|
I've been working on a portraiture series and putting a few of them in the PAD thread. Might as well post them here as examples of location portraits in natural lighting.      http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k110/mcmadcow/Mabel1.jpg Unrelated to the portrait series... Location portrait with artificial and natural light:  Studio Portraits:  
McMadCow fucked around with this message at 01:07 on Oct 24, 2009 |
#
¿
Oct 24, 2009 01:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 14:11 |
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted: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? A trick I've learned is to have the model follow your finger with their eyes while you watch in the viewfinder. Snap the shot at the moment of some good dynamic tension. For instance, if the model is facing left but looking right with their eyes, it draws opposing lines in the frame. Same thing with head postition vs body position. The disclaimer to that is that I'll get 2 or 3 (maybe) good shots per roll and a bunch of near misses. Still though, even posed shots have moments of spontaniety that you can catch if you're lucky.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2009 18:34
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:mcmadcow what's your flickr name? McMadCow  http://www.flickr.com/photos/mcmadcow/
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2009 00:30
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:DoF is distance-dependent. DoF is magnification dependent. The same subject magnified to the same size on the focal plane will be at the same DoF across all focal lengths. 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2009 21:57
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Apparently in exchange for her services one model wants between 10-20 edited pictures AND all unedited pictures ... or 50 fully edited pictures. Screw that. Tell her to go fly a kite. There are plenty of perfectly competent if not downright excellent models who will shoot TFP and trust the photographer to make the right editing choices when it comes to making cuts. I've worked with at least 50 different models through TFP arrangements and only one of them ever asked for the unedited shots. I told her that was absolutely out of the question and it wouldn't be negotiated. Funny enough, she claimed to have like, 20 years of experience and said that it was standard in "the industry" to provide that. I don't care how good or bad or inexperienced I am, I'm the ONLY one who has control of what material bearing my name goes out into the world. Sign up for Model Mayhem and start by posting 4 of your best shots. I guarantee you you're better than other people out there. Models want to improve their port, and they'll work with someone who can do that. Don't give in to that prima donna bullshit because you're having a tough time finding models. Your photos are yours, and truly professional models understand this. As a reference, here's my MM page: http://www.modelmayhem.com/mcmadcow You have to be logged in to see the stuff. There's a bio, including how I want to work, as well as a listing of credits and their respective MM profiles. If you're at all competent and not creepy (ok, even creepy guys get shoots, but try not to be), you'll find good people to work with. I've turned down models who have made inappropriate demands, and you should too.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2009 22:30
|
|
|
PlasticSun posted:Sharp on the nose, soft at the eyes. 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2009 21:53
|
|
|
nonanone posted:Focus on the eyes, not the nose! 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2010 02:08
|
|
|
I posted this one in the Feb PAD thread. Shot this about 3 years back, but printed it for the first time last week.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2010 22:22
|
|
|
fronkpies posted:
Yeah, as others have said, your use of the available light leaves a lot to be desired. You need to watch for shadow lines and reflections that come from your subject wearing glasses. Also, if you don't have a reflector to counter harsh direct sunlight, don't use it at all. Get the sun behind your subject and expose for their indirectly-lit face. The result is a naturally dramatic rimlit shot that doesn't have bad shadows everywhere. I shot this downtown a while ago under the same circumstances. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2010 04:27
|
|
|
JaundiceDave posted:This is a fantastic first attempt, dude. I agree. She's a really pretty model and I'm happy that you managed to capture her in a way that's flattering yet honest and interesting.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2010 21:05
|
|
|
fronkpies posted:...take away the blemishes and there's not much left. Well, I still would probably have let her put on a little concealer. You can take a good, intimate portrait and still be aware of distractions like that. Still though, I like the shot in spite of her blemishes.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2010 21:53
|
|
|
Oprah Haza posted:This looks like it was shot at a high angle with a wide angle lens. Her legs look artificially shortened. If you want to stretch someone out in a flattering way, you should shoot low and wide.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2010 17:12
|
|
|
This is another from the portrait project I'm currently working on. She's not a model, but she took direction well. Film is Tri-X, printed on Ilford MG Fiber. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2010 18:25
|
|
|
Oprah Haza posted:Some pics from a short and quick session with a friend. Three images with three different syles. These all need a bit of work, but the things that pop out the most at me are: #1: -not a fan of the reflector in her singlasses like that. -there's a hair in her mouth -what's that thick black strand behind her head? -you gave us a front-row seat to look at how her bra is popping off -  you cut her arm off at the elbow!#2 is your best effort but: -still don't like how her bra is fitting her -there are marks on her waist that are either stretch marks or are marks from whatever she took off. Be aware of either instance. Either have her wear loose stuff to the shoot, or budget time for her to be out of whatever it is long enough before the shooting starts. If it's stretch marks, that's what Photoshop is for #3: -I think your AF hit her knee, not her face -the lighting is completely flat in this shot -we see the edge of your backdrop and it's very distracting If you're shooting in the studio, EVERYTHING in front of your camera is under your control, so you need to be aware of the little things. That will be the difference between these and really tight shots. Get an assistant and have them act as a second set of eyes. I might not have spotted everything I did here as the photog either, but I would have as an assistant, and I would have expected my assistant to do the same for me. I crit because I love.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2010 07:50
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:I gotta say, that's a real awkward crop. He looks like he has arm stumps.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2010 03:44
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:TsarAleksi already mentioned that, but with studio light you can tighten your apertures up to a point where even kit lenses look really good. You seem to have the whole range covered, so you'll be fine. Keep in mind though, there's a point of diminishing returns, and most lenses start to lose quality again when stopped down too far as a result of diffraction around the aperture blades.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2010 21:51
|
|
|
Whitezombi posted:I will be shooting more with her. I really liked all the shots from the first set but these just aren't doing it for me at all. The first batch had really interesting comps and they really played up your model's strengths. These do none of that and sort of fall flat in comparison. Sorry :/
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2010 01:05
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:
She has some really deeply inset eyes. You could really benefit from hitting her with a reflector. I would slso have gotten rid of her hair thing, it's getting lost in the shadow behind her. It also looks like the clasp on her necklace is down one side. Oh man, I've been assisting too much lately...
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2010 19:20
|
|
|
^^^You booked 11 models to 1 shoot...?AtomicManiac posted:The key is to invite the boyfriend along... Ugh, NO! My personal policy is no escorts with any interest in how the shots turn out. Ie, no one related to or in a relationship with the model. I haven't had too many bad experiences, but the model just closes off too much when there's someone there who they're too close to. Really though, there's no reason at all to allow escorts. I begrudgingly allow it because you make concessions for a trade shoot. It would never happen professionally though. If a model thinks they need an escort, they shouldn't be taking on the job.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2010 17:01
|
|
|
AtomicManiac posted:How can I fix that? Reposition the light back further to give a more even spread? No, slow down your shutter by 1 stop.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2010 22:16
|
|
|
Cross_ posted:I think that would have made the sunset too light. Reflector to the right might be a better option. It's possible, but I think the sunset is pretty safe, especially in the first one. The ground all around the model is lost too- a reflector won't save that, but more shutter would.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2010 01:34
|
|
|
I haven't done any real up close and personal portraits in a while, so I was pretty stoked at how this one turned out. Took this with my Nikon, wide open to f1.4 if I remember right.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2010 06:37
|
|
|
Haggins posted:How would you avoid having that skin shine pop up in your photos? I had the same problem the other week and the only thing I could think of was popping on a polarizer which I don't own. There's a de-shine powder that you can get. It's otherwise not a makeup so you don't have to put it on dudes and have them feel wierd about it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2010 02:05
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:
I feel like you need to get some more light on their faces. A small reflector would have helped a lot here. EDIT: Oh, you're using fill flash. Hmmm, wierd.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2010 17:00
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:Does it just look underexposed, or is there not enough light to give shape to their face? Both, in all but the bottom left. That one could just use more modeling. I think their faces are exposed at what I'd want for my dark side, with the bright side being +1 from where it is now. It's really odd to see their faces so underexposed when the whites of their lab coats look pretty much spot-on to me.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2010 20:24
|
|
|
pwn posted:These are people with "dark skin" which may be messing you up. Har. There's also zero detail in their black hair so I don't think the problem is my inherent racism as a privileged white male. EDIT: And by "their", I of course mean "THOSE PEOPLE". McMadCow fucked around with this message at 23:26 on Aug 31, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2010 23:06
|
|
|
I actually like the shallow DOF in that shot. I think it would be pretty boring if it was all sharp, in fact.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2010 00:50
|
|
|
AtomicManiac posted:What are you thoughts on the hair? That always drives me up the wall when I shoot with a really shallow DOF and the hair is blurred on an otherwise perfect shot. Yeah I like it. In fact I posted my own shallow DOF portrait a page ago and did the same thing. I just feel like if the subject isn't in front of something equally as interesting, I like a real isolating composition.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2010 08:48
|
|
|
AtomicManiac posted:...amateur photogs that exclusively use available light... < >
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2010 17:10
|
|
|
10 months out of the year I'll be shooting under a giant, sky-sized softbox in San Francisco. PIMM's suggestion that landscape or buildings could be close by is probably true, I've got plenty of shots with dynamic lighting on the model simply because they had a wall to one side and the sky to the other. The biggest thing I have to look out for is shadows over the eyes. If the pose allows it, I'll generally tell the model to keep their chin up and treat the sky as their light source. Reflectors work great for filling in shadows in deep-set eyes but there's always the possibility that light will also ruin the natural sculpting you're getting from the sky.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2010 20:17
|
|
|
Anti_Social posted:A friend of mine got sponsored by a drum company, and needed some promo shots. I really really love what you did with the first two. They're creative and very well executed. I don't like the second two equally as much. Your lighting just isn't working on his face at all for me. In the second of the pair, I'd go as far as to say it looks like his right side is deformed. The shadow by the dridge of his nose up to his right eye makes it look like the eye is drooping. Am I crazy? Is anyone else seeing that?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2010 06:02
|
|
|
For something completely different, I've started taking portraits of the dudes at the trap and skeet club. I figure I spend so much of my time there, I might as well document it. Herb  Jimmy These are the first shots to come out of my new camera (Contax G1). Shot on Kodak Ektar 100, which I must say is quite nice. I'll keep posting these as I get more.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2010 05:59
|
|
|
Gaz, watch those bra marks on her shoulders. Pretty distracting. Any time a model takes something off or changes outfits you need to be hyper aware of any marks left over for usually a good 15-20 minutes.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2010 23:55
|
|
|
Penpal posted:I love it. I'd love it even more if we couldn't see parts of her dress and undergarments poking into the shot. Seems like they don't belong. EDIT: At least she doesn't have marks! 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2010 20:18
|
|
|
This is a print from when I was out at the Sand Dunes. Seemed to work best as a high-key.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2010 00:16
|
|
|
Just test strips. I didn't like how the sand was so close to her skin tone. This was at the Sand Dunes in San Louis Obispo. Obviously Weston was able to do just fine with the subject matter, but I just didn't care for the setting when it comes to how I like to print. Oh well, I got good stuff at the other locations we hit up on the trip.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2010 01:22
|
|
|
Interrupting Moss posted:I love your stuff, McMadCow. Thanks! My huge backlog is finally worked through- I'll be back to shooting in the next couple of weeks. Definitely looking forward to that.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2010 02:02
|
|
|
Oprah Haza posted:"outsourcing". If you had shot more at eye level and perhaps had them sort of near the same height in the image with similar expression it would be a better convey the feeling of a "team". I didn't think outsourcing but that's a good point. What struck me is that he put the darker-skinned guy farther from the light source... than the big white guy... big white guy blocking his light. So the dark-skinned guy has a nearly featureless shade side.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2010 02:01
|
|
|
Yeah, I like to converse with the subject during the shooting if I'm getting close in. I'll usually start by having them look OFF camera to give them something to be "doing". Once there's some back-and-forth going on I'll have them look back at the camera. That seems to break down the mental cue that says to smile/pose for the camera.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2010 21:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 14:11 |
|
|
A photographer buddy of mine actually took out a group of dudes where he works to give them a full-day session on portraiture. Brought a model along and gave them real-time instructions when shooting.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2010 21:39
|
|