|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:Ok I'm back this time with more smile. These were done around 3pm making the sun was pretty harsh, so I brought the sb-600 for fill. I learned a lot. The idea this time was just focusing on good portraits. Any crits? First photo: She's got a really bad shadow running down her chin, as well as a wicked highlight blowing out her hair. Her glasses (or at least looking towards the left / her right) are casting a shadow back onto her. Theres a bad shadow on the left / her right arm. Basically to sum all the lighting up: a reflector would have saved it. I think you're right that cropping it makes it weirder than with the knees -- but at the same time, the knees don't look that great either. If you could get just a little more of them that would have been better.
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2009 15:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 06:37 |
|
|
I found this video very helpful http://www.howcast.com/videos/9743-How-To-Take-a-Nude-Portrait
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2009 20:45
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:This is exactly what I'm talking about. You seem to have it in your head that a portrait is about very specific things (Subject face? Check. Happy? Check.) to produce a very limited photo. Portraiture is about flattering the subject though. I can't honestly look at your stuff and say its portraiture. I think its a neat idea for a project though. E2: < Reichstag> NO IT IS NOT < Reichstag> ARGHHHHH E: I suppose what I'm trying to say is that just like almost everything else in art, theres a set canon to define what falls into certain categories. You're really pushing the boundaries of portraiture to the point that it is probably safe to say it isn't portraiture. Yes it is. Pick up any photography book on portraiture and it sure as gently caress isn't going to be about the non relationship about the non subject and the blah blah blah. Toupee fucked around with this message at 00:36 on Sep 15, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2009 00:20
|
|
|
nonanone posted:I always liked to think about portraiture as the connection between the person in the photo and the viewer, whether it is happy/sad, commercial, aloof, disconnected, etc. I would hate to think that all portraiture has to be flattering. I tend to prefer a face for easy connection, but don't forget that as people, we communicate tons with just our body; the face isn't necessary all the time. Ok flattering is the wrong word. Maybe just "pleasing to look at" ? That is to say - they don't have to be pretty or whatever, but it needs to highlight their features in a way that makes it nice to look at. Like this is very nice. Thats generally what portraiture is. I'm sure someone else can come in and say how I'm a retard and I have no idea, blah blah, but I think you get the general gist of what I mean by portraiture and the canon that goes with it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2009 01:08
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Are those not portraits? If a character's the subject of a picture, then it's a portrait, isn't it? Hot Cops had what I was thinking of with 'engaging'. So yeah those are portraits. Reichstag is self admittedly intentionally creating un-engaging photos, though, which is the angle I'm coming from.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2009 15:14
|
|
