No retouching... but I did fart around with the exposure/color quite a bit. Good advice on the eye level. Here's another one a did... more "natural".  Jack by ralph-brewer, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 20:09
|
|
|
LargeHadron posted:I think the vignette is too strong on this one. I understand that you put it there because the background doesn't really do much in terms of framing your subject, but that's probably an indication that you need a more interesting background. I didn't add any in Lightroom via the vignetting sliders... does messing with tone curve produce vignetting? Thanks!
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 20:38
|
|
|
dowdy_pants posted:No retouching... but I did fart around with the exposure/color quite a bit. Good advice on the eye level. That's cute! If you want to add "pop" to the eyes you can use the iris enhance brush in LR (and play with the exposure slider to make it less crazy). As for the vignette, that's weird doubt any basic modification could have done that but I might be wrong 
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 20:45
|
|
|
dowdy_pants posted:No retouching... but I did fart around with the exposure/color quite a bit. Good advice on the eye level. I like this one a lot more! As for your question about the tone curves producing vignetting...I'm not sure. Do you usually start with a preset? Maybe it has some calibration or effect setting (vignette is an option in both) that you didn't see.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 21:08
|
|
|
If your lens has vignetting wide-open (most do) you'll assuredly make it more obvious if you're tweaking your curves right.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 21:42
|
|
|
I have mixed feelings on this one so I'm putting it to the Dorkroom for some insight. Faith gets wrapped up in a tree. by McMadCow, on Flickr Thoughts?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 02:44
|
|
|
I feel like she's really getting buried back there. I don't know if tighter cropping or dodging her skin would make her pop out a bit more, but it just looks like there's a lot of stuff going on... and there's a girl, and it's hard to figure out why. I love the textures, though. Looks like a really interesting spot, I'd just like to see more of a story or attitude to it.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 03:25
|
|
|
My concepts need work. Big time. But here's one from the shoot I did back in early April with a model named Alexandra. I have others to post and will get to those in time. I'm not really happy with this composition at all. Distracting element on the left, open space on the right. Lots of room for improvement. I thought it would work at the time. Guess I was wrong! I also found I was putting too much head space above the model's head as I was getting used to a new camera. Lessons learned.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 03:44
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:I have mixed feelings on this one so I'm putting it to the Dorkroom for some insight. She looks kind of disembodied in that pose with the white cloth draped over the branch. It just looks kind of awkward to me, like she is twisting her body into in a weird way. I think it would have worked better with a lighter top or without that white cloth on the branch.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 03:48
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:My concepts need work. Big time. But here's one from the shoot I did back in early April with a model named Alexandra. I have others to post and will get to those in time. It feels like you're still in street portrait mode. It's a great portrait in that style, but I know that's not what you were going for. She looks like a really good model too, post some more.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 04:01
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:It feels like you're still in street portrait mode. It's a great portrait in that style, but I know that's not what you were going for. She looks like a really good model too, post some more. Also the vibe I got. I like the connection with the model tho, you guided her well. The framing with the door in the background is throwing me off but I can't really help I wouldn't know how to frame in a square crop :/
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 04:10
|
|
|
Yeah, I was totally in my street portrait mode, which is kind of my default setting. Although I did have an actual concept it fell apart pretty quickly, especially once we moved locations. I might post some more in the next few days. But --- they're not great. I mean, I am a pretty critical person and I can see right away where all the faults are in the photos I took that day. It was a big flop! But it was not what I would consider a total loss because I took a lot away from it, even if it was just "I need to learn a lot more."xenilk posted:Also the vibe I got. I like the connection with the model tho, you guided her well. The framing with the door in the background is throwing me off but I can't really help I wouldn't know how to frame in a square crop :/ It ain't no square, buddy. 6x7.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 04:11
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:Yeah, I was totally in my street portrait mode, which is kind of my default setting. Although I did have an actual concept it fell apart pretty quickly, especially once we moved locations. I might post some more in the next few days. But --- they're not great. I mean, I am a pretty critical person and I can see right away where all the faults are in the photos I took that day. It was a big flop! But it was not what I would consider a total loss because I took a lot away from it, even if it was just "I need to learn a lot more." Gah I was sure it was square! Close enough. :P Those medium format cameras!! I think you did fairly well especially since it was the first time (to my knowledge) you were working with a model. Next time, just breath and don't rush it. For me that was the hardest challenge, since I didn't want to make the model feel like I didn't know what I was doing. So usually I just came with 2-3 pictures in mind; I never started with those. I always start with head shots/classic posing and then slowly move to what I have in mind so by the time I'm actually doing it I'm used to the model and s/he is used to me.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 04:15
|
|
|
That's good advice! Thanks!
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 04:19
|
|
|
I think it's a pretty dope shot, but if you're paying for the model's time, maybe try some stuff you wouldn't usually have time to with the street portraits. Set up some strobes. Try telling a story. Take your model under a street light; nighttime is a side of New York you really haven't shown.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 04:33
|
|
|
No, we met on ModelMayhem and it was TFCD. But I do want to do some more night photography, especially in New York. Strobes with film scares me a little bit, something I haven't practiced with. I would want a dslr with me to ensure proper exposure.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 04:50
|
|
|
 IMG_6284 by avoyer, on Flickr One from the wedding I covered. xenilk fucked around with this message at 05:19 on May 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 05:16
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:I have mixed feelings on this one so I'm putting it to the Dorkroom for some insight. I think the main reason it doesn't strike a chord with me is that everything feels too deliberate in the scene, too obviously set up, if you see what I mean. Any magic is lost because I can see the working. Also the material looks a bit like washing hanging up. I think there's something cool in there and you should revisit the idea until it works. After all, that's the point of trying something new - to create a unique work that you haven't seen elsewhere. Although I know it's deliberate, I feel like her central placement in the frame subtracts from it. She's getting lost in the background, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I think it needs to be one way or the other. At the moment, she's sort of lost in the background but lit in a way which suggests you want her to stand out. Maybe take a model there, lose the sheet (or incorporate it differently), and shape her to compliment the curves and bends of the roots of the tree. EDIT: Also, I don't want to see anything beyond the tree as a background (like the peephole to the rest of the surrounding countryside on the left). Cool - I like the way you've composed them to lie in the gap between the trees through which the light is shining. Did you shoot most of it like this, or did you mix it up with "safe" shots they could give to the family? Gazmachine fucked around with this message at 10:08 on May 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 10:00
|
|
|
That's an odd one, I quite like it but I don't think it's very wedding-y. Their poses make her look distant and reticent while he looks... desperate for a kiss. I like the image but I wouldn't want it in a wedding album if you see what I mean.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 10:05
|
|
|
Jiblet posted:That's an odd one, I quite like it but I don't think it's very wedding-y. Their poses make her look distant and reticent while he looks... desperate for a kiss. Whilst it isn't a traditional wedding shot, I like it because of that. If you look at the most famous wedding shooters, their stuff is full of shots away from the norm like this, so it feels like this is moving towards that approach. Plus, I find wedding shots immensely boring, so anything different for a wedding piques my interest.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 10:11
|
|
|
Serious (not smiley happy) can certainly work well for wedding portraits, but I agree their expressions are just off.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 10:14
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:I have mixed feelings on this one so I'm putting it to the Dorkroom for some insight. I think this either needs to be a girl with fabric to her right or tree to her left, at the moment the white line of fabric->tree just leads me right past her rather than guiding me to her or using her as an initial visual hook. Otherwise I partially agree with the previous comment about how "set" it looks, but I'm kind of OK with that, I think it's a choice rather than a fault. That or yeah, try focussing your dodging around her. XTimmy fucked around with this message at 10:59 on May 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 10:52
|
|
|
Gazmachine posted:Whilst it isn't a traditional wedding shot, I like it because of that. If you look at the most famous wedding shooters, their stuff is full of shots away from the norm like this, so it feels like this is moving towards that approach. Dont get me wrong, I'm all for different and away from the boring norm, but this just seems odd. I'm not feeling the love!
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 11:21
|
|
|
Jiblet posted:Dont get me wrong, I'm all for different and away from the boring norm, but this just seems odd. I'm not feeling the love! Looking at it for longer, I do know what you mean - it's almost too sexual (or maybe that's just me) for a wedding album shot. I can't decide how I feel about it.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 11:36
|
|
|
Gazmachine posted:
The others are more "classic" that's one of the few where they look more tense/distanced. I did a couple like that to do a twist since I'm not too into the typical wedding shots. The bride had a fashion background, I think she'll enjoy it but yeah it probably won't make the wedding album and now I understand why, ha ha Edit: some that "should" make it to the album and that are more "lover"  IMG_6687 by avoyer, on Flickr  IMG_5941 by avoyer, on Flickr xenilk fucked around with this message at 14:57 on May 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 14:29
|
|
|
Yeah, much better interaction here. Like this one a lot, would love to see it in color.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 15:42
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Yeah, much better interaction here. Like this one a lot, would love to see it in color. Yep, I like this one. Looks like he's gonna pork her right there on the balcony.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 16:00
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Yeah, much better interaction here. Like this one a lot, would love to see it in color. Hrm. Still has the issue of him leaning in while she leans back away. Rapey! Also I cant see her face and I'd rather see hers than his. Yes I realise I'm just being a picky bitch.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 16:39
|
|
|
Jiblet posted:Hrm. Still has the issue of him leaning in while she leans back away. Rapey! I guess that's when the part of them not being models kind of step in. I'd say it's a grey area but I get what you're saying... and it's not rape if she all for it! :P
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 16:43
|
|
|
xenilk posted:I guess that's when the part of them not being models kind of step in. I'd say it's a grey area but I get what you're saying... and it's not rape if she all for it! :P That my point I guess, she doesn't look like she is! It makes him look letchy and her look cold. Did he shout surprise? Shutting up now.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 16:47
|
|
|
Sorry to pile on, but she looks like she's really uncomfortable and is struggling to get away.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 08:52
|
|
|
Thanks for the crits on the tree shot. It's a picture that worked for me on some levels, but I definitely wasn't in love with it. The model and a few of my non-photographer friends went totally gaga for it, however, so I figured I'd see what was the consensus here. Same model:  Faith by McMadCow, on Flickr And another from my trip down South:  Emilie on the Water by McMadCow, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 19:50
|
|
|
Latest - it's been a while! 
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 19:56
|
|
|
Got this shot of while setting up lights for something else:
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 21:42
|
|
|
powderific posted:Got this shot of while setting up lights for something else: I like this, but you should clone out that egg growing out of his head.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 23:06
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 23:19
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:"What do I do with her hands?" Connection and feet are spot on (although I might have asked her to put her knees closer together). Also, do you always take full body portraits? Getting closer might help also. I would pay to see a real closeup of her face just like that!
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 23:26
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:This one is much better. I think the hands match the rest of the pose fine. Composition is spot on too with the environment. The only issue I have with it is the cars, but not much you can do about that.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 00:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 19:59 |
|
|
Mannequin posted:This is good but it screams "I should be centred!" Both with the model and the composition.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 04:28
|
|