|
MrOpus posted:I was really pleased with how the lighting turned out on this photo It was literally the last shot of the shoot. What about the lighting do you like here? You did get a basic rembrant going, but what more beyond that made you pick this photo as a select?
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2012 00:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 01:38 |
|
|
MrOpus posted:I was really pleased with how the lighting turned out on this photo It was literally the last shot of the shoot. Why are you being surprised by a light that you have set up? Also, in regards to the promos, for the first one, try a square crop and maybe cut off just above the dude's waist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2012 03:15
|
|
|
Two-parter: 
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2012 04:21
|
|
|
Fiancee Girl going to prom + date  Girl going to prom + date + moms 
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2012 19:13
|
|
|
I imagine you got a great response from your subjects, Oprah Haze but boy does that guy's face kind of freak me out. The comp on the portrait of your fiancée is really neat too. Very clear and sharp too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2012 19:29
|
|
|
Helped shoot a graduation a few weeks ago and am really happy about how these 2 look. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2012 19:38
|
|
|
Holy hell, talk about punching above your weight.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2012 20:02
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:I imagine you got a great response from your subjects, Oprah Haze but boy does that guy's face kind of freak me out. Thank you! I think the boy felt a little awkward, I later found out he was a sophomore and didn't know anybody there (not in the frame were 20+ other kids and their families who were all sharing a bus) other than his date, who is a friend. Two more of her at her friend's house with a different processing style.  With her niece  Oprah Haza fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Jun 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 20:10
|
|
|
Nice job, they must be thrilled with them!
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 20:30
|
|
|
Oprah Haza posted:Fiancee I like those! I don't find the guy to have a creepy/weird smile... just sort of asymetric smile. Great work on getting them to seem to enjoy the camera, you did great  As for moi, I was in NYC with the gf over the weekend.  IMG_9151 by avoyer, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 06:02
|
|
|
trying to up my portrait chops - please tell me if anything is terribly horrible.   
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 04:47
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 05:24
|
|
|
That's a very nice portrait.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 05:59
|
|
|
xenilk posted:That's a very nice portrait. I agree. That's awesome!
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 15:29
|
|
|
I think the only thing you could have done to make the nose look any bigger/more prominent is to set up a very dark vignette so that all we can see is the nose. It just really screams at me. That angle on her face is just not flattering at all, between the nose and chin.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 16:14
|
|
|
whereismyshoe posted:trying to up my portrait chops - please tell me if anything is terribly horrible. Was this the full image? Or was it cropped? There seems to be some distortion in her face. If this is the full image, 50mm may have been too wide for this framing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 17:29
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:I think the only thing you could have done to make the nose look any bigger/more prominent is to set up a very dark vignette so that all we can see is the nose. It just really screams at me. That angle on her face is just not flattering at all, between the nose and chin. Honestly, that's..just how she looks. She really likes that one, too haha but I can see where you're coming from with that. Thank you, noted. TheAngryDrunk posted:Was this the full image? Or was it cropped? This is the full frame, now that you mention it i can see a little distortion. An 85mm is in my future, at some point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2012 00:57
|
|
|
whereismyshoe posted:Honestly, that's..just how she looks. She really likes that one, too haha but I can see where you're coming from with that. Thank you, noted. There's a very big difference in how someone looks, and emphasizing/de-emphasizing certain features in a portrait. Putting a strong emphasis on something typically looked at as undesirable (a big nose perhaps) in a standard 'pretty portrait' is usually a big no no and can be worked around with lighting, etc. Right now you've shot it with the brightest light on her nose, which really draws attention to it. It's like when you photograph larger girls - in real life they may look quite big, but you don't really want to draw attention to that fact in their portraits - you want to pose and light it so that it's flattering, even if that may not look exactly like them in everyday light/situations.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2012 02:38
|
|
|
I remember when I shot my first music video a tutor hounded me on not shooting girls from a low angle (looking up the nose). I feel this could be applied to the first two images.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2012 09:39
|
|
|
XTimmy posted:I remember when I shot my first music video a tutor hounded me on not shooting girls from a low angle (looking up the nose). I feel this could be applied to the first two images. I've had this burned into my brain. Very few women are flattered by shooting low, unless of course they are Victoria Secret models.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2012 15:55
|
|
|
A photographer friend of mine told me I need to be more careful not to give my subject too much headroom. I took this shot in a proper way, and then reconsidered and took it again ignoring his advice. For some reason the one with more headroom (second) grabs me more and I'm not sure why. Which one is better? 005 by Large Hadron, on Flickr  006 by Large Hadron, on Flickr Yes, she is my only subject ever I don't have friends ok bye.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2012 22:55
|
|
|
the second one is better because the space ads more context, if it was a uniform background the extra space would look more awkward. Here you add more to the picture by including more visual elements (that don't distract because of dat bokeh) The trees also make a natural frame around her in the second one which is aesthetically pleasing. Good job. If everyone did everything the "proper" way we'd all take loving boring pictures all the time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2012 23:15
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:the second one is better because the space ads more context, if it was a uniform background the extra space would look more awkward. Here you add more to the picture by including more visual elements (that don't distract because of dat bokeh) Thennnnn #2 is going straight to my Facebook page. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2012 23:19
|
|
|
I agree with Paragon here - rules only go so far. Most rules apply generally, but the added context really makes that portrait a drat sight more interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2012 15:06
|
|
|
Here are a couple more from the same roll that I actually really like: 010 by Large Hadron, on Flickr  016_a by Large Hadron, on Flickr It's possible I only like them because I like my subject though. I have this other one that I am not very confident about and I'm not sure why it failed. I'll probably stick it in PAD unless I get good advice here.  003 by Large Hadron, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2012 17:58
|
|
|
I would also recommend trying to avoid lines through heads when possible (curb in first set of photos and the hill on the first photo here. You could also clone out the lint under her arm in the last photo. Maybe also consider a graduated exposure filter on the bottom half of the last photo for balance? They look good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2012 18:21
|
|
|
LargeHadron posted:Here are a couple more from the same roll that I actually really like: I think the immediate response from most people would be that you cropped of an arm but I'd say why the picture is less successful is because the pose doesn't fit the tone/model of the photograph. It's more of a lad's mag pose and your model isn't a lad's mag model so it looks a bit awkward.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2012 18:22
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:I think the immediate response from most people would be that you cropped of an arm but I'd say why the picture is less successful is because the pose doesn't fit the tone/model of the photograph. It's more of a lad's mag pose and your model isn't a lad's mag model so it looks a bit awkward. Ugh yeah, the arm thing. It's a crop of a larger, much more awkward photo that included an very strange foot posture and an obnoxious white gate on the right side. I was going to toss it, but the crop made it somewhat ok to me. I'm gonna go Google "lad's mag" now 'cause, well uh,  e: She was going for more of a "fashion model" and less of a "soft porno" look. Heh.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2012 18:35
|
|
|
yeah, if you go with a strong pose like with glamour/fashion you have to go all in really with a model that fits as well as styling. This series looks nice because it has that sort of fine art/portraiture feel to it. It doesn't feel contrived like a fashion shoot so the one you're unsure of doesn't really fit it
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2012 18:50
|
|
|
Oprah Haza posted:Maybe also consider a graduated exposure filter on the bottom half of the last photo for balance?  003-2 by Large Hadron, on Flickr Better? There's more detail in the jeans now and the brightest area is near the head.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2012 18:52
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:yeah, if you go with a strong pose like with glamour/fashion you have to go all in really with a model that fits as well as styling. This series looks nice because it has that sort of fine art/portraiture feel to it. It doesn't feel contrived like a fashion shoot so the one you're unsure of doesn't really fit it Good advice, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2012 18:53
|
|
|
LargeHadron posted:
I actually really dig the pose on this, I think it works well with the gently closed eyes. Her face is really serene which (somehow) complements the pose. However I'll definitely echo Paragon8, though it looks neat to me there's still something slightly uncomfortable about it. So, I'm having a few issues with my latest portraiture endeavor. My boss recently got this crazy nice power rangers outfit made (Cool boss/Uncool boss?). I really want to get some nice shots of it for him.  Ranger 1 by dick town, on Flickr  Ranger 2 by dick town, on Flickr I'm still super new to this so I'm running into a few issues, mostly with lighting, I don't have much experience with that. In most shots, the light bounced awkwardly off the helmet like in the top shot, but I'm also getting a lot of unattractive reflections off the helmet in general, is there some way to avoid this? I don't really don't want my face showing up on the helmet. Also I'm only just now realising I should have gone up an fstop or two on the bottom photo to get that arm in focus. Could anyone share any lighting advice? I'm yet to pick up a speedlite and I'm a little lost. E: Oops. Does this even count as portraiture? Dick Danger fucked around with this message at 16:56 on Jun 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 16:53
|
|
|
LargeHadron posted:
Just wanted to echo some of the concerns about her awkwardly chopped arm here. It's really risky to crop at joints, because those are the points which your eyes/brain have been trained to see limbs continue on. Like any rule in photography, it isn't hard and fast, but it's grounded in a practical reason, and the awkwardness of the effect here shows why. Also, if you're looking to make more interesting portraits, you need to take more risks with your posing and context. These shots are decent enough and I really think you did a good job showing how naturally pretty your model is- if a tad uncomfortable looking. But they don't really do anything for me beyond that. Try to think of using the camera to tell a story. In the shoe store and on the hillside the model isn't really doing anything other than fairly blankly looking at the camera. There's not anything really wrong with them, but they're not particularly interesting, either. The model isn't doing anything, and we don't have the impression the camera is doing anything more than recording her doing nothing. It's the difference between taking a picture and making a picture. If you're having trouble getting into the mindset of making narrative portraits, there are a couple of exercises you can do. First, make it a point to shoot an entire roll of the model without her looking into the camera at all. Right now the camera is like her objective, and it's really boring. Getting her away from the lens as the object of her attention forces her to do something else, and forces you as the photographer to make her do something interesting. Second exercise I would suggest is to not pose your model, but give her a "stage" of area to walk through, or move around in. Watch her move through the space and tell her to freeze when you see something interesting and then go from there. You can use the spontaneity of the moment to plant ideas for an interesting shot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 18:13
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:words drat, this is why I love these forums. Great advice, I love the ideas. Also, I hope this is kosher, but the portfolio building group that I'm in is having its first workshop this weekend in Goshen, NY. It'll be done in two halves, one with Master of Photography Frank Dispensa going over lighting and posing fundaments, while internationally published model Felicia Fatale will be covering posing and expression techniques for models. At the end, there is a crossover period where Felicia will instruct photographers on model interaction, and vice versa with Frank and the models on how to pose with regards to lights and lenses. At there end, there will be an hour-long shootout with everybody there. Both instructors are incredibly talented and well-spoken professionals, and there are already plans for a workshop on composition and styling sometime in the coming months. It's $65 for photographers in advance, $50 for models. Details on the Meetup page HERE. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 18:35
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:Just wanted to echo some of the concerns about her awkwardly chopped arm here. It's really risky to crop at joints, because those are the points which your eyes/brain have been trained to see limbs continue on. Like any rule in photography, it isn't hard and fast, but it's grounded in a practical reason, and the awkwardness of the effect here shows why. Thank you for the advice. It's nice that you took the time to write all that. Excepting the awkward one of her on the stairs, I was consciously trying to achieve a very minimal type of portrait in which the subject is there just a part of the composition (and something more interesting to look at than a log or whatever else it could have been). I didn't want the picture to be about her in any way; just something aesthetically pleasing that doesn't have a program. Does that make sense? Sounds kind of hipsterish and not very portrait-like now that I'm saying it out loud. Maybe it's a dumb idea and maybe I didn't execute it well enough. It was kind of a reaction against all of the lovely, lovely "pretend I captured a moment but I actually made them pose with this dumb prop or doing this stupid thing" portraits that momographers are plaguing my Facebook page with these days. I'll forgo specific examples to protect the perpetrators, but you probably know what I'm talking about. A couple laughing with fishing poles because they like to fish. They try to appear organic and end up looking completely sterile and obnoxious. It sounds ironic, but I decided to go in the opposite direction and crank the sterility to 100 and see if I can make something that works. I don't mean to be defensive, I'm just trying to explain my intent. I really like the portraits on your Flickr page; I might have to steal some ideas in order to learn how to be neither sterile nor cheesy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 23:21
|
|
|
LargeHadron posted:I didn't want the picture to be about her in any way; just something aesthetically pleasing that doesn't have a program. Does that make sense? Honestly? No, it doesn't make sense to me, and I'll try to explain my point without being combative about it. Before I was a photographer, I was an actor and a theatrical director. Once I got in to photography and started taking classes, I realized that there's a very strong connection between the two fields, and it's that we as the authors/artists/performers/whatever need to give our viewers something to care about. If I'm watching a movie and the main character doesn't care about how they get through their struggle, then why should I? And here I am reading you acknowledge that she has no meaning to the picture, so why should I care to look at it? If there's one thing that most of the regular reviewers in The Dorkroom agree on time and again is that if elements have no meaning in the photo, they shouldn't be included. It's cool that you wanted to make something from a concept, but I would be really surprised if anyone here saw those as a treatment in reductionism. I would never say you shouldn't try to explore new ideas and directions, but don't alienate your audience in pursuit of some high concept that will ultimately make your pictures less interesting. If I'm off base in saying this I hope someone else will speak up, but for my tastes there's no success to be found in intentionally eliminating the subject from your portraits.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 07:33
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:Honestly? No, it doesn't make sense to me, and I'll try to explain my point without being combative about it. Before I was a photographer, I was an actor and a theatrical director. Once I got in to photography and started taking classes, I realized that there's a very strong connection between the two fields, and it's that we as the authors/artists/performers/whatever need to give our viewers something to care about. If I'm watching a movie and the main character doesn't care about how they get through their struggle, then why should I? And here I am reading you acknowledge that she has no meaning to the picture, so why should I care to look at it? Don't worry about being combative - I think people should be able to discuss the integrity of their art without hard feelings. Also I haven't been doing this too long so I'm taking this only as a learning opportunity. Really, I'm not committed to this ideology or anything, I'm just kind of trying things out. So to give my background, I am a student of art music composition. Bad name, I know, but I want to distinguish from other fields of composition in which the following sentence is not really an issue. One aspect of composition that we need to be aware of is the tangibility of our music. Some composers will write pieces that are very strongly about events, places, feelings, people, what have you. Take Strauss' Till Eulenspiegel. The piece tries to convey a literal story using musical ideas that represent tangible plot elements. On the opposite end of the spectrum you have composers like Bach and Brahms. A Bach fugue doesn't tell a story or convey an emotion; its merit is in the arrangement and development of musical elements. Yes, certain harmonic events might trigger emotion in a listener (check out his Fugue in C Minor from WTC I), but there really is no program behind it, no story. My idea behind the portraits is more like a Bach fugue. The scene is arranged in an aesthetically pleasing way, with a strong subject that balances the composition. She is a human being, so we naturally feel some sort of emotion toward the subject. But our reaction is more abstract and visceral since there is no tangible story to cling onto. You made the following claim: McMadCow posted:If there's one thing that most of the regular reviewers in The Dorkroom agree on time and again is that if elements have no meaning in the photo, they shouldn't be included. I think you're ignoring the fact that certain photos don't have any meaning apart from the arrangement of their elements. Maybe portraits can be done this way, maybe not. Maybe a photo of a human can be done this way but not be called a portrait. I'm interested to hear other opinions on this, so I hope some other posters chime in.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 16:06
|
|
|
LargeHadron posted:I think you're ignoring the fact that certain photos don't have any meaning apart from the arrangement of their elements. Maybe portraits can be done this way, maybe not. Maybe a photo of a human can be done this way but not be called a portrait. I'm interested to hear other opinions on this, so I hope some other posters chime in. If they don't have a meaning beyond the arrangement of the objects then the reader is either going to infer meaning onto the arrangement and/or the objects or they are going to have a very shallow reaction. I think what you're saying is that you were trying to create a image on technical merit alone. This is fine, technique is the foundation of all things. Like McMadCow I was an actor before I became a cinematographer and even with such an abstract profession as acting I still found awareness of almost tangible techniques. But the technique is made to serve the goal, which is ultimately to create meaning (be it an emotion, a story or so on). For instance, I find McMadCow's work impressive because it regularly achieves this goal, his work conveys a sense of disconnect and distance from his often attractive subjects that I find engaging. On the flip I find myself in conflict with my current business partner as he regularly subverts the primary goal of photography as an art (to inform/convey meaning) in order to simply create aesthetically pleasing images without any thought to what they convey or their effect. There's nothing inherently wrong with simply creating aesthetically pleasing images, I do a fair amount of work for makeup artists and that normally involves just taking some pretty girl out into the woods and shooting her repeatedly  but even the most amazing works aesthetically stumble and fall next to a work that conveys its meaning well. I am very tired.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 16:53
|
|
|
XTimmy posted:But the technique is made to serve the goal, which is ultimately to create meaning (be it an emotion, a story or so on). What about a picture of criss-crossing telephone cables or something similar? A path in the woods, to use a more common example. I'm not convinced these types of photos serve a goal of creating meaning outside of the arrangement of their elements.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 17:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 01:38 |
|
|
Meaning does not need to be narrative, though I would caution against using "meaning" at all. Subject as actor is only one way to create a portrait with intention.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 17:11
|
|