|
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. I happen to enjoy the duality of the underlying metaphor of the image you are portraying here. Apparently some people just dont get it.
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 17:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 16:12 |
|
|
I made a lighting diagram, maybe this will help: e: I forgot to label a few elements, I'm sorry. edit: VVV It sounds like you should up the gamma on your display. Hope that helps. 365 Nog Hogger fucked around with this message at 17:43 on Jul 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 17:37
|
|
|
Hahaha now it looks like he's twice your size. Also why'd you shoot 1,5 stop dark?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 17:40
|
|
|
xenilk posted:Could you elaborate on what you think look neat on that picture? The posture, the lightning and background? He's being sarcastic. It's not flattering or pretty and there's no split toning, therefore it was done wrong, duh!
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 17:57
|
|
|
At least he got the over all image dark and not just the face.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 17:58
|
|
|
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. Reichstag posted:I made a lighting diagram, maybe this will help: C'mon man, stop being coy. We're actually interested in your work and you're just mocking us.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 17:59
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:He's being sarcastic. It's not flattering or pretty and there's no split toning, therefore it was done wrong, duh! Would still be interested in his perspective on it tho. Other than trying too hard to be edgy that picture doesn't evoke anything for me. I guess I just don't get those type of "breaking the rules" pictures. Definitively not my cup of tea. Edit: But I would like to give a shot at understanding it, at least.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 18:02
|
|
|
xenilk posted:Would still be interested in his perspective on it tho. Other than trying too hard to be edgy that picture doesn't evoke anything for me. Try not to over think it. You might hurt yourself.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 18:09
|
|
|
xenilk posted:I guess I just don't get those type of "breaking the rules" pictures. So you're content to do the same thing over and over?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 18:09
|
|
|
I don't know why you need an explanation to be able to look at a picture and come to your own conclusions about it. I wasn't being sarcastic in my first reply.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 18:19
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:I don't know why you need an explanation to be able to look at a picture and come to your own conclusions about it. I wasn't being sarcastic in my first reply. Fair enough.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 18:26
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:So you're content to do the same thing over and over? I'm happy with refining my own style, yes of course. I found what I like to do, why would I be wrong by pursuing it? I find it rather funny that you seem insulted by the fact that I'm trying to comprehend what's going on. I feel like you could be one of those elitist people who shush you when you ask a question regarding a piece in a museum just to avoid answering since you have no idea what it is yourself. I guess I'd rather know what the author meant to do when doing an actual artsy piece rather than just telling myself "it's art" and move on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 18:29
|
|
|
xenilk posted:I'm happy with refining my own style, yes of course. I found what I liked to do, why would I be wrong by pursuing it? You're the one who seems insulted - you're reading really far into what I posted. The points you should consider - does everything have to be about knowing the authorial intent? Is everything that's "different" necessarily just different for the sake of being different? I don't really care if you want to do things in your particular style, I just want you to question those assumptions you displayed in your responses to Reichstag and the photo he posted. edit: here, I googled "authorial intent" for you http://transformers.wikia.com/wiki/Author_intent
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 18:35
|
|
|
 Shelby by xxyzx road, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 18:38
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:
First impressions: are her eyes looking in two different directions?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 19:36
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:
Smile looks incredibly forced. Did you say 'smile' or 'show me your teeth'?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 20:45
|
|
|
All teeth and no tits, although she's doing a fine job of trying to show both. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 23:21
|
|
|
Jiblet posted:All teeth and no tits, although she's doing a fine job of trying to show both. Way to critique dude.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2012 00:18
|
|
|
Jiblet posted:All teeth and no tits, although she's doing a fine job of trying to show both. Wow, I think the thread can be closed now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2012 00:21
|
|
|
Hi there, forums moderator SoundMonkey here! It would warm my heart greatly if people could get back to discussing portrait photography without being dicks to each other, or getting angry at the internet, or any of those things. When it's gotten to the point where I actually get e-mails requesting that I "burn that thread to the ground", it's probably time to get back on track 
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2012 00:24
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:
I think it's ok, but her smile is soooo forced, and the pose doesn't look at all natural, but rather, a 'pose.'
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2012 00:27
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:edit: VVV It sounds like you should up the gamma on your display. Hope that helps.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2012 00:34
|
|
|
I am sorry but this guy is the perfect goon picture!
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2012 01:32
|
|
|
Niagalack posted:I am sorry but this guy is the perfect goon picture! I think there are actual Cheetos stains under his nails. You can see them if you up the gamma. TheAngryDrunk posted:
What everyone else but that tits guy said. But I also want to add, because encouragement is just as important as criticism, that the picture is done very well from a technical perspective. Perfect choice of DOF to get the subject in focus without anything in the background unnecessarily competing for attention.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2012 02:07
|
|
|
LargeHadron posted:I think there are actual Cheetos stains under his nails. You can see them if you up the gamma.  LargeHadron posted:What everyone else but that tits guy said. But I also want to add, because encouragement is just as important as criticism, that the picture is done very well from a technical perspective. Perfect choice of DOF to get the subject in focus without anything in the background unnecessarily competing for attention. Well she has a nice look even with all those little inconvenience we found. I mean she's better than many other ! Poor guy received some harsh crits ! We still got to stare at some small cleavage!  (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2012 02:52
|
|
|
Niagalack posted:
Don't sweat it. The only reason I posted the pic was because I was trying to get the thread back on track. I didn't expect it to derail things further! As for her smile, that's just how she smiles. It's like that even when she's not posing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2012 04:17
|
|
|
 Nikon F3 , Provia 400X, 35mm 050.jpg by Stingray of Doom, on Flickr Am I doing this right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2012 07:01
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:
Right what the gently caress Dorkroom - it's like I stepped into Games or something. DOF is correct to eliminate the background, which doesn't look interesting, but I can't help but wonder if you could have found a more interesting background for her. It's her expression that grates - it's so tight and forced. If that is just how she smiles, I would ask her to try a closed mouth smile, something a little more relaxed, as you should have the power, as the portrait photographer, to be able to control stuff like that, at least to an extent. The pose seems fine if it's for a business-y headshot thing (which I'm presuming it is, going off the general tone of the image). I just keep coming back to the face and thinking it looks like she's in a wind tunnel or something. Sometimes, one of the hardest things to do is tell someone to change something they're doing that looks really weird without knocking their confidence, but it's one of the key skills of portraits. Be assertive and constructive, don't say "wow, THAT'S your smile, really?" I tend to say that someone has "a camera face" and encourage them to come away from that to see what different shots of them you can get. Make it sound fun, like an experiment, then try a bunch of things, one of which will be the thing you really want them to do, which in this case would be to close her mouth (or smile less manically).
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2012 09:16
|
|
|
Putrid Grin posted:
Is that Catherine Tate on the left? She is the image of her.  \/\/ Love that second one Quantum of Phallus fucked around with this message at 23:03 on Jul 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2012 11:14
|
|
|
 IMG_0601 by avoyer, on Flickr  IMG_0615 by avoyer, on Flickr Two pictures taken at a festival here in Ottawa.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2012 20:32
|
|
|
My baby boy. owen-hat6 by ralph-brewer, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 16:45
|
|
|
 Warning! This post contains boring pictures of kids and wife If you are still reading, crit me hard because I want to make better shot than these! I have to say shooting kids is a pain in the neck. Give me tricks anything because it was a fun and no fun experience they were all over the place and none was listening. I had some awesome shot wasted by my other kid with his finger in his nose.  amour (1 of 1) by J-YG, on Flickr  amour (1 of 1)-7 by J-YG, on Flickr  amour (1 of 1)-3 by J-YG, on Flickr  amour (1 of 1)-2 by J-YG, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2012 01:39
|
|
|
^^^ Seems a little dark/under exposed. The walls are pink. Are they actually white? ^^^ True or false: photogs who hate taking pictures of people take the best pictures of people?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2012 01:47
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:^^^ Seems a little dark/under exposed. The walls are pink. Are they actually white? ^^^ You really want to throw a blanket generalization on something like that? I don't think anyone will say one way or the other.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2012 02:13
|
|
|
Actually it's not a white wall. The colour on the picture is the right colour of the wall.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2012 02:25
|
|
|
Niagalack posted:
The first one is quite nice though I think you could crop down and get rid of the negative space on the right and it would look even better. The others aren't as focused in intensity and seem like 'in between' shots/
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2012 05:16
|
|
|
Shot using Strobist's One Big Top Light technique, in the middle of OzComicCon American't. by Rick0r McZany, on Flickr Cyberbob fucked around with this message at 14:04 on Jul 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2012 14:02
|
|
|
Niagalack posted:
Not including the first shot, there's something about the composition of these that doesn't settle with me, and I'm drawing a blank on what it is. I think it's because they're too central and tight but they don't seem intimate, either. The first shot has that intimacy in the composition, although your wife's face has that look of "oh thanks for that dribble, that's just lovely" on her face which I know all too well (although that adds character to the shot, for surE). My advice would be to ditch the posed setting and get the kids outside, in the sun, maybe late evening (although I'm not sure if tiredness levels would make this particularly successful). They feel too static at the moment, and I think letting both the kids and your wife breathe would lead to more interesting results which brought out the character and personality in each of them a little more. Cyberbob posted:Shot using Strobist's One Big Top Light technique, in the middle of OzComicCon How did you set this up? Do you have a mobile power unit thingy? Have you shopped out some of the background? Gazmachine fucked around with this message at 21:10 on Jul 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2012 21:07
|
|
|
Cyberbob posted:Shot using Strobist's One Big Top Light technique, in the middle of OzComicCon I really need to get a boom.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2012 21:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 16:12 |
|
|
Gazmachine posted:How did you set this up? Do you have a mobile power unit thingy? Have you shopped out some of the background? Sb-600 in octobox, with friendly assistant holding boom overhead. Shopped background. This isn't the shot I choose to edit, but it's another straight out of camera to show the lighting and post that went into it. Nothing revolutionary, but effective  DSC_1506 by Rick0r McZany, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 02:13
|
|