|
What I don't really get right now is the difference between a portrait of a person and a fashion photo. What is the distinction in posing and composition to capture someones likeness versus promoting qualities of a product modeled by a person?
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2009 14:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 06:50 |
|
|
Ok, so my wife got dressed up, we went downtown, and I did told her to stand around while I took pictures of her before dinner reservation. I stole the bag on the steps idea from ConfusedUs. I hope he doesn't mind. I like these the best. I am going for the fashion look to show off the outfit and the bag.   
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2009 02:58
|
|
|
ConfusedUs posted:I don't like the construction stuff in the second and third at all, but the biggest problem is her expression. She looks unhappy. Solid. I will get her to smile and go around the corner to avoid the construction. Sounds simple enough. How did you feel about the composition, posing, and lighting?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2009 14:38
|
|
|
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?  
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2009 15:33
|
|
|
ConfusedUs posted:The first is significantly better! Thanks, and what do you mean by lidded eyes? Is that the kind of sleepy look shes got? Does the pink top clash with the color of hair? Does it make the whole image look too red? TsarAleksi posted:I think you really need to work on keeping your highlights under control, even if that just means going out at a different time of the day. The super hard light combined with the direct fill just makes for an aesthetically unappealing photograph. Ok, I'll try to keep those highlights in mind.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2009 14:27
|
|
|
nonanone posted:I suggest shooting the in the shade, or near sunrise/sunset to get a softer light. Also, try not to cut off body parts at weird lengths (ie, just the top of the knees showing in the first one). spog posted:That shot is definitely a lot better, purely because the subject seems happy. My only real criticism of the pose is that the knees are messy and distracting. Either change the pose, or crop them out: I will look out for shade next time. I thought that the knees were at an appropriate angle, they are not foreshortened into an unnatural length or forced into a weird perspective that makes her look contorted. I wanted to include more of her body because it anchors her on the stairs and the pose is more comfortable looking. With the crop Spog suggested, its unsure what her pose is and the what the background is. But I will keep these comments in mind when I want to show more body.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2009 14:50
|
|
|
dakana posted:That will look good next to the article, will it print in color? I imagine it might not look so good grey scaled. Do you have any more where the cigarette is longer? I think it would look better if there were just more of a cigarette between his fingers.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2009 18:58
|
|
|
Penpal: I like the portraits you did, the lighting really complements the mood of the expression and the subject. The fourth one is my favorite because I think it is the best angle. here are two I did over the weekend.  
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2009 03:43
|
|
|
dunos posted:There is something about these photos that makes them look like a composite and I think that is what distracts me from looking at the subject. There is a lot going on in the background and it feels too busy. Is that a reflection in the window behind their right shoulder? The light feels a little harsh as well. I had them sit on a window ledge in one of my office's big conference room. Because of that weird kind of angle, it does look like a composite a bit. I wanted to highlight the building as well though because its a local landmark, kinda. Its the tallest building in VA that was just completed a few years ago. I had a hard time balancing flash on the subject and the background, and agree that it is a bit harsh. There is a reflection on both, and I couldn't figure out how to clone them out.I wish I could have backed up further, but a large immovable conference table was in my way.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2009 16:03
|
|
|
I've been wondering how to effectively do portraits where the subject isn't looking directly into the camera, McMadCow does a really good job of this. I've started noticing that the portraits I like best online, have the subject looking away. Whenever I try it, the photo becomes boring and theres no longer a connection to the viewer. Any reasoning or tips to make your subjects appear more natural while gazing off camera?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2009 16:18
|
|
|
Need some advice in wardrobe. I have some opportunities to do Christmas card photos. Family A wants to do the full family in front of a fireplace. Family B wants just the kids having fun at the beach in wintery outfits building a snowman out of the sand. Do you guys tell people what they should wear, like matching colors? Will it look like poo poo if they dont match? For family B, are matched clothes going to kill the more relaxed look of candids, or will it make the photo stronger overall? I cant really think it all the way through. Thoughts?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2009 22:03
|
|
|
Here are some examples of stuff I've done recently. Christmas is a good time to prospect for business in the retail market. This family really liked this shot and I felt kind of OK about it. The kids were really not into it at all, and the hardest part of it was getting them to cooperate. This is inside their home.  These kids were all over the place, they were bouncing off the walls. The only thing that keeps them in one spot and smiling is you inflict pain upon yourself. I wore an elf hat with a jingle bell at the end, my wife just kept smacking the bell into my head and the kids loved it. Children are so masochistic. This was taken in a convention center lobby. The walls are really that orange.  This was a corporate Christmas party for a local business. I went the whole night avoiding a group shot, just as I was about to make my goodbyes with the owner, he asked for a group shot. I scrambled got everyone to crowd around and stood on a chair. I think I did pretty good. I only had time to take 3 shots and this was the middle one. 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2009 05:09
|
|
|
Cyberbob posted:Cheers for the tips. I'll go dodge/burn crazy and see what I come up with. They don't do his bright eyes justice, they were bloody glowing I tell ya. woa, its like hes an extra from the movie Dune, when their eyes glow blue from the spice. id dial it down juuust a tad.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2009 01:09
|
|
|
Here's a portrait sitting I did on Sunday. I was able to get the subjects to smugle their Nutcracker costumes out of the dance studio for a more interesting backdrop. I think I am getting better with my lighting, had my wife assisted me with a foam core bounce board and used CLS to trigger my sb-600. Annoying things on location were that they required a hard surface to do their dancer things and the ground was really muddy, so I chose these stairs. Three things, first being critique. Obvious flaw is that stupid blown sky. Don't know what happened there. It wasnt super bright and was fairly overcast. I metered for proper exposure first and concentrated on their faces with fill. I dont remember getting any blinkies on it either. Second concern is that I'm not sure why they aren't sharper when looked at close up. I don't think I will have any problems printing 8x10s. Is the kind of bluey glow what the call Chromatic Abberation? Should I have stopped down to f/4.0 or f/5.6? It seems I didnt get that much subject sepparation at f/3.5 and I was worried about to thin a depth of field at f/2.8 for 2 people. Third, what is an ideal focal length that would show both subjects full length framed by the stairs and stair banisters like photo number 4? Is this the kind of situation where an 85 f/1.8 or 105 f/2.8 would have made a difference for subject separation and could I have framed it simliarly? I was using the tamron 17-50 for all of them. These are on my smug mug. links to the full size file are underneath.  f/2.8, 1/100 - DOF was probably too thin. http://clients.paulchinjr.com/photos/751939429_JpaCd-O.jpg  f/3.5, 1/125 http://clients.paulchinjr.com/photos/751934508_EHP22-O.jpg  f/3.5, 1/125 http://clients.paulchinjr.com/photos/751936898_pmCya-O.jpg  f/3.5, 1/100 - focal length was 20mm. I was back probably a good 10 or 12 feet away from the subjects. http://clients.paulchinjr.com/photos/751935776_qPn5F-O.jpg  f/2.8, 1/125 http://clients.paulchinjr.com/photos/751937486_7CGMC-O.jpg  f/2.8, 1/200 http://clients.paulchinjr.com/photos/751937700_6eB69-O.jpg I liked these the best and representative of what we did.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2009 16:45
|
|
|
jackpot posted:lack most is just good composition. brad industry posted:I think the background is a little busy on these I totally agree with you both on the depth of field. How can you go wide and still maintain depth of field? I couldn't figure a way to put any more distance between the subjects and the trees. Is the key to use a longer focal length like a 105mm or 70-200? Full length wides are really difficult because I can never seem to get any depth of field. Close ups are easier. I missed symmetry on a few of these. The ground was a muddy mess and was not trying to misstep and fall on my rear end. haha, I really wanted to do stuff like them in a grocery store or have the nutcracker pose as the burger king, in a burger king restaurant. But the point of the shoot was portraits for the dancers and thats what they wanted. Also, the guy for some reason was already anxious about being outside in costume. So getting him to play along in a public place was never going to happen.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2009 21:17
|
|
|
brad industry posted:Yeah pretty much, longer focal length and more distance from the subject. welp, i guess its off to gear land. At least I can quantify exactly why I need it instead of buying it without knowing.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2009 21:52
|
|
|
These are from a company party. How do they look?  
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2010 14:01
|
|
|
Interrupting Moss posted:They're not bad. Looks like you bounced, which is of course a good idea. Now I'll lay on the bad stuff... ohhhh thats what the blue is from. It was creeping into everything towards the top of photos. I've been meaning to get some gels since they are pretty cheap. Thanks man. Should there be more space around the first portrait of the woman or is that just an unflattering angle for her nose? I thought the wall was kinda cool, but I could see it also being a distraction.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2010 16:28
|
|
|
TsarAleksi posted:I'd suggest trying to get more light into their faces-- it's really a bit dark as it is, which can be really unflattering. I wasn't using my omnibounce for once because I thought it would just spill light every which way and overpower the ambient. I was just letting the bare bulb it bounce off the ceiling. Do you think either an 80/20 or a Gary Fong yogurt tub would've been a better application here?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2010 00:45
|
|
|
HPL posted:I hate to sound like a Demb shill because I promote his products enough here, but situations like that are where it shines because you can adjust the balance of light easily and exactly since it pivots. werd, which model do you you have? does that mega size become a pain at all?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2010 02:39
|
|
|
Whitezombi posted:
I like the second image more. The split tone background of brick and sky works well compositionally. His hair is so crunchy looking. It's almost like one of those faces you pull the magnetic dots onto. Also really good exposure. I took these real quick when I got asked on the spot for a resume headshots. Ugh, I'm still having a bitch of a time getting even exposure and really wrinkly faces make shadows appear everywhere.   
AIIAZNSK8ER fucked around with this message at 20:34 on Feb 27, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2010 20:29
|
|
|
I did one Christmas sitting with a 3,4, and 8 year old girls. It was insane, I was lucky that the grandmother was there to coral them a bit, but really the trick was to cause pain someone else to get the kids to stop, stare, and laugh. I had my wife hit me in the head with the bell on the end of an elf hat. The kids loved it and sat still long enough for me to spray and pray. Then the mother turned a hairspray can on the dad and the kids just laughed it up. Kids are freaking sadistic. After I was done, I couldn't believe how well some of them turned out. The parents loved it, and were glad that they paid me to do it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2010 21:44
|
|
|
Hop Pocket posted:This is my favorite of the three. The other two tend to make him look like a little sinister. I can see what you're saying about the shadows. It looks like you had lights at 5 and 7 o'clock? The only thing I'd change about this would be to light the background a little bit to get rid of the shadow. Oprah Haza posted:You said this was done on the spot, what equipment did you use to light? I agree that you could've improved the shots with a dedicated background light and maybe a reflector to camera left, but if you only had a speedlite to work with then there's not much you can do. Only had a speed light with natural light from a big window to camera right. It was in a small conference room, so I had about 10 feet to back up. McMadCow posted:I shot this downtown a while ago under the same circumstances. I know this is probably on bw film, but I would really like this alot if it were in color with that warm sunlit orangy glow. Oprah Haza posted:
I like these, they could use some contrast, but overall, I think they're solid. He does look unusually slender though, I think its the crop. Do you have a wider crop to give him more empty space on either side? Here's a head shot I did after a corporate event ended last Monday night. I should have renegotiated a separate contract, but she was the one who hired me for the event. It looks dark here, blah, and hallways are never that exciting. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2010 16:43
|
|
|
I'm not seeing the different color temps, but I did gel the flash this time. I used a CTO and left the camera at auto white balance. I also used the demb flip it you suggested. It's working out pretty well. It throws a ton of light forward, and takes some getting used to. I don't know why I didn't center her, it would've made a big difference. I guess I just wanted more background depth, rather than a blank wall. I guess blurry doors really aren't any more interesting. I also tried brightening the whole background, but then she looked like a cutout. The groovy part is that no one thinks her skin or face is wonky. I used a skin smoothing technique I read online, and tried dodging burning for the first time commercially.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2010 18:15
|
|
|
Ok people, tell me whats good.    I finally hung up a bed sheet and took a bunch of photos of my wife's new haircut.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2010 23:02
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:Number 3, far and away. The first one gives the impression of slightly crossed eyes. She looks too posed in two. Three is very nice, no caveats. Full length poses are difficult. We worked a lot on posing and worked from the Zeltsman posing guide. Does 'too posed' mean awkward or too traditional and contrived? Tongsy posted:How'd I do? I'm still trial and error getting rid of reflections in glasses, but I found that you just have to angle the lens of the glasses away from the light at like a 45% angle and then shoot straight on so the light is bouncing off the glasses at an angle the camera lens isn't looking at. You can also angle the glasses slightly down or up.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2010 14:43
|
|
I'm happy with the results, except for the glare on her glasses and the few small shadows
|
Fiesty Francis posted:It's about time to get some feedback from people who will actually be critical. These were shot in either in the bedroom, or against a wall, so the background definitely could be less distracting. Also, some of the photos have been cropped for reasons which will probably become apparent. I think you're trying to hard with your lighting, try turning up the ISO and turn down the flash power and create more dynamic lighting, letting it fall onto the subject. I have the same problem, when I first tried out the umbrellas, I just put on full blast and everything was lit. I'm still making the same mistakes, but you have to think about lighting what's important. The bed, the rails, the wall... they are not important, so why light them? For the posing, you should go the more soft core porn route. If she wants to sell her cam, they should be way more seductive than these. Get closer on her boobs and rear end. Don't have her smile so wide, I don't think she even needs the pout-y lip thing. A neutral expression with some shyness in the eyes would probably make her look good. Agreeing with Paragon8 about framing her much tighter. I don't like the shower shot, the wide angle hurts because it makes her proportions look weird, just seems her shoulders are as wide as her hips.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2010 14:53
|
|
|
I get an error message when I try to go to the Zeltzman posing guide in the OP, is anyone else having trouble loading it?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2010 15:19
|
|
|
These may be boring, but I'm still trying.  
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2010 23:54
|
|
|
HDR of a model wearing a bruce lee mask? edit: Love the one pink nipple AIIAZNSK8ER fucked around with this message at 04:07 on May 6, 2010 |
|
#
¿
May 6, 2010 03:40
|
|
|
Over the past month, I've done a ton of portraits of business owners for a magazine I'm working with. It's both really exciting and nerve wracking because they agree to take an hour with you and look to me for ultimate direction. In most cases, I have no idea what I want and kind of fumble a bit for 15 minutes, and then as we both settle down and get more comfortable, good stuff starts to turn out. I'm always so indecisive on which ones I like the best. This woman owns a local womens soccer team.  This guy opened a surf shop 30 years ago and put 3 kids through college with it. Amazing dude, who gave up a more lucrative career to just be closer to the surf.  These guys run 3 Harley dealerships. I was super anxious during this shoot, it was the first time I used my studio lights for real for real. Like a dumbass, I forgot to pack my umbrellas so I had to work bare bulb. I'm not sure happy with it and was scrambling and felt like a general idiot the whole time. My ADD really kicked in here because of all the shiny things and loud noises.  He owns a movie theaters chain that also serve dinner and beer while you watch. He was a lot of fun to talk to. The photos from inside the actual theater came out horrendous. The ones in the lobby were much better.  A gym owner and former Olympic athlete. She was busy working with her clients on the hour I was scheduled to shoot, which was cool because I could just watch and let her do her thing.  Another gym owner who was really awkward on camera. He's a nice dude who could totally destroy you with his pinky.  So I mean, I've been really lucky to get all this experience, but it's very very tough to get people comfortable. It's also hard for me because I can't do very much preparation or research. I just get sent to the businesses, block out an hour, and make some images. I think I'm also building a pretty solid portfolio with this stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2010 18:27
|
|
|
Oprah Haza posted:I'm glad your work is improving because... quite frankly there was a lot of room to improve at first. Are you being compensated well by the mag? Thanks, I'm pretty much new to the whole thing, I mean aside from black and white in high school. I jumped back into it a year and a half ago. This forum has helped me out tremendously. I know I have a ton to grow still, and I get a teeny bit better each time. Technicals aside, getting the people comfortable is way harder. I am getting paid a bit of cash to help pay my bills, but this magazine is a little different. The people who started and are involved see it as a means to an end. The purpose of the magazine is not really to make a magazine, but as another avenue for building a small business community. All the contributors are giving up their time in order to build stronger relationships and network with other business owners. I'm not making enough cash to quit my day job yet, but I am building a portfolio of images that I want, getting experience, and more importantly making contacts and relationships. This is very far from working for free by some organization who sees no value in what I do. Everyone I've met has been super helpful and understanding that I am just starting out. I've been working with them since the beginning of the year and the ancillary work from those I've met has kept me almost even. HPL posted:The two gym owner ones are the weaker ones of the set, ironically. They aren't as flattering and seem more like off-the-cuff candids as opposed to portraits. The second, third and fourth are great and do a good job of showing personality and describing the subjects. The first is decent but I think it would be more interesting if she were in the stands as opposed to out on the field. It would bring more of the background elements into play as opposed to being a mere backdrop. Plus if she were in the stands, she wouldn't be squinting one eye from the bright sun. The gym owners were really tough for me because I couldn't relate to them at all, I couldn't really strike up much of a conversation. I had them kind of pose and work with their clients while I photographed them. They felt awkward and I couldn't get them to relax. To contrast, I had a great time with the movie theater guy talking about what dicks the MPAA are and how hes going to survive the whole day and date releases. With the surf shop owner, we talked about how great it feels to follow a passion and a freedom to do what you want. And the Harley guys were all laid back anyway, didn't seem like anything could bring them down. The soccer lady couldn't open her eyes up much more. She had some kind of eye thing with a detached retina in one eye. I wasn't sure how to make the stands work because there wasn't much room between where the stands end and the field begins. Thanks for the Harley crit, I kind of feel like its too busy still, but I was so nervous asking them to move around the bikes a whole bunch. I wanted to bring them forward more and put more depth behind them.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2010 06:15
|
|
|
I was hired by a local dance company to shoot both the recital and portraits for their Spring performance. I had shot them a couple times before, but for a coworker, and never got paid. This time, my coworker was not in the performance, but the company called me up to come out. So sometimes doing stuff for free, for the right people, can turn into paid work. They really enjoyed these. I think they could be better, I should've used the 85mm more, but I ended up using the 35 for the bulk of the photos because It was easier to frame.    And I wanted to take them into a weirder setting, like the playground next door, but they wanted to keep it more subdued and traditional.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2010 18:55
|
|
|
TsarAleksi posted:Man, the backgrounds in these are a wreck. Maybe with some CAF or some extensive cloning and such, you could clean them, but as it stands they are super distracting. To me these images look like they should have been shot on seamless. Ah, are they just too distracting because of the bright spots, or overall a terrible choice of background. This was the second floor of the venue they were performing in. CAF?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2010 19:54
|
|
|
somnambulist posted:(regarding the ballet photos) It's cool with me, I hadn't thought about a black and white look, and I've never been able to pull off that vintage feel very well.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2010 21:26
|
|
|
I do like the tighter crop you guys are suggesting.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2010 21:54
|
|
|
Paragon8 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.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2010 04:00
|
|
|
Most of the doctors I've work with so far are super ADD. These guys each gave me about 3 minutes, which is long enough I guess to ask them how their summer is going and try and get a smile. Luckily the marketing VP who hired me was there to corral them long enough before they wandered away.     edit: poo poo I forgot to clone out the brown blurb in top left dude.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2010 15:32
|
|
|
Glass Knuckles posted:Nice bokehs, but I feel like there's especially a lot of headroom in the bottom-right one. I think I like the crop on the Asian doctor the most. Also, I really do like the background for these. The weird lighting... ladder... thing on the ceiling may be a little distracting in the two right pictures, though. Thats why I love my 85. I was really surprised, that with the white coat on the white light, theres not gobs of purple fringing. Its a fairly wide hallway with big windows on both ends. I set up camera right SB-600 for fill triggered with the awesome built in FREE CLS. There are fluorescents in the ceiling which kind of ladder when its so out of focus. The client picked out the hallway location.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2010 16:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 06:50 |
|
|
McMadCow posted:I feel like you need to get some more light on their faces. A small reflector would have helped a lot here. Does it just look underexposed, or is there not enough light to give shape to their face?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2010 18:33
|
|