|
brad industry posted:Comping images is a good reason to not like her work? Why does it matter? It's entirely possible that I only see this because I know they are comped together, but to me a lot of her composite portraits seem to be lacking connection between the subjects-- you can't tell they are comped on account of the light, cutting together, or whatever, because that is flawless, but there is a certain vacant quality to many of them that I sometimes notice. That's not a knock on comping images, just on some of Leibovitz's work that I've seen.
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2009 07:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 08:46 |
|
|
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? 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.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2009 05:53
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:The point is that your conception of what defines a legitimate piece of art or even quality photography is a purely subjective assessment. Simply because YOU find your work to be more valid than someone else's because your image meets your standards (obviously, you are working to meet your own standards...) and theirs is aimed to their standards does not make it so, just as someone else's assessment of your work by their standards does not make your work less valid than theirs. That aside, you have yet to delineate exactly what it is about your work that you feel is so remarkable that it takes no explanation. Assume that the rest of us are mere plebes who have looked up from our Bob Ross tapes and Olan Mills family portraits to stare in wonder at the artistry that is your work, and explain. TsarAleksi fucked around with this message at 20:28 on Sep 14, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2009 20:25
|
|
|
Notlodar I think those are nice, I guess what I feel is missing is a level of polish, perhaps. Taking the librarian portrait, for example, for a commercial style portrait I think it could stand to have a lot more light in her eyes-- these kinds of shots seem generally to call for lots of light and a fairly bright nature rather than deep discrepancies between light and dark areas, particularly in the eyes. ... Posted these in PaD but looking for some more feedback, I've got a bunch of headshots lined up...  
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2009 00:21
|
|
|
Jahoodie posted:Why do 90% of sorority girls always do the pop a squat off to the side, hands on the knees move? I feel like there is some big secret I am missing out on- who told them that weird combo looks good? Good eye, that's the "sorority squat" It's so that you can do a multi-level group photo easily without having chairs-- and yeah, it makes more sense with a dress. 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2010 19:51
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:These are from a company party. How do they look? 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.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2010 22:31
|
|
|
 Here's an old one but I'm curious about opinions on the posing. These guys were going to the police and fire games.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2010 06:46
|
|
|
Honestly the speed with which people around here seem to gain traction photographically is kind of amazing-- it took me years to get basic principles down that seem to take weeks for a lot of people.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2010 18:27
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:I have yet to do a daytime shoot, I hate bright sunlight. I have never used them at full power for a shoot yet, I wish they went lower in power actually. You should-- half the fun of powerful portable strobes is the ability to overwhelm daylight in interesting ways.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2010 19:06
|
|
|
BobTheCow posted:I've been shooting for about a year now, and most of my photography has been sports action and spot news. I desperately need to improve my portraiture, so I'm trying to force myself to practice. Last week I had the opportunity to shoot a softball pitcher, and arranged to borrow my friend's sweet Dyanlite kit. Unfortunately, the battery died almost immediately and so I was forced to use solely available light, I didn't even think to have a reflector handy (lesson learned). I just don't see how it conveys 'pitcher.'
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2010 05:05
|
|
|
swagger like us posted:Saw some discussion earlier in the thread, but didn't see an answer. To achieve the wide angle but small DOF you kind of see in the Sartorialist's pics what does he do? Maybe this is a very basic question but I can't seem to imagine. Like a wide angle (18mm?) lens with a low f/? According to the guy who runs the site, he uses a 50/1.4 on a full frame camera.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2010 08:04
|
|
|
You can stop way down in studio light, which means that all of your lenses will probably perform just fine, including the kit.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2010 14:49
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted: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. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2010 19:09
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted: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? No, like Orange Lime said, the light in the background is nice, it's everything else that is a problem. CAF = content aware fill.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2010 20:44
|
|
|
^^^^Curses  ^^^^Blakles posted:But there's light all over her face? When you photograph with strobes, the eyes don't have time to constrict.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2010 16:54
|
|
|
AtomicManiac posted:
You're not blending the lighting with the natural light well. It looks very unnatural to have an obviously outdoors shoot where there is that much pure black in the frame.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2010 19:25
|
|
|
AtomicManiac posted:For some strange reason my local camera store doesn't sell gels for lights. I was rather upset at that discovery. This hasn't got anything to do with gels.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2010 20:12
|
|
|
AtomicManiac posted:Hmm, how can I make it better without gels? According to the Lighting DVDs I've been watching (The Strobist One and The One Light Workshop) I did everything by the book, save for adding in some gels and a kicker(?) light to make her "pop" (which I need to find an online supplier). Any advice? Yeah, you need to balance your exposure, not the colors. It looks really odd to have half the bench brightly lit and the other disappear into inky darkness. Truly, all of the shadows are really harsh, which is unflattering for the model on top of looking odd.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2010 22:01
|
|
|
TomR posted:I like it. To start with, very few people are flattered by shooting their arms from the side like that. There is a shot in your stream of her kind of looking back that was nice. Basically it's about angles and directions that flatter. Honestly you're going to just have to spend time working at it. But I will say that putting up pictures that she hates online is a sure way to never being allowed to take her picture again.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2010 03:43
|
|
|
Might want to do some retouching on that second one to take down some of that skin shine-- not terribly flattering. In the future you ought to watch out for that before it happens. Did a quick edit to show you what I'm talking about :  (will take it down if you want...)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2010 00:23
|
|
|
AtomicManiac posted:What's the way to clean that up in post? Dodge and smudge? Clone stamp and maybe a little dodge to put back highlights that get lost.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2010 15:05
|
|
|
relish_fetish posted:Really enjoy this shot, clean. Her hair maybe a bit awkward the way it is Falling between her legs. I don't think I'd worry that much about the processing just yet. To me the posing/angles is where they really fall down -- all of them (and the last two particularly) are quite unflattering for a lot of reasons. The second has a bad angle over all and just is not a great perspective for just about anyone, the third looks like it's way too wide and close but that might not be the only issue. Look at portraiture that you like and think about what they're doing in terms of posing and framing and start to incorporate it.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2013 03:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 08:46 |
|
|
smallmouth posted:I know it's not a terribly interesting portrait, but from a processing standpoint is it awful? Depends on your aim but the whole "dark socket" thing you have going on her right eye is not working for me at all. The way the lighting is hitting her face makes her face look overly broad with poor complexion, which is usually not an aim of portraiture.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2013 16:48
|
|
