|
Gazmachine posted:I think one of my main problems is formalising my technique. I'm an implicit learner and find it much easier to experiment and try things and as opposed to reading cold, hard facts and then applying them. I normally find the closest focus point, choose it manually and use that to focus, so that is my usual practice. I just wanted to pipe in and say that I focus and recompose wide open all the drat time. I don't really care if it's wrong, but I'm also not anal about focus. Softness doesn't bother me at all, though I know it does for a lot of people. But honestly, no one has ever noticed or mentioned it in my work. I think it's a bit of a style-thing really. If the style demands that it be super sharp, then I use a higher aperture that still allows me to focus and recompose. I'm probably doing everything wrong though, so there's that.
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2012 01:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 06:55 |
|
|
McMadCow posted:If you guys think random people are pushy about controlling access to their pictures, wait till you start working with "models". Excuse me, can I just look through what you've shot so far? I don't like that one, you should delete it. Oh, I photograph better in this pose, trust me. Try to get the left side, that's my good side tehehe. It's me in the picture, I own my image! I know a little photoshop, I'm going to make your picture look more flattering. I look fat in this picture. And this one and this one and this one and this one and this one.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2012 19:19
|
|
|
Yeah they all look really great. If you ever feel bad about a blurry picture, go take a walk in any showing of the fashion masters. "Crispness" has never been a thing to worry about. You have great chemistry with this model that shows through, though I personally think that her "natural look" in the 3rd picture you posted is the best, very real.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2012 14:11
|
|
|
I like the new one better. The flow feels better to me, looking at it.Cyberbob posted:All natural light despite me being eager to use strobes that day. This one is kind of like... you wanted to shoot fashion so you stick a girl in a dress and put her near something cool? But it feels like getting so excited to do that, you left out a lot of details. The emphasis should be on the clothing, and the structure should only be used to enhance that. But the structure doesn't echo anything in the dress and feels like it's just there because it's "cool." The fence and pole on the right is also very distracting and looks messy. The theme of the clothing should complement the photograph, but it hardly seems part of it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2012 17:47
|
|
|
I like it with the empty space, kind of draws attention to it, like as if the ghost is the spirit of his past, and the empty space represents his future without that.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2012 15:06
|
|
|
I do feel like the sand is a little too blown out though, like clean it up completely, or give it more definition. The water/waterline background right behind her head is really nice and brings the attention right to her face, which is also a great expression.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2012 03:26
|
|
|
Penpal posted:I like this one but I think the shadows are a little cool, i'd go into the curves for the blue channel and bring a little bit to the orange. This is a very good portrait  engaging, yet simple.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2012 16:22
|
|
|
Well, for one, I think you should change or get rid of your watermark (and perhaps posting in the portfolio thread for critique on that) and focus on photographing people, not just a thing you have in front of you. Which is not to say you can't focus on their bodies (and many good photographers do) but in this case, you seem to have ignored your subjects faces and expressions in favor of "what a photograph of a sexy person is supposed to look like". What are you trying to show about them? Are you trying to show off their bodies? Study those powerful athlete photographs (ESPN's nude ones are a great example) to see how you can do that. Are they supposed to be promotional? You probably want to make them look more appealing, for one, and good expressions are a huge part of that. Their body positions are also very passive, and not interesting. In particular, the "pornstar" if you want her to look something other than... ummm, for lack of a better word, cheap, you'll need to put more thought into it, including the styling and the lighting. A better lighting set up will help it feel not so "harsh" and also mask any skin problems naturally, rather than bring them out. Higher quality styling will make her look professionally sexy (so to speak) and less like her clothes/jewelry were picked out from a strip club. I highly suggest checking out designer lingerie company's ad works, you'll see that often they pick much softer lighting to compliment the mood. I hope this helps you out some
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2012 16:29
|
|
|
I don't mind the horizon but it feels a little too "fake washed out" and I can't stop staring at the shadow on her hip that makes her skin look like she's got cellulite  Also I feel like there should be a car in the background stirring up a giant dust cloud for some reason.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2012 20:50
|
|
|
A portrait is merely imagery of a personality. I don't think offering opinions on a photo of a person restricts what defines a portrait at all... Having said that, I think TheAngryDrunk did show a lot of story in a photograph, which is important. It's not as if the photo is without merit, regardless of our own personal skills. But it's obviously in a certain style (pretty girl, passive position, noted as editorial-style) so we can critique within that context. If our assumptions are incorrect, he would let us know, and it becomes a dialogue. Tada! Progress.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2012 23:05
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:Shot this last year, but at the time I only printed it large for a show I was doing. Had the opportunity to go back into the darkroom today to make one that would fit on the scanner. Love it. My favorite part of your work is how expressive the body language is.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2012 22:55
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:Anyone with a Canon D-SLR can take a portrait... Here's pretty much what you're looking for (I love this series) http://www.flickr.com/photos/clickandclash/sets/72157626584908000/
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2013 05:35
|
|
|
I think one of the best things any photographer can do is study light in a bunch of different applications. It's not about memorizing diagrams and setups, but about understanding qualities of light and the many ways it manifests itself. Doing things like studying art (and even physics) will give you a much better appreciation for creating your own lighting. You want to understand what you're doing every time you take picture, and be able to break down other people's lighting. Once you get that down, it's just trial and error (or meticulous planning) to get exactly what you want. Have a vision, don't just settle for whatever it turns out like.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2013 22:55
|
|
|
Yeah I forgot what thread I was in a second and thought it was ad for space yoga. Not that's necessarily a bad thing! If that's what you were going for, that commercial look, you did so wonderfully.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2013 21:56
|
|
|
They look really really plastic. They'll look better if you give them their skin texture back. As for flyaways, go in real close with clone & patch. It's tedious, but the more careful you are the nicer it will look. Other than that, the lighting/comp is fine but the lack of skin texture while leaving folds is really off putting.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2013 15:27
|
|
|
To imitate window light you just need a relatively large, soft source. Because people are pretty big, you need a relatively big source, whether that's a giant octo or a strong light bouncing off a large white wall. The other major thing is that it should be at least somewhat directional, since the sun acts that way too. If you want to imitate sunlight for a headshot, it's a lot easier than for the whole body, or a whole scene, that's why film crews use those hideously large lamps. But it's really just a matter of size, then controlling the quality of light to match whatever type of sunlight you'd like.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2013 16:51
|
|
|
From a ladies point of view it just kind of looks like she has a bit of a weak chin and is probably very self conscious about it. Some people get surgery to correct that kind of thing, it's a pretty common worry. But I think it looks fine
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2013 22:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 06:55 |
|
|
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
|
|