|
Bumping this thread. People are (imo) the most interesting things. Everyone, please post more pictures of people.   
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2009 18:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 04:42 |
|
|
You want people? People are my favorite thing to shoot and I do not do it enough.      
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2009 20:15
|
|
|
Whitezombi posted:You want people? People are my favorite thing to shoot and I do not do it enough. This one is my favorite. Everytime I see it, I like it more. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2009 02:21
|
|
|
Whitezombi posted:You want people? People are my favorite thing to shoot and I do not do it enough.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2009 04:17
|
|
|
psylent posted:How did you get the perfectly black background here? Look at the original it's not as perfect as you think (also it's probably a piece of cloth)
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2009 04:30
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:Look at the original it's not as perfect as you think (also it's probably a piece of cloth) Not cloth - I shot this homeless guy in a doorway with basically no light behind him. Probably made it darker in post as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2009 04:49
|
|
|
Ahh, I ask because I was asked to do some corporate headshots at work, and aside from a huge sheet of black paper I got from a photo studio and my 420ex, bouncing off a wall - I really didn't have much of a set up and I didn't really know what I was doing. My background came out dark grey and I've had to photoshop to get it properly black. I really need to learn more about lighting 
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2009 04:57
|
|
|
Try bouncing your flash in a sheet of paper to the side of the subject (so light doesn't spill too much onto your BG) and make sure you background's far away behind (so light falloff helps getting it as dark as possible).
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2009 08:01
|
|
|
I mostly do portraits these days, here are a few of them that I liked.    
365 Nog Hogger fucked around with this message at 12:42 on Sep 10, 2009 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2009 12:37
|
|
|
What the hell, I'll jump in:     I don't know care what anyone says, this remains one of my absolute favorites. She's old, and haggard, and was drunk as hell when that was taken, and I don't think I could replicate that look on her face if you paid me. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2009 01:26
|
|
|
Yeah, and it's miles better than the cookie-cutter pictures above it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2009 01:28
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Yeah, and it's miles better than the cookie-cutter pictures above it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2009 03:50
|
|
|
I agree, actually, that last one is by far your strongest. I think maybe that last one might benefit a tad bit less yellow. Right now she just kind of looks jaundiced. The other pictures are without any context to the viewer, and the people themselves look like they mean something to you, but not much to the viewer. For a specific example, the laughing girl: there's a lack of connection because of the sunglasses, but there's not much else context to look at. Who is this girl? Without context and without eyes or something else interesting to focus on, you lose what makes the photo interesting to an outside party. Your last photo, in contrast, has personality and a fascinating expression that draw a viewer in, well done
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2009 04:02
|
|
|
jackpot posted:Thanks, I think your snapshots are really cute too! You make jokes but I feel like a big pharmaceutical logo for a drug that solves some vaguely described problem would be right at home on any of those other portraits
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2009 04:26
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:You make jokes but I feel like a big pharmaceutical logo for a drug that solves some vaguely described problem would be right at home on any of those other portraits You're saying they're trite and lack personality? I can use that, sincerely. Nonanone says there's no context, no reason for anyone else to care about these? I can use that, too. But a snarky comment from someone who just says "these are all poo poo"? Who gains anything from that?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2009 04:48
|
|
|
In what way did I say gently caress you get out? I said that the last one is much better than the others, which are plain and lack any distinguishing characteristics. It is a pretty good picture, but the ones above it are terrible, I'm sorry.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2009 06:49
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Yeah but what's the difference between his, and this one of yours? Really the only thing redeeming about yours is that it has some vaguely nice colors from being shot on film. And she has perky tits. otherwise it's just as generic. I mean, I agree that both yours and his are plain, but they're good portraits. I'm just not understanding you saying they are terrible when you have some of the same quality stuff in your post.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2009 12:51
|
|
|
I guess my only point was I take criticism just fine, but outright dismissal not so well, and that's what it seemed like to me. If I apologize for getting all butthurt over this (and that's all it was, when you get down to it; I'd had a long day), can we get back to posting some portraits? nonanone posted:
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2009 14:38
|
|
|
The problem is the standard is so high in here that people forget what terrible photos really are. My god the awful stuff I've seen on facebook. Beach photos so overexposed it looks like the sea is a frozen field of arctic tundra. Even if you excuse facebook trash, I've seen "pro" students do things like make only the center third of a picture in color while having the rest in black and white.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2009 18:30
|
|
|
This is kind of true. I have a lot of photographer friends, so it's easy for me to forget sometimes what kind of pictures people usually take, because even the worst of them usually expose things properly. Some other people I know though, what they do to make their photos "artsy" (read as: crank saturation +5000 or black/white so high contrast nothing is recognizable). To be fair though, they usually aren't doing it any sort of serious fashion. I like to think that the crowd here is better than that 
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2009 19:21
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:You make jokes but I feel like a big pharmaceutical logo for a drug that solves some vaguely described problem would be right at home on any of those other portraits Which is perfect if you like making a little bit of money
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2009 00:35
|
|
|
I did a shoot with a girl from Model Mayhem yesterday. The first model I have met on there that actually showed up.     Had a blast learned some good locations in my new city.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2009 01:48
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:I did a shoot with a girl from Model Mayhem yesterday. The first model I have met on there that actually showed up. I'm not sure about the flare/lack of contrast on the subject in the first and last ones. It looks like you shot mostly in harsh, direct sunlight?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2009 03:02
|
|
|
Yeah the lighting is harsh, I like the 3rd one though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2009 03:14
|
|
|
MrButterpants posted:Keep this thread rollin'... I got to see the filming of the first Spiderman movie. It was a fuckoff bright day in October, so they had some lackey/slackjaw holding a PVC frame supporting a plain old white bedsheet (or so it looked) over Tobey Maguire and Kirstin Dunst while they filmed a scene. In the end cut, it was easy to spot what and how they did it. That's how they gobo the sun in the big leagues. :cowboy hat and cigar smilie that I can't be arsed to figure out right now: various posted:...snarking about picture meaning and quality... Yeah, I haven't posted here in a long time. I'm not quite sure I understand the new rules, either. But quit bitching at each other. Everyone has different styles. I might not agree with Reichstag's style and purpose, and I do agree that only redeeming feature of that one picture is that girl's tits, everyone has their own thing going on. Stop making GBS threads up the thread. If all you are going to do is talk about how cliche someone's work is, you might as well just go back to PHIZ and jerk off over your Holga shots. If they make you money, great on you. If they don't, hey, try to be constructive. Personally, I'm not a big fan of ConfusedUs or the guy with the "16 year old whores" avatar (sorry, I can't recall the name right now), but I understand what they are doing, and they offer good criticism, AND *MOST ESPECIALLY* they are making a living at what they do. Anyways, sorry about the rant. I like that there's a new photo forum. I hope Mannequin and Brad can keep everything in line. edit: I fully expect to be flamed and/or probated. But really, though, I'm trying to import a voice of reason into the 2009 CC threads. plaguedoctor fucked around with this message at 09:25 on Sep 12, 2009 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2009 07:58
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:I'm not sure about the flare/lack of contrast on the subject in the first and last ones. It looks like you shot mostly in harsh, direct sunlight? Yes we shot around 4 to 5 in the afternoon and the sun was wicked harsh. I just kinda ran with it and experimented with flare. I like the way they ended up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2009 10:31
|
|
|
psylent posted:Ahh, I ask because I was asked to do some corporate headshots at work, and aside from a huge sheet of black paper I got from a photo studio and my 420ex, bouncing off a wall - I really didn't have much of a set up and I didn't really know what I was doing. My background came out dark grey and I've had to photoshop to get it properly black. Keeping your shutter speed at max flash sync (most likely 1/250 sec) to knock down the ambient....shooting at a 'normal' portrait f/ stop (8-16 depending on lighting) and subject distance from background are the most important things in turning a background black. Because of the inverse square rule with light, the subject distance to background yeilds the most effective results. Keep your flash to subject distance the same if you like the exposure and walk them both 10' from your backdrop....amazing difference...no more grey
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2009 02:49
|
|
|
MrButterpants: where can I learn more of what you just said?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2009 03:22
|
|
|
Try this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2009 11:43
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Yeah but what's the difference between his, and this one of yours? Really the only thing redeeming about yours is that it has some vaguely nice colors from being shot on film. And she has perky tits. otherwise it's just as generic. oh god thank you for this being shot on film doesn't really make a photo technically better, show that you have any sort of preconceived vision or give it much artistic merit yes you chose a funky frame of the person with their face covered (!!!!!!!) but the pot sure is calling the kettle black when you call another dude's photos snapshots
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2009 18:32
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:I did a shoot with a girl from Model Mayhem yesterday. The first model I have met on there that actually showed up. I like the second one. It looks like an album cover, especially if it were cropped square with just the top part left. I can imagine the text to the right of the model. The flare is fine the way you used it. It lends the photos a dreamy sort of quality, like a lazy summer afternoon. It's good that you didn't go overboard with it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2009 19:15
|
|
|
HPL posted:I like the second one. It looks like an album cover, especially if it were cropped square with just the top part left. I can imagine the text to the right of the model. I think that one would be perfect with a white reflector thrown in the mix.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2009 19:29
|
|
|
Hot Cops posted:yes you chose a funky frame of the person with their face covered (!!!!!!!)  (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2009 19:55
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:The point is that your conception of what defines a legitimate piece of art or even quality photography is a purely subjective assessment. Simply because YOU find your work to be more valid than someone else's because your image meets your standards (obviously, you are working to meet your own standards...) and theirs is aimed to their standards does not make it so, just as someone else's assessment of your work by their standards does not make your work less valid than theirs. That aside, you have yet to delineate exactly what it is about your work that you feel is so remarkable that it takes no explanation. Assume that the rest of us are mere plebes who have looked up from our Bob Ross tapes and Olan Mills family portraits to stare in wonder at the artistry that is your work, and explain. TsarAleksi fucked around with this message at 20:28 on Sep 14, 2009 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2009 20:25
|
|
|
Hot Cops posted:I think that one would be perfect with a white reflector thrown in the mix. I really could have used someone there to hold reflectors. Luckily once a few of my friends volunteered to assist me in the future. I told them as long as they don't oogle the models too much they are welcome.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2009 20:30
|
|
|
8th samurai, I really like that 2nd one too. The third seems awfully blue though. I think you did a great job with the conditions you had. (and a great job overall, though I like the last one the least)
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2009 20:54
|
|
|
Conversely, I think if the last one had a little more contrast it would be my favourite. Just something about it I like but can't put my finger on. Plus the muted colours, etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2009 21:08
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:You know I like your work, but anytime anyone tries to get you to articulate what you're doing you avoid it with responses like this which is pretty lame.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2009 22:18
|
|
|
brad industry posted:You know I like your work, but anytime anyone tries to get you to articulate what you're doing you avoid it with responses like this which is pretty lame. It seems a bit funny that people suddenly care about that sort of thing in a thread that has thus far been 100% about gear/technique and had a very strong 'commercial' bias.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2009 22:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 04:42 |
|
|
Reichstag posted:It seems a bit funny that people suddenly care about that sort of thing in a thread that has thus far been 100% about gear/technique and had a very strong 'commercial' bias. Yeah, it has, but tsar's questions still stands.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2009 23:01
|
|
