|
McMadCow - The more I look at that series, the more I like it. I looked at your flickr when you posted it over in the fine art thread and on first glance I was generally meh toward the portraits. On second and third looks, they've all grown on me. I'm not sure why, but there we are. I did some portrait tests over the weekend, trying to keep the lessons from that 70s portrait book's exercise with the bust of Aphrodite in mind. My ABs have yet to come in, so I had to use hot lights, which suck. Anyway, here are some of my favorites. Compelling portraiture? No. Good practice? Probably.    
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2009 18:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 15:47 |
|
|
15 minutes and people expect half-way decent portraits?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2009 21:16
|
|
|
I don't know if I'd say below average. You at least took the time to pose everyone, even if the lighting makes them flat and boring. The people themselves look like they would like to be anywhere but right there, but if this was a work thing I'm surprised you even got the hint of a smile. The only thing that really irks are the reflections off the gilt lettering on the books and, in the first portrait, the plastic announcement holder. The holder you could have moved, but the spines would obviously reflect unless you were lighting from the sides.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2009 21:47
|
|
|
jackpot posted:Haha if you scroll up the page from the bottom you notice this woman actually blends in with the books, it's like she's wearing some kind of librarian camo. She'll never die, just slowly fade in to the stacks.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2009 21:50
|
|
|
So what (DELL) went wrong (DELL) with the shoot?(DELL)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2009 17:12
|
|
|
You can't see nearly enough nipple for the American Apparel look. The hood up on the guy isn't very flattering. It makes the hoody look like it barely fits and he gives off a look of being very uncomfortable. Were this an ad, I wouldn't want to buy the product.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2009 17:57
|
|
|
Interrupting Moss posted:This is from a sports shoot, but this one with no basketball I like quite a bit. That is loving fierce right there. The combination of simple lighting and a strong aggressive pose softened by that blank sort of bored look says confidence. Plus, blah blah blah on her draw band.. yeah.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2009 17:41
|
|
|
LuisX posted:Clubs and event: Good looking girls? Check Quality pictures? I don't know. The glaring highlights on the faces really really make me hate these pictures.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2010 21:53
|
|
|
Travis Jeppesen posted:Her subjects, whether laughing or crying, often seem as though their minds are somewhere else, and their eyes are lost in pensive reverie Or, you know, they are just high as gently caress.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2010 16:22
|
|
|
Whitezombi posted:The first shot says to me "Is that a haggis over there?"
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2010 18:14
|
|
|
I've been really enjoying my shoot-thru PLM with the spill-kill fabric on the side with the flash. I get it as close to the subject as a I can, then set-up a reflector at roughly the same distance and angle. I would like to start experimenting with the bare flash, ala the One Light book, but meh. 
squidflakes fucked around with this message at 17:08 on Apr 30, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2010 17:05
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:So Holga and Lomo making digital cameras now?
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2010 17:44
|
|
|
holy crap, is that Hokuto no Ken?
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2010 16:45
|
|
|
After being sick for a while and not really feeling it, I got invited to check out a super hard core muscle guy body builder gym and take some pictures. It was a lot more difficult than expected. I have very little experience shooting men and even less shooting to define body features rather than hide them. These are my poor results. Anyone have any suggestions on how to better light to enhance?    
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2010 17:11
|
|
|
Whitezombi posted:
Yeah, this one. And really, in all the pictures I think she's loving beautiful.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2010 17:25
|
|
[/url]
|
^^^^dammit!^^^^Blakles posted:But there's light all over her face? He's using a flash, so the duration of the light is shorter than the time it takes the eye to react to the light. If he took a couple of follow up pictures, you'd see the pupil getting smaller and smaller.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2010 16:56
|
|
|
This past Sunday I had 11 models from MM flake. 10 of them with the same excuse "Sorry, I stayed up too late partying. Can we reschedule?"
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2010 15:59
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:^^^You booked 11 models to 1 shoot...? Yep. Its for a calendar and we've still got 6 months to fill, plus we want alternates and some group shots. I did the booking with the assumption of a 50% flake rate. I wasn't expecting 100%.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2010 17:17
|
|
|
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 can also use the dodge tool at 3-5% opacity and protect tones on, starting with the shadows then doing the midtones till you get them to match the surrounding skin. Switching to the burn tool with the same opacity and burn any highlights that are sticking out and you've got some nice even under-eye skin without the weird blur. Adding a grayscale layer over top but working on an adjustment layer is both non-destructive and helps you get to a medium tone easier.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2010 19:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 15:47 |
|
|
Penpal posted:A portrait of my sister, because she left for another city that day. In addition to your sister, I see you've managed to catch a picture of the elusive, near-mythical, Floating Canon.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2010 21:45
|
|
