|
Where do people go for portrait inspiration? Besides this wonderful thread, of course.
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 07:09 |
|
|
triplexpac posted:Where do people go for portrait inspiration? Besides this wonderful thread, of course. http://www.terryrichardson.com/
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:Where do people go for portrait inspiration? Besides this wonderful thread, of course. Model Mayham and Maxim Magazines. Duh.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
Flattering Portrait: Photobeers in NW, Portland by Ashade76, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
Sorry I sparked such a huge debate about the photo. Paragon8 was right and the first take was pretty red/orange. She liked that edit because it "exaggerated" the redness of her hair. So I did another pass on it: The background is about as white as I can get it. As the wall we shot on is this creamy/green color. The reason I chose this shot was because it felt the most genuine of the 20ish photos I took which adds to the raw feel as TheAngryDrunk put it. Yeah I missed focus in her eyes, but the other photo I posted in the feedback thread had her in this super awkward pose that just didn't feel right. We did these photos for fun, she is a studio portrait/people photographer and was happy to do something a little different. I am testing the style out for a future client who expressed interest in it. But I also am loving the look of it right now. Eventually I'm sure I'll get over it, we all go through phases with our creative process. Sticking with the same formula can wear you out. I've got nothing against proper studio lighting (but maybe I should start telling people to put their hands down  ): EDIT: Guess I could have chosen a better example:  VVV Yeah she is clenching on to that thing for dear life. iSheep fucked around with this message at 18:51 on Sep 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
iSheep posted:I've got nothing against proper studio lighting (but maybe I should start telling people to put their hands down At least tell them to relax their hand a bit, I can't stop staring at that woman's fist.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 18:31
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:Well, flattering and interesting certainly don't perfectly overlap, so I don't think "the light isn't flattering" is a very good criticism of a photo that isn't necessarily meant to be flattering to the subject's looks. For instance, did you know that portraits of mentally and physically disabled people are very in vogue right now? We want to see that destitution! He literally posted the photo in PAD for critique, so I gave him my opinion. Obviously it's MY opinion, nowhere did I say I'm the all knowing photo wizard, but I don't feel like he was mindful of creating a flattering image but instead was simply just trying to recreate Terry's style, which he was successful in, but as a portrait (and he's already said this WAS for a client) I feel like there is a lot of things wrong with it. Lighting is only part of it, but posing is the second half of portraiture and it's something you just need to practice over and over and being mindful of small details until you start to do things right. A girl with her hair and makeup done wants to look flattering, why are you trying to convince me otherwise? Yes, some subjects don't want to look flattering, yes, sometimes we want to see grit and crazy skin texture of an old man, but this isn't one of those cases.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
somnambulist posted:He literally posted the photo in PAD for critique, so I gave him my opinion. Obviously it's MY opinion, nowhere did I say I'm the all knowing photo wizard, but I don't feel like he was mindful of creating a flattering image but instead was simply just trying to recreate Terry's style, which he was successful in, but as a portrait (and he's already said this WAS for a client) I feel like there is a lot of things wrong with it. Lighting is only part of it, but posing is the second half of portraiture and it's something you just need to practice over and over and being mindful of small details until you start to do things right. Dude this is your "critique", completely unedited: somnambulist posted:I hate the "Terry Richardson" look. It's not very flattering and it's not "good" light. Just my personal opinion. I'm sorry that after getting called out for giving a terrible and completely worthless critique you feel like I'm attacking you personally- I'm not, I am explaining for the benefit of poster iSheep that your poo poo critique is wrong and that he shouldn't let it affect his decisions moving forward. Meanwhile, your defensive responses are moving more and more towards giving an actual useful critique of the photo, so that's good. Also your requirements of a good portrait went from "only being flattering is important" to "flattering or at the very least interesting" so I'm glad that you're expanding your horizons as well. I also wasn't saying that this photo in particular shouldn't aim to be flattering, I was speaking for all photos, because that's the general tone you were taking at first.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
Opinion requested I took this in the back of a moving hayride with my daughter running around playing with her cousin, and ended up with the unfortunate framing of her left hand getting cut off. I'm kinda miffed because I really like how it turned out other than that - just wondering whether anyone thinks it would work better as a vertical crop (ending right after her right hand) so it looks more intentional rather than an unfortunate accident. I know it's not high art either way, I just like taking pictures of my kid and I'd like to get better at it. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:Opinion requested That's a tough crop, yeah. I feel like a vertical crop would feel too cramped, I like having the space to follow where she's looking. Plus it gives you more of the wagon, if you crop tight it will be harder to understand where she is. It's a nice shot of your kid though, so I wouldn't worry too much. Sometimes you're in the moment and don't have a chance to perfectly frame your photo, you just need to jump in and get the expression before it gets too posed. Just curious, are you using a crop or full-frame? FF gives you more wiggle room for this sort of stuff, it's pretty handy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:That's a tough crop, yeah. Thank you - I kind of thought it was cramped in vertical also, the hand just bugs me as 'the thing I wish I had gotten right'. She's a lot of fun to shoot at this age (2.5), every second is a different facial expression and pose, so it's a handful keeping up. It's crop - 70D and the 35/2IS. I had considered the 6D instead when I upgraded my ancient 10D last year, but the video AF won me out because it can actually track a playing toddler.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:Opinion requested Maybe tell her to look at the camera next time?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
Musket posted:Maybe tell her to look at the camera next time? Nah.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:Opinion requested Square-crop it to where the right edge of the frame is in the middle of her forearm, ...maybe? EDIT: Wait, is that straight out of the camera? Those are weird proportions. William T. Hornaday fucked around with this message at 22:49 on Sep 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
William T. Hornaday posted:Square-crop it to where the right edge of the frame is in the middle of her forearm, ...maybe? Empty space cropped off the left already for 8x10 proportions. I had the room, and I blew it, which is the frustrating part.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
somnambulist posted:Window light is free and it is much more beautiful (to me) then removing all the shadows and shape to her face for the sake of a "look". There are plenty of shadows in the photo in question and her face is clearly defined. In fact, it is diffuse light like window light that removes shadows. If you compare the T. Rich shot to the "proper studio lighting" head-on setup, the big difference is that in the former, the highlights on the face are all overexposed. That has nothing to do with the quality of the light though. Seems like what you want to say is that you don't like how the overexposed highlights eliminate the texture of her skin causing the subject's face to look more and more like a series of outlines. I myself am totally on board with the flash blast into face technique and I think it was well executed and I didn't find the hand distracting at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
I don't like that photo but I certainly don't care enough to post about not liking it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 02:35
|
|
|
Whirlwind Jones posted:I don't like that photo but I certainly don't care enough to post about not liking it. And yet...
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:And yet... 
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
 Untitled by francography, on FlickrWorking with kids is never easy, I asked her mom if I could borrow her 4 year old for a concept I had in my brain, and the mom promised her daughter a treat when we finish. So she was pretty cooperative overall. This frame was when the kid found out her treat was, in fact, melon and not the ice cream she imagined. somnambulist fucked around with this message at 01:42 on Sep 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
you cruel, cruel person
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
I wasn't responsible!!! 
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 02:53
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:Because obviously what matters is how much the equipment you're using cost, not what you want to do.\ That was in direct response to Paragon saying that what he likes about the look is that anyone can get it regardless of equipment and he specifically brought cost into the equation by asking why a $10,000 lighting setup was more legit for achieving that look than a single speedlight. I think it follows that is if you're going to challenge the big pro lighting setup then why not go all the way on the "lo-fi look" and use the cheapest gear you can. There's obviously a middle ground between $15,000 pro setup and $200 craigslist DSLR and I was just trying to see where it is. Equipment cost is obviously meaningless when it comes to the end result. I also thought it was a bit weird for Paragon to make that statement since I swore I saw him post about buying a B1, which pretty much defines high end pro lighting gear. RangerScum posted:Now we have another problem in that you're stating that all good photographs are the result of thoughtfulness, which is also wrong. There are so many examples of good photographs that were "captured in the moment without any time to really think" that it would probably be taken as kind of insulting for me to name a few. While thoughtfulness is definitely something that can help improve many aspects of photography, I think it's wrong to write off something that was created in the heat of the moment- those types of works can have a very "real" feeling to them that is absent in a lot of posed photographs. Once again I am not saying that the photograph in question feels real or intense, it doesn't, but it's not a good practice to generalize in such a way. I think you're mischaracterizing what I'm saying and/or I'm not expressing myself clearly enough. I never meant to imply that thoughtfulness was necessary for a good photograph, just that it is the factor that determines whether lighting was being called "lazy" or not. I never made any statements about quality and I even said I see the appeal of that direct flash look. I don't feel like I said thoughtfulness had anything to do with the quality of a photograph, simply how the lighting was characterized in this particular discussion. Usually my best work is also the stuff I put the least thought into when I am just shooting in the moment so I definitely wasn't writing anyone off for not meticulously planning their photos. And as I said in the previous response, it was more a hypothetical question in direct response to Paragon asking why a $10,000 lighting setup was a more legit way to get punchy photographs than a single speedlight. I get why you would just use the equipment you have, but if you're going to characterize a pro light setup as overkill for that kind of "anyone with a camera can achieve this" look then why not qualify pro level camera equipment the same way? That's all I was saying. somnambulist posted:
What was the concept? mr. mephistopheles fucked around with this message at 03:24 on Sep 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 03:17
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:
There's a lot of bias against on camera flash as evidenced in this thread and the broader photography community. It's a great tool to have in your bag and it is used broadly to great effect at even the highest levels of shooting. It's no more or less valid than a beauty dish or using window light. My point was that just because it's cheap and "easy" doesn't mean it's not a legitimate set up. I do see people use ridiculously budgeted out setups to essentially duplicate an on camera flash effect out of perception for their clients or just because they don't want to be on a lower level. I think that's ridiculous. Everything and anything can make great pictures. on camera flash, window light, huge 12 head arrays, HMIs etc. I think on camera flash is great because it's nice to see something used at a high level that is accessible and affordable. It's an interesting challenge to get good images out of something everyone has access too. white wall and a speedlight really forces you to create and figure out a way other than technique to get the images to have some life. It can be more inspirational to see something in a magazine and be like oh I have the tools to do that! rather than seeing something shot in an unreachable location with an astronomical lighting budget.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 09:11
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:
It didn't really come out the way I wanted, but I was sorta happy with this image, I wanted it to feel like a dream.  The Steps in my Dream by francography, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 09:40
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:There's a lot of bias against on camera flash as evidenced in this thread and the broader photography community. It's a great tool to have in your bag and it is used broadly to great effect at even the highest levels of shooting. It's no more or less valid than a beauty dish or using window light. My point was that just because it's cheap and "easy" doesn't mean it's not a legitimate set up. On camera flash is terrible when used by people that don't have any idea how to use light but so are Profoto heads. On camera flash has a very vernacular look which some people confuse with "cheap" and frankly that says a lot about their general view point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 10:11
|
|
|
somnambulist posted:It didn't really come out the way I wanted, but I was sorta happy with this image, I wanted it to feel like a dream. Looks cool to me. How did you light it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 14:45
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:Looks cool to me. How did you light it? With light, I assume.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 15:46
|
|
|
Musket posted:With light, I assume. Don't assume
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 15:49
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:Looks cool to me. How did you light it? VERY CAREFULLY
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:On camera flash is terrible when used by people that don't have any idea how to use light but so are Profoto heads. On camera flash has a very vernacular look which some people confuse with "cheap" and frankly that says a lot about their general view point. Well said. +1
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:Where do people go for portrait inspiration? Besides this wonderful thread, of course. I'm loving this book of Gregory Heisler http://www.amazon.com/Gregory-Heisler-Techniques-Photographers-Photographer/dp/0823085651
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 03:16
|
|
|
 Jordan by SPV Photo, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 03:33
|
|
|
This right here is my loving jam. TheAngryDrunk posted:
This also is somewhat my jam, except, as weird as it sounds, I might prefer it without the model (obviously not as a portrait in that case, but you know what I mean). It's a great scene as-is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:This right here is my loving jam. Nah, I can dig it. It's a sweet spot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
That motel is rad, the model's pose not so much.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 05:14
|
|
|
It's a perfect pose. It just screams "gently caress this poo poo" which is a pleasant departure from the standard "pretty girl, american apparel, mildly scenic vista" stuff that can be like a trap.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 05:27
|
|
|
Yeah but you could get that look with her not locking her knees or pointing her toes straight at the camera, then it would be really good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 07:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 07:09 |
|
|
8th-snype posted:It's a perfect pose. It just screams "gently caress this poo poo" which is a pleasant departure from the standard "pretty girl, american apparel, mildly scenic vista" stuff that can be like a trap. Pretty much what I wanted to say. deaders posted:Yeah but you could get that look with her not locking her knees or pointing her toes straight at the camera, then it would be really good. Are you loving serious with this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 09:32
|
|