|
Bottom Liner posted:In the second and fourth the eyes look too bright and enhanced. Overall the lighting looks too complicated and harsh. So would you suggest dropping either the main or fill by a half stop or so, or..? Since you mentioned the eyes in some of them look too bright, maybe I'm also over-editing them. For sample, here's the one completely unedited, as it came out of the camera. 
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 23:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 09:25 |
|
|
Yeah I would leave the eyes as they are. As for the lighting, it's just harsh enough to show too much skin texture for that style of portrait. Try using an adjustment brush with -35 clarity, +10 shadows, +0.1 exposure and paint over his cheeks, forehead, and chin. That's an easy and effective retouching tool I use on skin and it should help those shots a lot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 03:05
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Yeah I would leave the eyes as they are. As for the lighting, it's just harsh enough to show too much skin texture for that style of portrait. Try using an adjustment brush with -35 clarity, +10 shadows, +0.1 exposure and paint over his cheeks, forehead, and chin. That's an easy and effective retouching tool I use on skin and it should help those shots a lot. That's really helpful - I'll have a go at it and the other shots as well. Thanks for going into further detail for me. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 04:02
|
|
|
Question: been asked to shoot some promo headshots for a newcomer actor, is there a set of poses that's 'standard' for stuff like this that prospective employers would expect to see? I'm guessing Profile / Straight-on / Threequarter at a minimum?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 14:21
|
|
|
Look through Peter Hurley's headshot portfolio for great ideas and work through some of the poses with your guy. http://peterhurley.com/photography/actors-headshots/wonder-boys/
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 15:02
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Look through Peter Hurley's headshot portfolio for great ideas and work through some of the poses with your guy. Cool, looking through those I think I can spin something similar with my kit
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 17:17
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:
I really like this, can you expand on how you did it, lighting, pp, etc?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 17:59
|
|
|
red19fire posted:I really like this, can you expand on how you did it, lighting, pp, etc? Thanks! Nothing special on the lighting. Just backlit with the sun. Post was done to achieve a vintage film look. Slightly faded colors and lots of grain.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 18:40
|
|
|
So I went to see a show last night and brought my camera with the 50mm. IMG_4114 by avoyer, on Flickr  IMG_4026 by avoyer, on Flickr  IMG_4029 by avoyer, on Flickr  IMG_3962 by avoyer, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2013 07:10
|
|
|
xenilk posted:So I went to see a show last night and brought my camera with the 50mm. Shouldnt these be in another thread ? Anyways, this weekend I went into the forest with a friend, intending to get some nice autumn leaves-ishy portraits. It ended up raining a lot, so we went into a pine forest instead, I think it turned out ok :  DSC_2435 by Robin Rist Kildal, on Flickr  DSC_2438 by Robin Rist Kildal, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 21:19
|
|
|
Well, if you were intending to take a picture of your friend's breasts I'd say you succeeded. If you were intending to take a reasonably classy picture of your friend who happens to have breasts, I'd say back to the drawing board. I think even just getting her whole head and the mushroom inside the frame would be a big step back towards classyville. I like this one a lot more: http://www.flickr.com/photos/robinkildal/9709762455/in/photostream/
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 21:46
|
|
|
Spime Wrangler posted:Well, if you were intending to take a picture of your friend's breasts I'd say you succeeded. If you were intending to take a reasonably classy picture of your friend who happens to have breasts, I'd say back to the drawing board. I think even just getting her whole head and the mushroom inside the frame would be a big step back towards classyville. I wouldnt really say her breasts are very dominating in the picture, but I do agree about the crop. I should note that the original plan was a "hulder"-like look ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huldra )
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 23:31
|
|
|
Those photos aren't even sexual at all, Jesus. I like the light.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 00:52
|
|
|
Maybe it's not in-your-face sexual by comic book standards, but cleavage dead center square crop with converging lines from arms/legs/face/hair with her head half cropped out and a classically submissive pose isn't going to do you any non-sexualizing favors. The others are fine.
Spime Wrangler fucked around with this message at 01:27 on Sep 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 01:25
|
|
|
Klogdor posted:Shouldnt these be in another thread? I don't think these shots are particularly evocative: I find the branches behind her head a bit of a distraction and her pose / expression is neither here nor there. Huldra's nymphs are softly lit, they have a languid, sort of hazy quality. The model in your ports looks tense, the lighting is hard and it looks more like you've encountered a creature in the woods and shone a torch on her. I can't make my mind up about the high angled shot - I think her expression is interesting but I don't know if it fits what you're going for. Overall I think the tone feels very confused: I get the sense you went in not entirely sure what the feel of the shots was going to be and decided to play it by ear. This can be fine but it smacks of indecision and awkwardness in such a heavily themed shoot. As for the accusations of it being too sexual, I think the problem is that it's not obvious whether you were going for sexual or not but some of the elements in that shot are sexualising. That is absolutely not a problem and it's not like it immediately makes it NOT ART BECAUSE UGH SEX. However, it's back to the problem of unclear themes and tones - I am unsure as to whether you were intending to make it a sexual image or shoot, especially seeing as the other images are distinctly less sexual.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 10:20
|
|
|
Thanks Gaz, that's a much clearer statement of what was bothering me. There's a time and a place but it felt out of place here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 16:48
|
|
|
Ok, when you put it that way, I see what both of you mean, and I agree. But I would like to point out as I said in the beginning that the shoot was going to be something else, and this was playing it by ear. Need to work on that bit, then
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 20:41
|
|
|
As far as I can see the original plan was to go in a forest with leaves and you ended up in a forest with no leaves. It can't have thrown THAT much of a spanner in the works, can it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 12:28
|
|
|
Got a question for you peeps peeps. DSC04547-Edit by Paul Hofreiter, on Flickr I am just finishing up a bunch of pictures from a shoot of an 18 month old. I am doing most of the photos Lightroom > Alien Skin Exposure (because I have 50 keepers from the shoot and I am trying to minimize time per photo), which is giving me good results as I am used to that workflow. This one, though I am doing Lightroom > photoshop. Photoshop has only been because there was a ton of snot visible on her upper lip, chin and nostrils. With that in mind, I am getting into my headshot mindset of fixing every loving thing now. Do you think I need to clean up some of the flyaway hairs on the left of her head? Any other OCD poo poo I should do? I was also considering bumping the exposure a tiny bit or playing with the levels but I don't want to blow out any skin tones. Also considering cloning out the distracting bokeh on the left. This is probably not really going to be on the client's radar one way or another, more me sperging out and trying to learn from it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 19:59
|
|
|
Nah dude it's good. I used to obsess over fly-aways and then I started looking at professional print ads for fashion poo poo and there are fly-aways everywhere. The only time it might be worth pursuing is a genuine, going to be used to look for work headshot, and even then I'd only say if it's distracting. Photo is good, let it be.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 23:36
|
|
|
I think you could bump the contrast a bit. It's not super gray, but I really hate gray black and white images. Just a touch of darker blacks and whiter whites would help, I think.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 05:21
|
|
|
I was pretty bored waiting in an airport the other day so I thought I'd take some pictures of other people bored waiting in an airport. Now I can see things I'd like to have done better in all of these but I quite like the idea and I'll hopefully give it another shot some time.    Not sure what caused the fog in two of them, not had that happen before. All Kodak Tri-X 400 at EI800 shot on my Pentacon Six TL.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 01:53
|
|
|
I think those would all benefit from some curves for contrast.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
They look overexposed in the way that seems to be in vogue with a lot of asian photographers shooting 400H/Portra. I think it's a pretty fresh look on Tri-X.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2013 01:54
|
|
|
aliencowboy posted:They look overexposed in the way that seems to be in vogue with a lot of asian photographers shooting 400H/Portra. I think it's a pretty fresh look on Tri-X. That's how a lot of my tri-x negs look straight out of the scanner.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2013 02:03
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:That's how a lot of my tri-x negs look straight out of the scanner. Mine definitely come out darker than that metered at box speed, but it also might be the freeware scan software that I stubbornly insist on using over Vuescan.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2013 02:29
|
|
|
HP5+ is way better than Tri-X anyway. Untitled by Isaac Sachs, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 08:41
|
|
|
 David by Isaac Sachs, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 19:02
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:That's how a lot of my tri-x negs look straight out of the scanner. aliencowboy posted:Mine definitely come out darker than that metered at box speed, but it also might be the freeware scan software that I stubbornly insist on using over Vuescan. MrBlandAverage posted:HP5+ is way better than Tri-X anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2013 18:13
|
|
|
So, I volunteered myself to take some portrait shots for a friend's book cover. I'm not a portrait photographer at all, so this is going to be way out of my field. My friend is trying to do this on the cheap, which is why she asked me to do it. Supposedly the two people who I will be photographing are semi?-professional models. I have a Pentax K-5. I'm thinking of using my Pentax manual focus 50mm prime f/2 lens. I also have a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, a Tamron 17-200 f2.8, and a Pentax kit 50-200mm f/4-5.6. Which lens do you think would work best for portraiture? I'm leaning towards the 50mm prime and my 17-50. Fill flash will be provided by my Sigma EF-610 super. I have no other lighting besides that and the on-camera flash. All of the shots will be taken outside, though. Nobody is expecting super perfect shots, but I want to give them the best of what I can muster. I'd appreciate any suggestions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2013 12:57
|
|
|
 untitled by s-bothun, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2013 13:59
|
|
|
ZippySLC posted:So, I volunteered myself to take some portrait shots for a friend's book cover. I'm not a portrait photographer at all, so this is going to be way out of my field. My friend is trying to do this on the cheap, which is why she asked me to do it. Supposedly the two people who I will be photographing are semi?-professional models. 70-200mm for head and shoulders, 50mm/17-50mm for anything wider. Longer focal lengths allow you to shoot at larger distances, reducing perspective distortion. Also 200mm at f2.8 is just gravy. Semi-professional means "likes having photos taken of them, 1 in 5 chance actually knows how to pose".
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2013 14:16
|
|
|
XTimmy posted:70-200mm for head and shoulders, 50mm/17-50mm for anything wider. Longer focal lengths allow you to shoot at larger distances, reducing perspective distortion. Also 200mm at f2.8 is just gravy. Cool, thanks! I'm not so worried about the posing as I am with making sure that things are properly exposed and framed right.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2013 15:35
|
|
|
Was really bored at work so I started bringing in my Sinar:
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2013 21:04
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 05:48
|
|
|
 Amy by Isaac Sachs, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 06:53
|
|
|
This reminds me of a FMV game. XTimmy fucked around with this message at 14:47 on Sep 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 13:34
|
|
|
 Scumhead by alkanphel, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 00:25
|
|
|
 Untitled by Isaac Sachs, on Flickr  Untitled by Isaac Sachs, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 02:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 09:25 |
|
|
Phat threads, Reichstag.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 02:50
|
|