|
Whitezombi posted:I have a couple of questions guys. I think NSFW them and it should be okay.
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2010 18:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 05:09 |
|
|
Hanpan posted:Had my first experience with setting up my own lighting rig yesterday... I was really worried incase I messed it all up but the set came out really nicely. I'll update this post with some more later, but here is the first shot I ran through photoshop: I agree with Poop, it sort of makes her skin look basketball like. I'm looking forward to the other shots, I think you might have a good set .
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2010 12:42
|
|
|
Hanpan posted:Hmm, it's odd because the original JPG isn't so bad... does Flickr sharpen up the images or something? I completely agree though, I'll smooth them out a bit. flickr does sharpen images a bit, so it might be that.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2010 13:36
|
|
|
Blakles posted:But there's light all over her face? the camera captures the image faster than how long it takes for the pupils to contract from exposure to the strobes.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2010 16:54
|
|
|
haha, that was great. Because we've got a mix of styles of portrait shooters here, I was wondering what everyone's attitudes were regarding post processing. Especially with things like using liquify to alter facial shapes and slim people down. At first I was all "raaar, straight out of camera bitches" but now I'm doing a lot more post. This is what I was messing around with earlier just to work with airbrushing and liquify. Just quick and dirty. I know the shoulder got a little messed up. edit: bah, accidentally linked them giant. will fix in a bit
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2010 17:14
|
|
|
Fragrag posted:I've got a shoot tomorrow with a model who's missing a leg. Any tips on posing her without drawing too much attention to that fact? Use the clone tool in processing?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2010 20:50
|
|
|
 yay, testing. I think I can really use this model.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2010 19:14
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:She has some really deeply inset eyes. You could really benefit from hitting her with a reflector. I would slso have gotten rid of her hair thing, it's getting lost in the shadow behind her. It also looks like the clasp on her necklace is down one side. Yeah, it was just a super quick test as her profile on MM was pretty terrible and I wanted to shoot her in person before I arranged a proper shoot. So yeah, outfit/styling is all her. I should have noted the hairclip but blah, just a quick tester shoot. The posing is intentionally so, I didn't want her to look too comfortable. More imperial and distant.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2010 19:23
|
|
|
fronkpies posted:I know your in the UK, so how has your experience with MM been? Model Mayhem is terrible but it's the best option of the terrible sites. I'd love to get more into shooting tests for agencies but I'm not quite there yet - I have assisted on a few though, and it's really different. I put up a casting call about a week ago - got about 15 responses to it. I have two makeup artists willing to work with me based on that. Of the 10 or so suitable models that responded to my very specific and detailed casting call, hardly any messaged back after their initial message. With models my best success has come with just searching through recently active profiles and messaging those who have fairly weak portfolios but I think have potential. You have to burn a lot of calories getting anything together but I feel once I've actually met up with the model I'll have a much better chance of shooting her again which is why I'm liking this method of doing tests as an introduction before I go to the trouble of setting up makeup and studio time. I've had some pretty ridiculous flakes - like one model with an amazing port emailed me about a last minute shoot the next day if I got a MUA. Nobody of course was available so the model said okay how about in two days - I found a MUA etc. and texted her back - No reply. It's ultimately a numbers game and you just have to be persistant and message a lot of people.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2010 14:10
|
|
|
AtomicManiac posted:I'm having way better luck just asking cute friends. Once you get a few semi-competent shots to show, most girls jump at the chance, and it's not like most of the Models on MM are super experienced and you're missing out on anything amazing. Also, cute girls usually have cute friends, and before you know it you'll have people you don't know wanting to be your friend on facebook, which is girl code for "Please ask me to be a model". That's all well and good except when you have to deal with insecure jealous boyfriends.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2010 11:15
|
|
|
AtomicManiac posted:The key is to invite the boyfriend along, and all of a sudden you've got someone to hold the reflector/light stand. Another good trick is to involve the boyfriend in the shoot, just kind of play dumb and let him suggest a few poses, then work off that. There's been more than one time where the "escort" has suggested a shot that ended up being one of my favorites from a shoot. haha, that would be fine if my female friends didn't exclusively date hilariously insecure guys who are threatened by me. It's sort of ironic because I have a really professional mindset when I work with female models, so me shooting someone's girlfriend is basically the closest to a guarantee that I won't try to sleep with her.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2010 11:38
|
|
|
jackpot posted:I want to know if she looked at this and said "You made me look pregnant." What are you trying to achieve with this comment? Are you trying to a dick because you could have phrased that much more constructively or just attacked the inexplicable trend of empire waisted tops instead of my photography.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2010 20:41
|
|
Because honestly, I look at that and I can't un-see it; the transparency and the way the shirt hangs, it just looks like she's got a bump.
|
torgeaux posted:Take poster history into account, you'll find it was an inartful critique, not deliberate dickishness. I've met one girl who looks good in an empire waisted top, they're so ridiculous. Anyway, might as well throw in a picture!  Tests! by Steve takes pictures, on Flickr
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2010 20:48
|
|
|
thetzar posted:For the shot on the left, did you use any light of your own, or is it all natural? Natural. If I had someone on hand I would have tried to pop a reflector on her.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2010 23:26
|
|
|
My technique is to date models! Sadly my plan hasn't gotten past coming up with that idea 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2010 12:51
|
|
|
Had four tests last week. I learnt a lot doing them, all the people involved were really happy which was great. Anyway, I'm super nervous about posting these since the last time I posted in this thread I drat near had my day ruined by someone asking if the models hated my pictures because I made them look pregnant. It's awesome to work with a great creative team and I really recommend getting in good with a MUA or stylist.         
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2010 20:44
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:These two are the best, they are clean and simple with good attitude from the models. I also really like the last three, but I have a hard time objectively critiquing them because the model is too drat hot. I really don't like the first one because her hair is too over exposed, and when the texture is lost there, it's just not as pleasing to look at. Yeah, I lost a lot of perspective after spending so long editing it. Some people really seem to love it though, so that works for me. I agree with you, and if I had the patience I probably would have tried to do more to recover or clone more hair detail in it. I find it interesting how the two best ones you picked were so fundamentally different behind the camera. The first was the product of a whole team of people in a really fancy location, and the second was just me and the model in a backstreet. Personally my favorite shoot was the first one I posted, with the overexposed hair. The team just got on a lot better and it felt more fun than work.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2010 12:42
|
|
|
Zaran posted:What sort of lighting did you go with for the on your own backally shots? Just a strobe in a softbox or mostly natual light? Everything was natural light except the last three which were studio and used either one or two softboxes.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2010 14:26
|
|
|
Gazmachine posted:To add to this - for eye bags, I like to use a clone stamp set to lighten with about 20-30% opacity. You need to be careful with it, though, and use a little trial and error. Zero bag detail under the eyes can look mighty weird, so just work non-destructively and have a practice. It works a charm, though. okay. I usually use an incredibly ocd way of retouching by finding a nice bit of skin and copy and pasting it and making a layer mask out of that and slightly reduce the opacity.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2010 19:43
|
|
|
Haggins posted:I don't get what you're trying to do with this photo. It's a classic playboy shot - have a topless model and artfully hide the pussy with some foliage.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2010 15:35
|
|
|
You're cropping too tight in my opinion. I think a lot of them would be improved if they were more head and shoulders. Also the 2nd picture seems like it's distorted, or your friend has an unusual face. The last one is a little underexposed. Try a black and white conversion perhaps
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2010 01:27
|
|
|
not a huge fan of the bright green, I'd desaturate it a bit
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2010 00:53
|
|
|
psylent posted:This is one of my first attempts at skin smoothing, too much? Does anyone have a link to a tutorial for a good one? the skin looks a little uneven, try copy and pasting sections of "good skin" and building a layer mask out of that and then you can use it to create silky smooth skin. PS. Tell your wife internet stranger Paragon8 says you're awesome for being so patient with your husband.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2010 00:05
|
|
|
holy poo poo one of the photographers I assist let me sit in on meetings with model agencies today. it's like a goddamn candy store of fantastic models and you don't have to put up with MM poo poo. When I say you I don't mean us mortals however Hopefully I can start testing with the lesser agencies soon.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2010 00:04
|
|
|
On a shoot I once asked a makeup artist to sort of explain what she was doing as she was doing it. It's incredibly complex and skilled work and they do it fast an accurately too. I was really impressed with it and gained a new respect for makeup artists.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2010 18:12
|
|
|
HPL posted:I'm thinking really simple stuff like taking care of shiny skin or noticeable blemishes so I don't have to spend ages dealing with unwanted highlights etc etc. I think a good place to start would just be asking the next MUA you work with. It's especially tricky as a guy I think to pick it up now as we don't have a lifetime of practice with not poking eyes out with mascara brushes.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2010 18:41
|
|
|
properly planned natural light is the best.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2010 18:20
|
|
|
BobTheCow posted:I've definitely come full circle. I used to be afraid of lights, shooting au naturale, then picked up some lights and used them more and more to the point where they were almost a crutch, and now I'm back to trying to use as much natural light as possible when it makes sense. A reflector is a wonderful tool! I absolutely agree with you. I assist some ridiculously good photographers who almost exclusively use natural light (Hell I know more than they do about strobes) and because they are able to pick and choose when and where they shoot they can produce spectacular results. So I've gone from natural -> strobist -> studio -> natural again. For example this cover was shot on a shoot I was assisting on - all natural light, no reflector even. 
Paragon8 fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Sep 17, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2010 19:45
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:In addition to your sister, I see you've managed to catch a picture of the elusive, near-mythical, Floating Canon. haha, I just noticed that.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2010 21:53
|
|
|
BobTheCow posted:Haven't had any time for portraiture for the past few weeks, but was able to squeeze in some time yesterday for this girl who wanted some swimsuit shots before it gets too cold. As it turns out, I had no idea how to pose this! (Didn't realize this was the sort of thing she wanted beforehand.) She didn't either, so it was sort of trial by fire. I think the main issue is an inconstancy with the look of the model and the style you're trying to shoot. The first one is probably the best. It's classic, it doesn't try to hard. Posing wise I would change the angle of the hip as it's pointing too far down and the pelvis is making a weird twist. It's hard to explain. I'm sorry. The second shot - her face is trying to sell me girl scout cookies but the thumb in the bikini bottoms runs counter to that. Shooting from a top down angle hurts it as well. The third shot is okay. I really love the water and sky in that, but with a bikini shot that's not what you're going for. I think hands on hips would have suited this more. The model doesn't quite pull of the sexy hands behind her head pose. The fourth - the pose just kills it. Sorry. Ultimately I think the problems are more with the model than you. She's more cute than sexy, except in the first images where she does a passable attempt at sexy. Crossposting from SAD-   
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2010 22:37
|
|
|
HPL posted:Was there a makeup artist on the shoot? I think that would have probably helped if there wasn't. The cuteness comes from the fact that she is either wearing very little makeup if any at all. Adding stuff like eye shadow, eyelashes and good lip color would go a long way to create a solidly sexy look. You can see in Paragon's photos how makeup really brings out the smouldering eyes of the model. haha, you gave me a heart attack for a second because I thought you were asking about the makeup on my pictures at first. Yeah, I strongly recommend using a makeup artist. I'm very hesitant about working without one these days. In addition to their obvious role, it's good to have another person on the shoot. Makes it feel more friendly in my opinion.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2010 23:53
|
|
|
Pow! Developed this set as my own editorial.     These are from a test   
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2010 14:27
|
|
|
The main reason I processed the image further as I initially marked down in my cull was that the primary photographer on the shoot lost all his images when his HD failed so it was up to me to fill the agency's wishes for the shoot. That was pretty much the only full length I had of her - and if I moved back further I would have fallen into the canal. It's weird because people seem to really really love it but to me it's more of a salvage job than anything else. That being said I do feel it's more important to preserve the space between her arm and the top of the frame than her feet and the bottom of the frame - so I'm not too bothered with that. The framing was the best I could manage with the equipment and access I had as an assistant. Thanks for your comments, guys. I'm also really impressed by her composure - prior to that shot I'd almost fallen into the canal twice already and she was almost in tears laughing at me
Paragon8 fucked around with this message at 16:09 on Oct 28, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2010 16:04
|
|
|
  
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2010 01:29
|
|
|
dunkman posted:I'm doing an actual business headshot thing for a friend of mine as a favor in my studio. Just talk to them and get them relaxed and take a lot of shots and you're bound to get something usable.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2010 20:20
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:New shoot from this weekend. Just one note composition wise- I think the photo would be a lot more interesting if you cloned out or cropped out that rock in the lower left. If you do that it'll remove the ground from the image and make it look more like he's randomly sitting on a wall with no sense of bottom or top. I like the styling on it a whole lot.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2010 15:36
|
|
|
rear end is my canvas posted:Hand puppet. ahahaha
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2010 21:39
|
|
|
nothing like a good head crop. like mcmadcow says the only real rule I'd say with cropping is to avoid joints.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2010 01:13
|
|
|
yeah - when the point of focus you want the image to have is the eyes then head cropping does a lot to emphasize them in size.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2010 15:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 05:09 |
|
|
A retoucher can be just another member of a creative team on a shoot - like a makeup artist or a hairstylist. I would be wary of a retoucher doing more than "retouching" though. I consider retouching and manipulation separate. the Redskins to Giants jersey is definitely manipulation to me. I would see nothing wrong with contracting out a retoucher to do tedious stuff like skin or hair but I wouldn't want them making creative decisions like color tone etc. Personally it does sketch me out a bit to end my own stuff to a retoucher, just because I like having control over the picture and I would feel it would affect my integrity as a photographer.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2011 15:38
|
|