|
Duckjob posted:Who says 300/2.8s cant be used for portraits literally noone?
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 07:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 19:58 |
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:literally noone? That's a relief  5D3_7022 by capacity4action, on Flickr  5D3_0674 by capacity4action, on Flickr  5D3_0857 by capacity4action, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 07:25
|
|
|
Duckjob posted:
This is dope.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 07:32
|
|
|
Full body shots at 300mm sounds like a pain
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 07:46
|
|
|
 A snap from a little weekend trip. Shot on Fuji Acros with an orange filter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 11:07
|
|
|
1st AD posted:I really like these, what's your light setup? Also, I really need an 85 1.8. Thanks! I shot these in the office, and since out PocketWizards are the flakiest things I know, we went with hot lights. One camera left bounced off of the white side of a V-flat with a topper, and a counterlight to the right, in back. Does the skintone in your first image seem a little bit green to anyone else?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 14:15
|
|
|
I probably went overboard with the split toning, I was trying to cool down the background a bit. How about now? DSC_0001 by chazaraz, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
Did a photoshoot in an abandoned building back in December, only finished processing recently. What do you guys think?   
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
depends on what you're going for. It's not really to my taste but if you're going for a niche they might like it. Batman makeup looks pretty bad and you could maybe darken it up on post.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:depends on what you're going for. Paragon8 posted:
Batman makeup? I'm not sure what you mean...
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 02:02
|
|
|
Drop Database posted:A goth-themed shoot. We discussed the theme together, but I left the details of outfit and makeup up to the model. A stylist I am, sadly, not the badly blended undereye makeup that looks like the batman symbol. It's worth burning the edges to give it more definition. It looks okay from far away, but the close up looks badly applied. The all black liner and red lips look good. Like yeah, it's a goth themed photoshoot. That's not to my taste so I'm going to be biased content wise, but I think the makeup could be touched up a little bit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
For a Goth shoot, I wouldn't have personally gone for a high key look. And yeah, that eye makeup is pretty bad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 02:51
|
|
|
1st AD posted:For a Goth shoot, I wouldn't have personally gone for a high key look. My thinking was "high key to make the skin paler and put more contrast into the makeup". Doesn't work? What would have been a better idea lighting-wise? Colors/Lighting-wise, would you say these are better or worse still? They're from the same shoot  
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 03:07
|
|
|
Drop Database posted:Colors/Lighting-wise, would you say these are better or worse still? They're from the same shoot Much worse. The first one is really green and a bit cyan and the second one is really orange/yellow.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:Much worse. The first one is really green and a bit cyan and the second one is really orange/yellow. I'm pretty sure that's intentional.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 03:56
|
|
|
rear end is my canvas posted:I'm pretty sure that's intentional. It was. The green one to go with the witch hair and horrid grin, the orange more or less to see how it would look. But, I guess, if I have to specify that, my photos aren't communicating that message adequately on their own  Last couple, and then I'll stop spamming you guys  BW any better?  Shadowed eyes for extra moodyness 
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
Why did you take those pictures and why is that makeup and outfit?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
365 Nog Hogger posted:Why did you take those pictures and why is that makeup and outfit? I'm not sure which way you mean that... If you mean "what made you choose that makeup and outfit?", then it was the result of a discussion between the model and me. I figured that look would work well with this model, and we worked together on achieving it, with the resources we had available. I wouldn't say we got 100% there, but it's not too far from how it looked in my head, all things considered. If you mean "what is the artistic message?" then... I guess it's something like "goth girls are, and this girl in particular is sexy". It's not the most advanced artistic statement in the world, no  If you mean "why did you take these, you loving suck", then I'm really not sure how to reply...
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 04:18
|
|
|
I think the things that bug me most about these photos are 1)the eye makeup, it looks really poorly applied and not really extreme/edgy enough to compensate for it, 2)her outfits aren't very flattering for her figure, and 3)she needs something done to her hair because it's really flat. The lighting and location are more of my own taste biases at work, but having a lot more shadow would've helped I think. I tried GISing for good goth photos to compare, but they all kind of stink.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
Duckjob posted:
thetzar posted:
Really like the colors on these. This is the best from the set. It's the only one where the pose is flattering (although ruined by what she's wearing/the make-up) and the angle her face is at softens her gigantic jaw. Drop Database posted:Colors/Lighting-wise, would you say these are better or worse still? They're from the same shoot Bro these are real bad and you really shouldn't have to ask why. 1st AD posted:I think the things that bug me most about these photos are 1)the eye makeup, it looks really poorly applied and not really extreme/edgy enough to compensate for it, 2)her outfits aren't very flattering for her figure, and 3)she needs something done to her hair because it's really flat. The best place I have seen to find stuff like that is Suicide Girls. Seriously, they have some really good photographers working for them and all they do is alt modeling.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 05:52
|
|
|
Thanks for your feedback!mr. mephistopheles posted:This is the best from the set. It's the only one where the pose is flattering (although ruined by what she's wearing/the make-up) and the angle her face is at softens her gigantic jaw. mr. mephistopheles posted:Bro these are real bad and you really shouldn't have to ask why. 1st AD posted:I think the things that bug me most about these photos are 1)the eye makeup, it looks really poorly applied and not really extreme/edgy enough to compensate for it, 2)her outfits aren't very flattering for her figure, and 3)she needs something done to her hair because it's really flat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 06:29
|
|
|
I didn't think the greeny one was too bad. Your pictures are just easy to pick on because your subject doesn't really fit whatever you're going for. When you do something themed, it's really important that it's impeccable, or it ends up looking cheapened and cheesy. (Think Renaissance fair pics) Yes it's styling and part of photography is knowing when the styling/model/scene/everything doesn't look right, though you don't necessarily have to know how to fix it. I think your photography is very adequate and if you keep shooting you'll improve quickly. You have the right idea, and in a year you'll be really embarrassed about this shoot. The shadowed one you posted last is pretty good too. Doesn't show "sexy goth!" But I think it's a nice portrait of a younger goth person who wants to be taken seriously in the world kinda thing. nonanone fucked around with this message at 06:51 on Feb 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 06:49
|
|
|
Drop Database posted:I am with you on the makeup thing (I guess I should have tried to edit it in post maybe. I can't fix it directly, don't know much about actual physical makeup). I also agree with you about the jaw... I've tried to cover it with hair, arms, pose in most shots, with mixed success. While we're on it, what's wrong with what she's wearing? Honest question, I'm not trying to argue... It's more trashy than sexy and it doesn't flatter her body at all. The thigh high boots just make her thighs look huge. Her rear end looks like it's fighting a war with the back of whatever the hell that thing is, and personal taste I just don't like the collar and it looks more biker/metal than the goth dominatrix whatever she's going for. The technical aspects of the photo are all really solid, though. It's well lit, exposed, and composed. Drop Database posted:Can I, though? Ask why, that is.. What's obvious to you may not be equally obvious to me, and vice versa... The goal is to make her look sexy, right? Does anything about these look sexy to you? I mean I get that you toned the top one green on purpose, but why? Was your goal to make her look sickly and gross? The bottom could work in a situation with softer lighting and no make-up where you were just trying to capture a "raw" portrait of her, but given the circumstances it's just all wrong. If a photo makes your model look ugly, then it's a bad photo. Even if your model is ugly in a traditional sense (not saying that's the case here) you should still be trying to find some kind of beauty in them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 06:50
|
|
|
Drop Database posted:
It's flat. She's got no volume. It looks like it's been air dried instead of blow dried (or maybe she flat ironed it but tbqh it looks kind of messy close up). She needs a ton of volume (usually achieve this with tons of heat and brushing as the hair dries) because she's got a big head and really prominent forehead and jaw. She has thin hair too. Some kind of volumizing styling product would help here. Or maybe if she had bangs, but that's not something you could've fixed ahead of time. Again, on another model a flat iron look could look really good, but your model is not thin and lanky and she's got huge facial features on top of that. Drop Database posted:While we're on it, what's wrong with what she's wearing? Honest question, I'm not trying to argue... The clothes don't fit her. They're too tight and really exaggerate how big her thighs are. Also the shots where she's wearing her bra...I think that's an ugly bra. 1st AD fucked around with this message at 08:40 on Feb 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 08:05
|
|
|
nonanone posted:I didn't think the greeny one was too bad. Your pictures are just easy to pick on because your subject doesn't really fit whatever you're going for. When you do something themed, it's really important that it's impeccable, or it ends up looking cheapened and cheesy. (Think Renaissance fair pics) Yes it's styling and part of photography is knowing when the styling/model/scene/everything doesn't look right, though you don't necessarily have to know how to fix it. nonanone posted:in a year you'll be really embarrassed about this shoot.  mr. mephistopheles posted:It's more trashy than sexy and it doesn't flatter her body at all. The thigh high boots just make her thighs look huge. Her rear end looks like it's fighting a war with the back of whatever the hell that thing is, and personal taste I just don't like the collar and it looks more biker/metal than the goth dominatrix whatever she's going for. The technical aspects of the photo are all really solid, though. It's well lit, exposed, and composed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 08:35
|
|
|
Drop Database posted:This is the most helpful feedback, thank you very much. The point hes making isnt that you should choose better looking models wearing better clothes, it's that despite the circumstances (sometimes we cant avoid the fact the models will make terrible decisions in wardrobe and makeup) you shouldnt highlight those facts and on top of that add a sickly gross color that makes her look extremely unattractive. I mean, the first photo you posted is "im trying to be sexy" then you go on some weird tangent where you want to make her "edgy" and "dark" but it looks so weird because you can tell shes also trying to be sexy and I have no idea what the gently caress. (though to be fair, you should start communicating with your models a bit. I think its pretty obvious her eye makeup looks like poo poo, and unless you're going for a cheap tacky look (which you're not) you should be honest and offer some suggestions.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 09:37
|
|
|
1st AD posted:It's flat. She's got no volume. It looks like it's been air dried instead of blow dried (or maybe she flat ironed it but tbqh it looks kind of messy close up). I get that the hair's look doesn't match the model's look, that's about all somnambulist posted:(though to be fair, you should start communicating with your models a bit. I think its pretty obvious her eye makeup looks like poo poo, and unless you're going for a cheap tacky look (which you're not) you should be honest and offer some suggestions.) I pretty much had no idea, actually. I think I need a stylist advisor...
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 11:59
|
|
|
When you shoot in fashion/portraiture it's tempting to cede creative control to models because there's an assumption they know makeup or styling. That's fine starting out for the most part but you need to develop an aesthetic style of what you shoot as much as your technical expertise. I style most of my shoots myself now because it's always a crap shoot when a model decides to style herself. The other week I had a girl show up with lingerie that looked like it was made out of a vintage floral curtain. awful. Fortunately I have enough samples to put her into something decent. Makeup is tough, I'm generally very particular. I still shoot girls without MUAs on occasion but I try to be quite clear on what I want. I go with standard natural though because again you can't expect models to have competency with photographic makeup. Look at stuff you like and break down outfits from there. Have an idea of what you want to go for. Lean heavily on moodboards.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 12:18
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:When you shoot in fashion/portraiture it's tempting to cede creative control to models because there's an assumption they know makeup or styling. That's fine starting out for the most part but you need to develop an aesthetic style of what you shoot as much as your technical expertise. I think I need to spend a lot more time thinking of style-related stuff. So far, it's very unformed in my head. I just kinda think... nice-looking model + careful execution = nice resulting shots, but it's obviously more complicated than that...
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 13:55
|
|
|
Technical competence is probably the least important part of taking a picture of a person. You put out a picture you're judged for all of it. If everything else is mediocre but it's nicely lit, who cares? Your audience isn't other photographers although the internet certainly makes it feel that way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
It's a very bad assumption to think that careful execution of a shot DOESN'T include good styling, hair, and makeup.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
1st AD posted:It's a very bad assumption to think that careful execution of a shot DOESN'T include good styling, hair, and makeup. Yes exactly, and as the photographer you're the captain of all of that. Even if you can't do makeup yourself being able to identify who can and give them guidance is important. Everything has to integrate with each other.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
So I might get laughed out of here but I'm not sure where else to ask this: I've been job hunting, saw an ad for a company called Lifetouch, needing a photographer to work doing church directory portraits. Commission based, paid training, expense reimbursement and so on. I applied, just did the first interview and will be contacted tomorrow for the second interview with the local guy I'll be working with. So I started looking at reviews and it's overwhelmingly negative. I asked a couple photog friends who do studio and portraiture and they had plenty to say about the company: it's the McDonald's of photography, cheap poo poo quality with inflated prices and so on. Also that it appearing on my resume would probably get me made fun of. Is this on the mark, or is my friend being a bit heavy handed? I don't want to do it the rest of my life, and a job's a job. Or would my time be better spent going back to school and doing an internship, which was my original plan this year?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
crime fighting hog posted:So I might get laughed out of here but I'm not sure where else to ask this: I know two people who do it and the comparisons to McDonalds are pretty spot-on. You never get enough time to cover all of the students you're assigned, you get no support when you're on location, and anything that can possibly go wrong, from the school scheduling an assembly/fire drill, to kids goofing off, is ultimately your fault. Saying it's commission-based means that you get your salary if you hit your quotas. It seems like a pretty good way to make yourself sick of photography. It'd be like working in a toll booth because you like cars.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
bisticles posted:I know two people who do it and the comparisons to McDonalds are pretty spot-on. You never get enough time to cover all of the students you're assigned, you get no support when you're on location, and anything that can possibly go wrong, from the school scheduling an assembly/fire drill, to kids goofing off, is ultimately your fault. Saying it's commission-based means that you get your salary if you hit your quotas. It seems like a pretty good way to make yourself sick of photography. That's what I'm reading more and more. I'd be working churches instead of schools but, small difference. I'll ask in the second interview some more questions and hope he doesn't kill my bullshit detector but I ain't exactly that desperate for work yet. I'm leaning more towards school anyways.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
I am totally burnt out after work these days but managed to get some time in with some friends. We took pictures, I'm happy with a few of them. 105A2609 by Breanne Unger, on Flickr  105A2567 by Breanne Unger, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 08:04
|
|
|
CarrotFlowers posted:I am totally burnt out after work these days but managed to get some time in with some friends. We took pictures, I'm happy with a few of them. I really enjoy the second one, very intense and probably a lot of fun to shoot. Is... is that smoke real? I like the processing on the first one, nice tone and shot with nice light, but the hair-flop seems a bit strange. Less like wind or a flip and more like someone's pulling on pigtails.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 14:28
|
|
|
CarrotFlowers posted:I am totally burnt out after work these days but managed to get some time in with some friends. We took pictures, I'm happy with a few of them. I like the second one. It's androgynous in a great way. Also not sure if that smoke is real.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
I'd like to comment on Drop Database pictures because he/she seems puzzled as to why bad styling could spoil a picture, even if the technical aspect of it is good. In your pictures, it looks like the model made her skin tone very even with foundation, then used a black liner of sort to do the rest. The foundation evens out everything so well that it will look very flat on picture, and in person as well. The black eye makeup also looks like it was applied with those thick halloween makeup stick that you dip in water. When makeup is used, there is a need to bring shapes back into the face after the foundation. A method called contouring will achieve that. I got this picture from a subreddit on makeup. I don't think this lady set up a crazy photoshoot to show her face, but still the result is very good and her face doesn't look flat. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 03:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 19:58 |
|
|
Also note how generally subtle it is, the eye shadow and blush are just there to contour her face and match quite well with the lipstick color but aren't in your face either. Also her eyebrows are impeccable. And her lashes have definition and her application of mascara is VERY clean and professional looking. Honestly I really should learn how to do makeup, because I am really fascinated by good examples of it and it'd be one less thing for me to worry about on shoots where I can't afford a MUA.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 05:22
|
|