|
Fragrag posted:Not sure if you guys can see this, it's set to private on Flickr to avoid ire from my clients. Buy a reflector; it would work really well for a shot like this. It'll be the best ~50 bucks you ever spent, trust me.
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2009 10:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 04:04 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Toupee posted: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. You're looking for 'engaging'. Creating a connection between the subject and the viewer is what makes a portrait (or any photo, really) a good photo. It could be a toddler's natural smile or a withered, filthy face, but it has to be engaging. Personally, I think this is why a lot of portraiture shot at 70+mm can seem boring and bland. There's no connection between the viewer and subject at all. That's why the subject itself has to be interesting, look interesting, or be doing something interesting. I don't care if I'm seeing the subject's face as long as I'm intrigued by their body language, appearance or environment.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2009 01:43
|
|
|
its so web 2.0
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2010 01:20
|
|
|
I like the one of the side profile of the BMW the best, though I wish he wasn't smiling right at the camera. I think the shot would be improved a lot if the car was a little more lit as well. I would honestly just balance the ambient a little more in these. Kick down your flashes a little bit and you can still have emphasis on your subjects without it looking so jarring and 'strobist-pool'-ish. edit: the best thing I ever did for my environmental portraiture was to learn and love my grids. They're cheap to buy and/or easy to make, and they're absolutely invaluable. Hot Cops fucked around with this message at 21:18 on Feb 11, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2010 21:15
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:
It's still pretty underexposed - look at the collar of his white shirt.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2011 19:43
|
|
|
Are there any more like the second? That's the only one that I feel he's positioned relative to the light where he should be. Nice post, though the second one is a tad more yellow than the rest. As for posing, I like all of them except for 4 - I'll echo McMadCow regarding his smile in the last frame.With this subject, the more regal and 'old-rear end oil painting' looking, the better. edit: also, I'd really like the context the railing and pillar give in the last one if he was moved over to camera right and not covering any of it
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2011 00:22
|
|
|
xenilk posted:
Reminds me of: http://www.threequestionmarks.com/blog/2007/06/im-not-photographer.html edit: NSFW, boobs on the page. Hot Cops fucked around with this message at 05:01 on Oct 11, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2011 04:58
|
|
|
Elite Taco posted:^^ I agree. I can't get the stitching to work for the extra frames. Just take it in a little tighter and liquify that tricep in.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2011 20:15
|
|
I have 100+ frames of the whole scene, but I must have shifted the camera or something cause beyond this crop I get a discontinuity in her arm and then things start to distort
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 04:04 |
|
|
a 4 foot roll of white seamless is going to be like, 50 bucks. just buy the paper - bedsheets/shower curtains/fabric almost always looks like poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2011 00:06
|
|