|
can soundmonkey change the thread title to "No this ain't nam: The Portrait Photography Thread"
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 17:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 05:43 |
|
|
"Reminds me of shooting Charlie back in 'nam: The Portrait Thread"
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 17:08
|
|
|
William T. Hornaday posted:I disagree with all of you. How does it feel to be wrong? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 17:17
|
|
|
CarrotFlowers posted:I also disagree, and really like both of them. I also disagree, but I do not like either of them, and I honestly have no idea what they are supposed to convey.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 19:47
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:I also disagree, but I do not like either of them, and I honestly have no idea what they are supposed to convey. Yeah there isn't really a clear separation. Superficially I think the first picture is supposed to be some kind of dominatrix personality but there's a bit of added confusion with the union jack and chalkboard sign. The 2nd picture is an environmental portrait, but feels disconnected from the first. I don't get the impression of a two sides to the same coin between personalities. Just two pictures that happen to have the same person in them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 20:08
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:I also disagree, but I do not like either of them, and I honestly have no idea what they are supposed to convey. As Reichstag and Paragon8 pointed out that set is a bit harder for me to get since it doesn't clearly state her persona. The first one of your serie was more clear and a lot more visually entertaining than this one. Although I like the idea having her "In the mirror".
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 21:03
|
|
|
I'm certainly not as happy with these two as a single piece. Her act is a burlesque performance where she plays a Thai bride looking for "love" and sanctuary in the UK, hence the "you help me?" and the flag. It's part of her act where she holds up signs on stage for the audience to read. The second image, as with the previous one in the series, is intended to be a shot of her as she is everyday and reflects the other side of the coin. I leave elements of the stage persona in the "normal" image (in this case, two pieces of the outfit: one on the mirror and one in her hands). This is to suggest that a persona is not a "lie" as such, more an extension of a certain part of that person's personality, in one way or another. It doesn't leave you completely when you stop performing because it comes from you. But I guess none of that really comes across  the whole thing could've been executed better.EDIT: Paragon8 posted:Yeah there isn't really a clear separation. Superficially I think the first picture is supposed to be some kind of dominatrix personality but there's a bit of added confusion with the union jack and chalkboard sign. The 2nd picture is an environmental portrait, but feels disconnected from the first. I don't get the impression of a two sides to the same coin between personalities. Just two pictures that happen to have the same person in them. Do you think it's because there's too much of a disconnect between her being in such different areas of the frame between the two shots, as opposed to the one I posted earlier, where she occupies a fairly similar space? Gazmachine fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Jul 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 22:15
|
|
|
More so what I meant was "Fill the frame with something". I just found the blank negative space to be distracting rather than useful. Though in the cold stark light of morning I'm beginning to think it was actually the brightness of the wall vs the subject that threw me off. When I made that comment I was thinking of this famous photo of Igor Stravinsky. Which sparked some debate about the whole classic 'rule' of "fill the frame". Which many people misinterpreted to be "fill the frame with the subject" which I agree is bullshit. I personally interpret that rule to be "fill the frame with something that contributes" be it something that provides context like the Stravinksy image, or texture, as with much of McMadCows work, or atmosphere. But the gently caress do I know I've got PTSD from the camps mannnnn. EDIT:VVVVVVVV Agreed, admitting to misspeaking on this one. XTimmy fucked around with this message at 00:29 on Jul 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 00:22
|
|
|
Yeah, that's a basic rule of composition, remove elements that do not add to the photo. Negative space is an element.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 00:24
|
|
|
Gazmachine posted:I'm certainly not as happy with these two as a single piece. Her act is a burlesque performance where she plays a Thai bride looking for "love" and sanctuary in the UK, hence the "you help me?" and the flag. It's part of her act where she holds up signs on stage for the audience to read. The second image, as with the previous one in the series, is intended to be a shot of her as she is everyday and reflects the other side of the coin. I leave elements of the stage persona in the "normal" image (in this case, two pieces of the outfit: one on the mirror and one in her hands). This is to suggest that a persona is not a "lie" as such, more an extension of a certain part of that person's personality, in one way or another. It doesn't leave you completely when you stop performing because it comes from you. A similar pose would help bridge between photos for sure
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 00:48
|
|
|
I don't think the pose needs to be similar, there just needs to be a clearer and more obvious characterization. Relying on minor background elements laying around is not cutting it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 00:51
|
|
|
Yes, that is exactly it. Thank you for helping me get to the bottom of it. The other reason it doesn't come through is that the red light and her positioning in the mirror obscures what the outfit actually looks like, so the fact that it's in the second frame doesn't serve to connect the two because you can't see that it's the same dress: it's only because I knew it was the same dress that it came across to me. I also fixated a bit too much on the mirror element in there, which I'm not sure was the right move in the end. I was inspired by a photo by a much better photographer and I ended up fixating on making it work whereas the space in which I was shooting probably wasn't suitable and I tried to force the issue a bit. This is all excellent, thanks all for making the effort to critique it. I've pushed into new areas, tried to do something different, hosed it up and learned something! It's pretty much the perfect outcome.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 07:26
|
|
|
I'm pretty new at this portrait stuff, but sometimes I get people to actually go out and let me take pictures of them in the freezing waters of northern Norway. Mostly her idea :  DSC_0993 by Robin Rist Kildal, on Flickr I wanted a closer crop on this, but felt like I'd lose the mountain behind, so I left it like it is :  DSC_1171 by Robin Rist Kildal, on Flickr  DSC_1301 by Robin Rist Kildal, on Flickr Now if I could just get some male friends to pose for me..
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 21:31
|
|
|
I like where you want to go with these pictures, but please try to get more of her face in the shots. The half-side shot in the first one and all the hair in the last one doesn't do it for me. It's incredibly scenic where you are, which actually might be a bad thing in your case. You want your subject to stand out from the rest of things in the shot and that foggy mountaintop (which is p.cool) is competing for purpose in your shot. Same with the shoreline. The last photo is the least scenic, but probably the best for working a nice portrait session. Take her away, and you could be shooting some spectacular landscapes. Or open up the aperture and separate her from the background. edit: i actually kind of like the framing on #2, maybe some fill would be good. It's a little dark. edit2: lighting in #1 is well-exposed for off-camera flash, but it seems to clash with the muggy, overcast rest of the scene. Miko fucked around with this message at 22:27 on Jul 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 22:24
|
|
|
Miko posted:please try to get more of her face in the shots. More like this ?  DSC_1292 by Robin Rist Kildal, on Flickr Miko posted:The half-side shot in the first one and all the hair in the last one doesn't do it for me. I mostly do shoot landscapes without people in them, but part of the reason I got to shoot this girl was because she wanted both her and the landscape to be the subjects, but I do agree with your critique. thanks! Most of the rest of the set can be found on my Facebook page
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 23:30
|
|
|
I tried a people. A. by Clwn, on Flickr  A. by Clwn, on Flickr  A. by Clwn, on Flickr Okay, he's my brother so maybe that's why I found it easier than shooting randomers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 11:52
|
|
|
I've been lurking and really loving this thread. It's given me the courage to ask some pretty lady friends if they'd do a "real photo shoot" with me. I have a basic strobist setup (2 manual strobes + shoot through umbrellas), but I'll probably start with natural light outside, maybe with a reflector, until I get the hang of posing people. I'm really nervous about giving my friends directions on how to look, especially since I don't have that much experience. In the mean time, I followed them outside and took some pictures. What do you guys think? All criticism welcome. (Maybe I went a little overboard in post on 2 and 3?)    
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 19:55
|
|
|
Clown posted:I tried a people. Some of your randomer images in the thread are a lot more interesting so I'm not sure what you think was easier about this shoot. I get no sense of personality from any of the shots, it's just a dude hanging around a park looking disinterested. And why did you watermark these? Is your brother a client that you're worried is going to try to steal your images without paying you? benthic posted:I've been lurking and really loving this thread. It's given me the courage to ask some pretty lady friends if they'd do a "real photo shoot" with me. I have a basic strobist setup (2 manual strobes + shoot through umbrellas), but I'll probably start with natural light outside, maybe with a reflector, until I get the hang of posing people. I'm really nervous about giving my friends directions on how to look, especially since I don't have that much experience. I like 2 and 3. Their skintones look a little weird but not necessarily in a bad way. 1 is almost a decent portrait but the composition doesn't suit the pose and with the way it's cropped I can't tell if she's standing there or walking toward you and it bothers me. 4 should probably just be scrapped altogether because you missed whatever DOF you were going for or there was motion so her face and the fish are out of focus, her nose looks huge and unflattering, and she's just looking at a fish and scratching her arm?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 20:09
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:I like 2 and 3. Their skintones look a little weird but not necessarily in a bad way. 1 is almost a decent portrait but the composition doesn't suit the pose and with the way it's cropped I can't tell if she's standing there or walking toward you and it bothers me. 4 should probably just be scrapped altogether because you missed whatever DOF you were going for or there was motion so her face and the fish are out of focus, her nose looks huge and unflattering, and she's just looking at a fish and scratching her arm? Thanks! On #1, following advice from this thread, I had her walk towards me across the bridge. The poses / expressions were probably the best in the set, very natural etc, but the autofocus on my 50/1.8 couldn't keep up, so only the closest shot (#1 above) was in focus. I think I'll use the 40mm/2.8 USM in the future if I'm going to have people moving around a lot. I think you're right about #4. I really wanted it to work, because I liked the idea of cute girl + ambiguously dead highly saturated fish + fake kodachrome, but the execution was pretty meh. benthic fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Jul 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 20:15
|
|
|
Backstage quickie from tonight's burly gig with a brollied speedlite on a monopod Gretchen Tice - The Coquette Collective - 6th July 2013 by NoneMoreNegative, on Flickr Her lower hand looks a bit uncomfortable now I look at it finished, I might go back and make this a square crop just under her elbow line 
NoneMoreNegative fucked around with this message at 21:58 on Jul 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2013 01:59
|
|
|
I'm getting so frustrated with color management on my new computer. What I see when im using photoshop is completely different then when I upload it. But i checked my settings, and it seems to be on sRGB so i have no idea what the gently caress. anyway, the color is off now but here are some portraits. 351B1901 by francography, on Flickr  lustfulhair2 by francography, on Flickr  351B1681 by francography, on Flickr  351B1527 by francography, on Flickr  351B1748 by francography, on Flickr  351B1719 by francography, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2013 04:24
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:Some of your randomer images in the thread are a lot more interesting so I'm not sure what you think was easier about this shoot. I get no sense of personality from any of the shots, it's just a dude hanging around a park looking disinterested. And why did you watermark these? Is your brother a client that you're worried is going to try to steal your images without paying you? I guess I was too caught up in processing these pictures, I didn't actually look at what's in them. Bleh. Colours.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2013 13:06
|
|
|
I'm not sure if "make them like it" is quite right here ice cream by s-bothun, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 06:08
|
|
|
 Mimi La Fach - The Coquette Collective - 6th June 2013 by NoneMoreNegative, on Flickr My favourite from the evening, I think.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 12:46
|
|
|
Just had a peek through the set - it's a shame you aren't able to move around or get side of stage or anything like that. They feel very static and disconnected from the performance, which is enhanced by the uniformity of the angle they have all been shot from. There's no variation, it kills it a bit. There are better ones in that set in my opinion, too: the one you quoted is nicely exposed but it feels very stiff. Not that you have to get movement in, but I feel like this one is a better quiet moment: Marianne Cheesecake - The Coquette Collective - 6th June 2013 by NoneMoreNegative, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 13:55
|
|
|
Gazmachine posted:Just had a peek through the set - it's a shame you aren't able to move around or get side of stage or anything like that. They feel very static and disconnected from the performance, which is enhanced by the uniformity of the angle they have all been shot from. There's no variation, it kills it a bit. There are better ones in that set in my opinion, too: the one you quoted is nicely exposed but it feels very stiff. Not that you have to get movement in, but I feel like this one is a better quiet moment: It's something I'll keep in mind; this was my first time out shooting with my 70-200 and I was concentrating on getting a feel for the lens. There are a few shots from the opera set where I got down closer to the stage centre, but I hate getting in the way of paying punters, so I'm always shy of doing that and end up with low 'up the nose' shots. The last few of the lineup at the end of the set are from audience back at the centre, and the 200 seems to be enough to reach for a shot if I crop somewhat in post... Maybe I'll just have to scurry around the auditorium more next time  That said, their usual photo bloke camps the balcony next to the spotlight and doesn't move, so I feel at least I shifted a bit  <edit> To defend a bit, the shot I posted was stiff; she was singing from Madame Butterfly and not moving around very much other than arm gestures.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 14:02
|
|
|
I get anxieties about that, too, but I think the key is just "get used to be being hated". Obviously ensure whoever's booking you is happy with you to get in there a bit more before you start diving about the shop like photo Rambo. I'm shooting a new venue on Thursday that could be brilliant, so long as I don't care too much about getting in folks' way. The key is two double Jack and cokes before you start. EDIT: I would say if you know the image is going to be very static, that's fine, but think even harder about composition and how you can make it more interesting in that way, especially seeing as you have more time when someone isn't moving around too much.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 14:10
|
|
|
I shot with my first model today. Any comments are welcome. IMG_7199 by philip painter, on Flickr  IMG_7168 by philip painter, on Flickr  IMG_7207 by philip painter, on Flickr  IMG_7226 by philip painter, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 03:45
|
|
|
smallmouth posted:I shot with my first model today. Any comments are welcome. Pretty much the same pose in every shot, same facial expression (I struggle with that and new models). The photos may show the model but it doesn't seem like they feature her if that makes sense. Random summer stuff    Too busy?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 05:26
|
|
|
Oprah Haza posted:Pretty much the same pose in every shot, same facial expression (I struggle with that and new models). The photos may show the model but it doesn't seem like they feature her if that makes sense. Same thought I had. I like your one of the girl sitting on the rock a lot. Not feeling any of the other ones. I typically think smoking photos are almost always cool or interesting but it being profile so you don't fully see his face and not being able to see how he holds his cigarette (which I think is why I find those kinds of shot interesting, how they reveal something about the person) kinda ruins it for me. His stance and expression seem like he should be sitting in an executive chair holding a cigar but he's just standing outside in what I'm pretty sure is a Gap polo that I also own. A friend of mine had a friend moving away next week so he asked me to take a photo of them together that they could make into a canvas they could each hang in their houses. We met at a local casino and I tried to get a feel for what kind of shot they wanted and they didn't even have a vague idea and then it didn't help that his friend was extremely camera shy and uncomfortable. It was weird because they're gay and they met through a gay hook-up site but they're just friends now so I didn't want to do couple-y photos but I'm not really sure how to do informal shots of two people that aren't a couple. So we got good and liquored up and just kinda wandered around for an hour. I got one even remotely passable shot from the entire time, but I'm actually pretty happy with how it turned out and they seemed to like it. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 05:47
|
|
|
What does how you hold your cigarette say about YOU?? Tune in to find out
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 06:06
|
|
|
slardel posted:What does how you hold your cigarette say about YOU?? Tune in to find out I meant more in how it's unique to each person, not that I think it reveals anything about that person's personality.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 06:18
|
|
|
The way you phrased it def made it sound like that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 06:24
|
|
|
That's why I clarified, sir.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 06:28
|
|
|
Just lettin' you know for future ref!
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 06:31
|
|
|
Oprah Haza posted:Pretty much the same pose in every shot, same facial expression (I struggle with that and new models). The photos may show the model but it doesn't seem like they feature her if that makes sense. Hrm, I see what you mean. Thanks for the input.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 07:02
|
|
|
Never trust someone who holds their cigarette a certain way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 07:06
|
|
|
Well, I mean, I probably wouldn't trust someone who was holding theirs backwards or something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 07:17
|
|
|
He's probably just trying to give it to you! Dont' look a gift cig in the butt.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 07:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 05:43 |
|
|
Are you saying women don't smoke?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 07:48
|
|