|
Reichstag posted:It seems a bit funny that people suddenly care about that sort of thing in a thread that has thus far been 100% about gear/technique and had a very strong 'commercial' bias. Yeah, it has, but tsar's questions still stands.
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2009 23:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 00:33 |
|
|
Reichstag posted:How is the framing bad? The expressions aren't great? I think you're looking for an entirely different type of photo altogether, or have an ill-defined idea of what a portrait is. The framing in the 3rd one is the one that doesn't do it for me. Blam, center of the frame, landscape orientation. I'm sure that was a choice, but I don't think it worked for that photo. On the second, there's the obvious light leak at the top. If it was intentional, then I apologize, if it wasn't, it's a pretty serious technical flaw that detracts from an already-dark subject. The first would probably look better in the context of the rest of the series.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2009 23:29
|
|
|
Hi there, forums moderator SoundMonkey here! It would warm my heart greatly if people could get back to discussing portrait photography without being dicks to each other, or getting angry at the internet, or any of those things. When it's gotten to the point where I actually get e-mails requesting that I "burn that thread to the ground", it's probably time to get back on track 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2012 00:24
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Or you could... stop... down... There may be a reason why this person chose to use an f/1.4 lens instead of a vastly cheaper f/1.8 lens, and I bet it doesn't involve stopping down.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2012 02:28
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:Nice color as always. Not a fan of the whole "coopting and undermining already heavily marginalized cultures" thing. Yeah the war bonnet looks cool, but it's insanely disrespectful to what it is supposed to represent and I don't think its use as nothing more than an aesthetic object is justifiable. The photo's good, the morality ain't. Let's just leave it at that
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2013 05:54
|
|
|
Thank you everybody for being very civil and whatnot, but as of this post we ain't gonna be discussing any marginalization / cultural appropriation issues related to that photo. For the record, I think that's an excellent photograph.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2013 06:31
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:It certainly is. I think I kinda see what you were going for here, and I like it, but there's just a little TOO much empty space om the bottom right. Some is good, that much? I'm not sure. It just makes it feel sorta unbalanced.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2013 09:34
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Controlling your shadows in the non dominant eye would go a ways to make your portrait less unsettling 8) That's a damned good point, actually. ...wait, did you just make a good post? I don't even know what to think anymore.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2013 09:41
|
|
|
rcman50166 posted:Please excuse the horrendous processing. My portfolio is in physical media and I have a bad scanner. Usually I'm actually a fan of 255/255/255 highlights (I mean white is supposed to be loving white), but it's a bit much in the second shot, there's just zero detail and it looks like it's doing weird color things to the kid's fingers.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2013 02:44
|
|
|
Gazmachine posted:Then maybe don't show the soulless, meat-and-potatoes work you do where they don't let you change any of the setup or do anything creative and post something of your own work. I might have put it slightly differently, but this. I have gig after gig of soulless headshot work, but it's poo poo I did for money, not artistic merit (well, SOME, but y'know), so I don't generally post that kinda thing. thetzar posted:
I'm a pretty big fan of this. Somehow B&W freckles always end up looking good.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2013 00:19
|
|
|
Oprah Haza posted:You can gel your lights to match the fluorescent, it fucks a little bit with colour temp. I would also recommend getting paper instead, cloth is a bitch. You should steam it if possible until then or just blast it with light to overexpose it. You CAN get your lights to match the fluorescent (look at Rosco's Plusgreen gels), but honestly it's a pain in the rear end and not worth it, you're better off just overpowering the ambient with flash.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2013 05:51
|
|
|
My constructive critique for this photograph: "This owns hard."
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2013 23:34
|
|
|
Clown posted:(a lot of pictures) There are some good pictures here, and it's not against the rules to post a lot of pictures (nor is it going to be), but it'd be cool if we could stay away from multi-page-long megaposts.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2013 21:46
|
|
|
Dial M for MURDER posted:Clown, I'm pretty new to photography, so you can take my critique with a grain of salt. If you have eyes in your head with a brain attached to them, your critique is as valid as anyone else's.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2013 01:14
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:Personally I'd like to ferret around in her curve layers. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2013 06:06
|
|
|
rio posted:Hey people people - I was hoping to get some input on two shots that are in progress. I did some shots with my wife today - she needs new headshots for an upcoming concert (new concert music if it matters) and I just can't decide which one might be more suitable. I am in the process of editing and all that - the first has just been through a first run through Lightroom and the second is part way through removing fly away hair, facial stuff and grey removal. Normally I'm not one to even utter the word 'bokey', but that is heinous. Honestly I looked at the OOF areas more that I looked at the subject. What the hell lens/camera was this?
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2013 03:14
|
|
|
XTimmy posted:Is mentally filed away for me as "Reichstaggin'" I'm not sure we're friends anymore. I mean not that we were before, but certainly not now.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2013 07:34
|
|
|
Molten Llama posted:The Elinchrom 74" Indirect Octa is a fantastic, relatively affordable, labor-free stand-in for north light or window light. They show up used on eBay time and again and end around the $500 mark, but shipping up to Canada might be a killer. Go big or go home.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2013 08:44
|
|
|
red19fire posted:Personally, I dig huge catchlights in sunglasses. Hell yeah. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2013 05:46
|
|
|
Subyng posted:It's subject distance which affects distortion in this case, not focal length. If the aim is to keep the subject occupying most of the frame, those two are very much related.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2013 01:11
|
|
|
Oh hi PYF Canadian Fraternity Facts thread!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2013 19:52
|
|
|
Dear thread shut up about frats.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2013 20:00
|
|
|
What great contributions to the thread, if this were a thread about boners and getting probated.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2013 02:50
|
|
|
Wario In Real Life posted:The first two are very very nice, although I'd probably clean up some of that dog hair on his sweater in the 2nd one. Go read the last post in the rules thread.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2013 22:23
|
|
|
Hey y'all! As part of the ~Secret Santa Thread Swap~, enjoy your time in TFLC! Tell them how to take good pictures of they swole selves. SoundMonkey fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Dec 11, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2013 20:56
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:I think a lot of you need to work on your composition too Yeah, your body composition, mister photographer man 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2013 22:27
|
|
|
Verman posted:A lot of cameras (especially non dslr) don't have the option for a wireless remote ... but nearly every camera has a self timer. Its incredible how many people never use it. The proest of tips: on most point & shoots (at least last I checked), it focuses when you set the self-timer, not when it takes the picture. Meaning it's focusing on whatever's behind where you're going to stand. Great for ~family photos~, no so great for the selfies. Put something where you're going to be, let it focus on that, then go kick it out of the way before the timer goes off.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2013 23:36
|
|
|
Buzkashi posted:
We have a thread called "raunchy diagonal gently caress muscle" and for some reason I DIDN'T think to move it here  (It's all full of spergy camera chat really)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2013 05:25
|
|
|
Sharks Below posted:Saw those referred to as "cum gutters" on these here forums recently. Perfect. I must credit forums user and noted shitposter Helmacron for "raunchy diagonal gently caress muscle", but damned if I didn't immediately know what he was talking about.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2013 06:11
|
|
|
Sharks Below posted:Yes that too is a most apt description! Sometimes that man has a way with words, sometimes he doesn't, but with that... kablammo.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2013 07:14
|
|
|
rcman50166 posted:I've been learning photoshop lately. My buddy has a green screen backdrop so I just went nuts. Admittedly not the greatest, but I'm still learning. Someone linked me one of these and I refused to believe it wasn't parody until they also linked me to this post.  MOD CHALLENGErcman420 or whatever, your challenge is to create a photograph expressing the concept of "idiot piss garbage for a clown at the circus", using neither literal piss nor literal garbage. Photoshop use is not permitted other than adjusting levels and such. Should you complete this challenge, this thread will forever be prohibited from making fun of any of the photos I just quoted. Should you fail to complete this challenge, bad things will happen. The challenge is open to all, and anyone who delivers a superior product will be allowed to choose the contents of a big ol' redtext title for you (worksafe), and be declared God-King of the Portrait Thread for one week (it is not entirely clear what this entails). If you choose to dodge the "no Photoshop" rule by using GIMP, you will also be required to post a narrated YouTube video at least five minutes in length detailing your ideas and methods when processing the photograph. Images will be judged by both myself and William T Hornaday because I like his username. You have one week.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
rcman50166 posted:I'll try my best, but the stipulation "The challenge is open to all, and anyone who delivers a superior product will be allowed to choose the contents of a big ol' redtext title for you" almost certainly guarantees I get a red title from this. I am not that good at photography. I was just about to edit my original post, but also, if you complete this challenge in what I deem to be a "really bitchin' fashion", I will donate to you, via PayPal or a payment processor of your choice, one half of the purchase price of Topaz ReMask, which you desperately need.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
rcman50166 posted:Question, are Lightroom touch ups considered photoshopping or can I only use what I get straight out of the camera? Retouching should be limited to the basic sliders of the Lightroom 'Develop' module, and not poo poo like the spot healing tool or exposure brush or any of that poo poo. Regular poo poo like noise reduction and sharpening and saturation is also fine. Edit: Crop/rotate are fine too. SoundMonkey fucked around with this message at 01:00 on Mar 14, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
By the way, photo contest rules apply, photos must be taken on or after today's date.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2014 02:43
|
|
|
rcman50166 posted:And to think I was about to open up my "idiot piss garbage for a clown at the circus" folder and pick one. I wish you the absolute best of luck and look forward to seeing what you produce. And if it's awesome I will literally give you $35 USD towards the purchase of ReMask.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2014 11:52
|
|
|
rcman50166 posted:Alright, Soundmonkey. I hope this is up to your standards. I'm... actually really impressed. I'm gonna have to simmer on this for a bit to decide if it qualifies as "bitchin". Question: did you also have to either buy or borrow the hat? It matters. What say you, Mr. Hornaday?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
rcman50166 posted:I had to buy the stupid hat. It was $5.40 on clearance at target. I still have the tags on it. I don't plan on keeping it. Ok because if you already owned that hat you were gonna get automatically disqualified from the "bitchin" bonus reward. Serioustalk you should do less photoshop fuckery and more of this poo poo, getting out and taking pictures that look cool.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
He has clearly completed the challenge and now nobody is allowed to make fun of any of the pics of his that I quoted earlier, but if people have ideas for the challenge, Good Stuff may happen if you submit them and they're awesome.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2014 07:41
|
|
|
rcman50166 posted:I am sad, sad no one participated in the mod challenge. I am, however, pleased to announce that after some deliberation, your submission qualifies as "bitchin." I'll PM you at some point for good times. Until the end of the weekend, poo poo's still open, with Fabulous Prizes going to people who submit something awesome.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 00:33 |
|
|
rocketpig posted:I'm pretty new to photography and was hoping I could get some advice on lighting. With female models, pretty much the sure-fire approach to making them look awesome is clamshell lighting. One (large) umbrella from 45 degrees above, a smaller umbrella (at 1/2 power or so from the main light) from the bottom at about 45 degrees, try to shoot through the gap between umbrellas. Continuous lights are rear end but you can at least learn the general concepts. EDIT: Like this, sorta. 
SoundMonkey fucked around with this message at 06:28 on Apr 1, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2014 06:25
|
|