|
I did my first Real Photoshoot yesterday, and I think it went well. She needed a headshot for a concert program so I volunteered to do it for free to get practice. I am happy with these two shots in particular. Is there anything I could have done to make them better? How about the processing? Too much? DSC01572 by Large Hadron, on Flickr  DSC01580 by Large Hadron, on Flickr
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2012 15:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 08:02 |
|
|
LargeHadron posted:I did my first Real Photoshoot yesterday, and I think it went well. She needed a headshot for a concert program so I volunteered to do it for free to get practice. I am happy with these two shots in particular. Is there anything I could have done to make them better? How about the processing? Too much? She looks extremely tense, her lips are very tight and nervous. I'm not a fan of the processing. Out of the two, the landscape oriented one is more pleasantly framed. The angle in the portrait oriented shot is awkward and her eyeline is too central to be pleasing, in my opinion, for a standard headshot. I suppose it all depends on what she was after. Maybe she's not that tense in the landscape one, but the overprocessing combined with the size of her in the frame makes it unpleasant to look at for me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2012 19:23
|
|
|
LargeHadron posted:I did my first Real Photoshoot yesterday, and I think it went well. She needed a headshot for a concert program so I volunteered to do it for free to get practice. I am happy with these two shots in particular. Is there anything I could have done to make them better? How about the processing? Too much? I think the landscape oriented one is cropped way too tightly. The way her chin is touching the bottom of the frame makes me feel uncomfortable when I look at it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2012 20:08
|
|
|
It also looks like you're standing on a step stool looking down
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2012 20:10
|
|
|
Also for the love of poo poo shoot big-nosed people with a longer lens.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2012 20:10
|
|
|
Alright, I gotcha. My wife wanted me to post a couple that she took/processed to see if she could get some feedback as well. DSC01521 by Large Hadron, on Flickr  DSC01524 by Large Hadron, on Flickr We're still trying to reconcile our differences in processing tastes...
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 00:31
|
|
|
Why are all of these so tight that part of her head is cut off?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 00:33
|
|
|
Cutting off top of the head? Okay. Cutting off the left or right side...not so much.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 00:44
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Why are all of these so tight that part of her head is cut off? Good question...most of the photos she took were like that. Stylistic choice, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 00:47
|
|
|
LargeHadron posted:Alright, I gotcha. My wife wanted me to post a couple that she took/processed to see if she could get some feedback as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 01:14
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:WB's way off in both of these? Not sitting on a calibrated panel so I don't want to run my mouth, but first is very green/yellow in the highlights, second is a bit red. That's on top of what everyone else is saying about comp. No, you're absolutely right. At first I thought they were oversaturated, but I wonder if I would like the colors a lot more if the white balance were correct. Anyways, thanks for the feedback everyone. I'm taking down the second set since they aren't actually mine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 01:25
|
|
|
Did a small editorial for a swimsuit company here. IMG_0435 by avoyer, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 03:04
|
|
|
xenilk posted:Did a small editorial for a swimsuit company here. Her face seems a lot darker than her body. Nice shot though. Maybe go a little wider than f/4. I think you could carry her whole body in focus easily still with the relatively wide angle. f/2.8 would help add some separation, but not too much that the background is completely unrecognizable. TheAngryDrunk fucked around with this message at 16:28 on Jul 3, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 16:24
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:Her face seems a lot darker than her body. Nice shot though. I can probably make her face a tad lighter, I think that would help without being obvious that I did it. I was shooting at that because I didn't want to go over 1/1000 for the picture (I find the speed too fast? I might be weird about this) but I should have tried just to see the difference, good point 
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 18:30
|
|
|
xenilk posted:(I find the speed too fast? ) How come?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 23:56
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:How come? I find that my colors are not as vibrant and I have less information when I shoot over 1/1000, does that make sense or it's in my head?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 00:03
|
|
|
xenilk posted:it's in my head?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 00:34
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:It really is (if you shoot the same ISO). The amount of light that hits the sensor is the same. What might happen is your lens being less sharp/contrasty at the compensated aperture. I guess it can also suck when the shutter speed needed is faster than what your camera can do. I'll try to work on that habit lol
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 00:51
|
|
|
xenilk posted:I guess it can also suck when the shutter speed needed is faster than what your camera can do. I'll try to work on that habit lol
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 11:01
|
|
|
This is a quick picture I took of my brother and I'm wondering what people's advice would be on it. I shot on a 50mm 1.8 but with the crop of a 600D. I'm looking to do more portrait work, should I get a wider lens like a 28 or a 20? Thanks! Oisín by Quantum of Phallus, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 22:13
|
|
|
Depends on what you're going for. Wide-angle lenses distort people's features, making them look gangly and generally uglier than a long lens, which compresses features. A 50mm on a crop sensor is a very nice length for portraits, I would advise moving back though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 22:24
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:This is a quick picture I took of my brother and I'm wondering what people's advice would be on it. I shot on a 50mm 1.8 but with the crop of a 600D. I'm looking to do more portrait work, should I get a wider lens like a 28 or a 20? Thanks! I don't like seeing your brother this close up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 22:24
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:This is a quick picture I took of my brother and I'm wondering what people's advice would be on it. I shot on a 50mm 1.8 but with the crop of a 600D. I'm looking to do more portrait work, should I get a wider lens like a 28 or a 20? Thanks! The expression is ok, but it really bugs me that the eyes are so dark and you can't see any definition in his eyes at all. I think the light could come down a little bit, and either toss it a little further to the left or straight on to create a butterfly pattern. The big thing is more light in the most important feature, the eyes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 22:25
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:This is a quick picture I took of my brother and I'm wondering what people's advice would be on it. I shot on a 50mm 1.8 but with the crop of a 600D. I'm looking to do more portrait work, should I get a wider lens like a 28 or a 20? Thanks! You don't want a wider lens for portraits, unless you're talking about environmental portraits. And even then a 50mm might still work. 50mm on a crop is generally okay for headshots, but you're pushing things here with the ultra closeup. Was this the full image or did you crop any part of it? Focus seems to be fine, so that's good. If you want a landscape oriented shot, take a step back and get his shoulders in it (and more of his head). His eyes are dark. The light looks like its coming from directly over his head, just camera left. Thus, light isn't getting into his eyes, the most important part of a portrait.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 22:26
|
|
|
Thanks all. Yeah, he was really close to the lens and the light was indeed above. Thanks for the advice!
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 22:33
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 01:27
|
|
|
I... I don't understand what you want us to say. Are you happy with this picture? Do you want critique? Did something happen and you want to know what to do to fix the conditions?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 04:54
|
|
|
Is Jackson Pollock just splatters? Is Barnett Newman just lines? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrVE-WQBcYQ&t=122s Does a need for creative and thoughtful articulation motivate all Reichstag photographs? Does Reichstag take snapshots, does he make mistakes? I... I don't know. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 05:26
|
|
|
I don't even know what's real anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 13:06
|
|
|
Same boat...I love about half of what Reichstag posts. The other half makes me feel like I must be the most ignorant person in the world. I'm really hoping he chimes in with some words about this photo, but I'd bet money that he won't. Reichstag, do you mind explaining your intent behind this photograph? It's not that we want to find a way to call you out on bullshit or anything. I for one am legitimately curious what you're going for.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 14:27
|
|
|
LargeHadron posted:Same boat...I love about half of what Reichstag posts. The other half makes me feel like I must be the most ignorant person in the world. I'm really hoping he chimes in with some words about this photo, but I'd bet money that he won't. HAHAHA that is exactly how I feel. Half of his pictures are great, the other half looks out of some hipster album... no real meaning but just aiming to do something "different".
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 14:38
|
|
|
One from a Senior Shoot last night Amber FHS Senior by Back to You Photography, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 15:10
|
|
|
I can't claim to speak for Reichstag, but a lot of the odd, seemingly obtuse art world photos are difficult to read for outsiders because they often use their own vocabulary. Much of art is in response to trends and movements within itself, so you get periods where a portion of the art world's output starts to look similar or follow similar ideas--contemporary examples being backs of girl's heads, colourful smoke bomb photos, landscapes focusing on man-made changes to the land, etc.--and soon you'll get photos created, not necessarily as an anti-thesis, but as a response to that trend. There will then, inevitably, follow responses to those responses, and so on, ad infinitum, making it all a very complex and pretty fascinating world to watch. And just loving with that idea of interpretation--that there is some sort of thread of continuity or a dialogue that one can follow--can make for interesting photographs, too. Not going to try to interpret that one photo, but I believe a lot of Reichstag's work can be read in either or both of those contexts. That is, of course, an extremely simple and probably dumb summation of what's going on, but it might be helpful. (Tell me how wrong I am, please)
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 15:11
|
|
|
Brodieanalog posted:One from a Senior Shoot last night Personally I think the processing is a little overdone, but that's mostly what people look for when buying senior portraits so it works. It's a very nice photo overall but I'd think about doing a closer crop because the red flowers in the background are a bit distracting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 16:03
|
|
|
I think the look works, but there's a lot of areas of high contrast around her face which itself is very light and low contrast. It makes it hard for me to focus on her, maybe try burning her face a little or masking it out and playing with the curves.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 16:12
|
|
|
Gods Balls  I shoot single portraits 99% of the time, so 2.8 gives a nice DOF for head & shoulders distance; two people and I forget to step to 3.5ish, so I juuust miss focus on one person on nearly every shot.Live and learn, will doublecheck that next time.   I'm not happy with the second low shot as a concept (its never flattering on a ladies shape), but I needed to get the coloured background in. <edit> also, no curlycord for my flash to get it off-axis + glasses = unhappiness. For future reference; is there any way of minimising flash reflection on dark skin without heavy makeup or a big softbox? I've never shot such dark tones before and the amount of flash that came back surprised me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 16:27
|
|
|
NoneMoreNegative posted:
Yeahhhh that first one is cool but the second just looks sloppy. What do you mean when you said you needed to get the colored background in? Like, whoever hired you for the shoot asked you specifically to get that? Or, you really liked it and wanted it in the shot?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 16:42
|
|
|
LargeHadron posted:Yeahhhh that first one is cool but the second just looks sloppy. What do you mean when you said you needed to get the colored background in? Like, whoever hired you for the shoot asked you specifically to get that? Or, you really liked it and wanted it in the shot? It's part of the décor in the place the two ladies were working, so they asked to try and work it in. I'd have shot if myself without asking if it had come down to the floor so I could get a straight-on or slightly-down angle (or if I had a spare mobile lift dolly to lift everyone up 3 feet or so  )These are just internal shots for work so no big foul, but I like to do the best I can 
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 16:48
|
|
|
Tokyo Sandblaster posted:I... I don't understand what you want us to say. Are you happy with this picture? Do you want critique? Did something happen and you want to know what to do to fix the conditions? I took a picture of a person and I thought it looked neat so I posted it in the thread for pictures of people so people could look at it and maybe say a thing if they felt like it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 17:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 08:02 |
|
|
Reichstag posted:I took a picture of a person and I thought it looked neat so I posted it in the thread for pictures of people so people could look at it and maybe say a thing if they felt like it. Could you elaborate on what you think look neat on that picture? The posture, the lightning and background? I'm not sure if you're being witty/sarcastic or serious.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 17:26
|
|