|
Acc-Risk posted:That's exactly where I'm at now. I know what I like and not, but not really "why" Exactly. With that link that ConfusedUs posted, I had about fifteen lights going on in my head for every page I read.
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2009 22:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 06:52 |
|
|
I'm a complete hobbyist/amateur, but I've got to the point where I can't look at any advertising material without wondering exactly how the lights were set up for that particular shoot. Am I alone in this?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2009 08:21
|
|
|
Acc-Risk posted:That's exactly where I'm at now. I know what I like and not, but not really "why" I know why and why I don't, but only after review.. I can't take that knowledge and set up a new shoot using what i've learnt.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2009 12:43
|
|
|
psylent posted:I'm a complete hobbyist/amateur, but I've got to the point where I can't look at any advertising material without wondering exactly how the lights were set up for that particular shoot. Am I alone in this? It's a massive shift in perception and you'll soon be able to spot horrendous composites such as this: 
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2009 14:52
|
|
|
HPL posted:Exactly. With that link that ConfusedUs posted, I had about fifteen lights going on in my head for every page I read. I've been doing portraits for five years and I still had lights going off in my head. That link is awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2009 18:45
|
|
|
Tincans posted:It's a massive shift in perception and you'll soon be able to spot horrendous composites such as this: Considering that's a professional job, that's loving appalling. Wonder how much that cost?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2009 22:53
|
|
|
I'm sure the photographer had nothing to do with that. It's far, far cheaper for the agency to comp together some poo poo real quick that you already have then it is to re-shoot something with 3 busy celebrities. Especially since that just looks like some collateral that no one is going to look at closely anyways. That stuff happens all the time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2009 23:10
|
|
|
My favourite part is the arms/hands holding the flowers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2009 23:19
|
|
|
Probably wasn't even the same photographer. I wonder where in an actor's contract does it say they have to get a bunch of pictures taken in front of a seamless background to be used for whatever. It doesn't even look like those hands belong to the actors. Also Uma Thurman emitting different kinds of light out of each ear.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2009 23:20
|
|
|
Acc-Risk posted:That's exactly where I'm at now. I know what I like and not, but not really "why" Can you post a couple of your pictures? Both the ones you liked and the ones you didn't. I'd be happy to throw in my two cents. That offer's open to anyone, really.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2009 02:20
|
|
|
Hollywood usually knows better re: movie posters/ads/whatever. http://www.ignitioncreative.net/
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2009 02:31
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:yeah, except thats probably 5 different portraits comped into one You should, there's good reason too. It was a lot more than 5.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2009 06:24
|
|
|
Comping images is a good reason to not like her work? Why does it matter?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2009 06:44
|
|
|
No. I have plenty of reasons to not like her work, though I suppose having the majority of her images be ridiculous giant comps is one of them though sometimes the challenge is enjoyable when it's a big planned project(like disney) and not just a fuckup. She gets a lot of praise for not a lot of talent which pretty much went out the door when she picked up a digital camera. Of course everything she shoots now is to service her debt, she's been wanting to retire for a while and just doesn't care.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2009 07:11
|
|
|
Yeah, I could care less about comping, but after looking into her work and glancing through some books of hers, her quality really seemed to fade somewhere in the 90s. back to the thread topic; I always have a problem with posing, I know what I want the models to do but I'm not very good at explaining it, i usually try to show them the best I can, let them try it, shoot a few frames, then show them a photo to tell them whats right/wrong/what I want more of etc. I know a big part of this is the fact that all of my models/clients are completely inexperienced, but how do you guys deal with the communication side of it? Bottom Liner fucked around with this message at 07:18 on Jul 20, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2009 07:16
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
What I don't really get right now is the difference between a portrait of a person and a fashion photo. What is the distinction in posing and composition to capture someones likeness versus promoting qualities of a product modeled by a person?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2009 14:55
|
|
|
TsarAleksi posted: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. I've noticed this as well, and I think it's because with a comped photo, there's no interaction between the people. I think that accounts for the "vacancy" feeling, because every person looks as if no one else is there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2009 15:01
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:What I don't really get right now is the difference between a portrait of a person and a fashion photo. What is the distinction in posing and composition to capture someones likeness versus promoting qualities of a product modeled by a person? I'm not sure I can really explain the difference well, but I'll give it a shot. Fashion photography really isn't my thing, and I've only done one fashion shoot. A portrait is a picture of a person, who is the subject and focus of the picture. Fashion photography is a picture of clothing, which happens to be on a person. In this photo, I posed her much more square to the camera than I would have normally, and the lighting is not nearly as...glamorous?...as I would have chosen for a woman with such narrow features. Because this is a picture where she didn't need to outshine the outfit. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2009 17:20
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:What I don't really get right now is the difference between a portrait of a person and a fashion photo. What is the distinction in posing and composition to capture someones likeness versus promoting qualities of a product modeled by a person? I'll try to tackle this question too. There are certain styles that are prevalent in fashion. Certain poses (lots of weird body contortion and angles), certain lighting, certain types of models. The face is often distant (ie not smiling), as to not catch attention away from the style/clothes of the photo. In a way, the model is an accessory to the rest of the photo, but if the model doesn't look good, the clothes don't look good. Composition also often tailors to the body instead of the face.  In this photo, there's strong body language and strong light that is not necessarily going to flatter the model. Your eyes don't necessarily want to stay at the face, it's not the most important part.  Here, we have a strong connection to the face, and the clothes don't matter at all, even if the shot showed more of the body. It's important to make the model here look pretty/nice/pleasant in a normal way. The thing is though, there are definitely lines blurred between here, especially when you get into print stuff, like department clothing ads, where they want bright and smiling people, or serious portrait work that pushes some boundaries.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2009 21:39
|
|
|
brad industry posted:I mean this in the nicest way possible, but it would be amazing to me if anyone could keep all these rules and guidelines straight in their head during a shoot. Jesus. If I typed out all the rules of exposing correctly, it would also seem like a lot to remember. A good portrait photographer doesn't keep this bullet point list in their mind and go through it before every shot, they just know. When starting out though, it's good to read about the rules and try to keep even a couple in mind on the next shoot. Every time I post an explanation, you complain and suggest people just go out and shoot. Do you think that nothing can be learned through knowledge exchange? Everything must be learned from hours of trial and error? How long would it take a person shooting before they notice that cutting off the white's of the eye tends to look bad vs being told that? When explaining simple concepts of a 3d reality based thing, sometimes it takes a wall of text. But since this is an internet forum based partially on textual exchange of ideas, I figure it's ok to try to explain concepts textually, since doing a right/wrong example photo of every thing I want to show would be exhausting and I'd rather spend that time doing a real shoot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2009 14:56
|
|
|
I don't think that kind of information is useless, just that if you go into a shoot with a person in front of you and are worrying about tiny things like whether the catchlights match or what the "correct" angle for someone's eyes are you've already lost sight of the big picture. Shoot more, think about the image and what you want to communicate, and worry about all these "rules" last.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2009 22:40
|
|
|
brad industry posted:I don't think that kind of information is useless, just that if you go into a shoot with a person in front of you and are worrying about tiny things like whether the catchlights match or what the "correct" angle for someone's eyes are you've already lost sight of the big picture.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2009 23:26
|
|
|
brad industry posted:I don't think that kind of information is useless, just that if you go into a shoot with a person in front of you and are worrying about tiny things like whether the catchlights match or what the "correct" angle for someone's eyes are you've already lost sight of the big picture. I think it's a matter of where you are. For me, seeing a list like that is first intimidating, then instructive, then reassuring. I'll never do all that, but it helps guide my thinking when I do my first setup. THEN, after thinking about those guidelines, I'll do what Brad suggests. But I, amateur with little time on my hands, need both.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2009 02:10
|
|
|
q != e
Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 04:17 on Jul 22, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2009 03:08
|
|
|
That's what I'm reading about the focal lengths. 70-100mm ish. Thing to remember about going wide with a DSLR is that the crop factor is just a crop out of the middle, it doesn't fix lens distortion if it's severe enough, and getting close with a wide lens could make it worse. But if it worked, it worked.  I'm in a class where we will have to shoot some portraits with film, and I'm wondering if my SMC-Takumar 135mm would be good at it. If it's too tight, I think the depth of field might be too narrow, but otherwise it might be an interesting portrait lens. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 04:17 on Jul 22, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2009 03:08
|
|
|
70-100mm is the happy zone for most modelling shots, but if you want to make an average person look good, then there's nothing wrong with using a more wide angle shot, providing it's not a full length body shot, and is shot from above. Just review it carefully. It'll really accentuate whatever's closest to the camera. It's the professional equivalent to the myspace shot. Cyberbob fucked around with this message at 03:56 on Jul 22, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2009 03:52
|
|
|
s0meb0dy0 posted:I figure it's like anything else. You use the rules to analyze your images after the fact and learn what you could have done better. Do this with enough and things will become second nature without ever being in the way of a shoot. Exactly. Plus, you can always approach things as homework. I notice sometimes a specific problem with my work, and I'll assign myself shoots just to work on that issue until it becomes second nature to me. I think Brad has it backwards. Learn the rules first (they're out there, and easy to practice with digital) then go out and make your art once you have it all down. If you go to all the trouble to arrange a subject, a location, spend time lighting, etc, why bother making simple mistakes you could have ironed out in your living room with your mother/girlfriend/dog? I did a ton of lighting exercises at my house that resulted in zero usable portfolio work, but you better believe it made my actual shoots better. I would have been completely lost in several of them, had I not done practice exercises before. How do you worry about the rules last when you've already made all the mistakes that knowing them like the back of your hand would have eliminated? I see so many of these basic rules ignored in PAD and they make the photos worse for having broken them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2009 10:02
|
|
|
You guys keep talking about this list of "rules". Is there any place where these are all written/explained well like some sort of a photography wiki? I know a few of them like rule of thirds, but I feel like I don't know them all. It'd be nice if they were all listed in a single place.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2009 18:21
|
|
|
AtomicManiac posted:You guys keep talking about this list of "rules". Is there any place where these are all written/explained well like some sort of a photography wiki? I know a few of them like rule of thirds, but I feel like I don't know them all. It'd be nice if they were all listed in a single place. Last page, there was a link to a guide. e: The favicon is a Netscape logotype. That's how long this dude's been around. Snaily fucked around with this message at 18:40 on Jul 22, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2009 18:36
|
|
|
AtomicManiac posted:You guys keep talking about this list of "rules". Is there any place where these are all written/explained well like some sort of a photography wiki? I know a few of them like rule of thirds, but I feel like I don't know them all. It'd be nice if they were all listed in a single place. This is the only "rule" you need: everything should be in the image for a reason. All this other stuff people come up with is just a distraction from that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2009 20:16
|
|
|
Ah, I saw that and bookmarked it for a boring day. I didn't know if he listed all the rules in a bullet list or something like that. Maybe I'll take notes and type'em up when I read it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2009 02:39
|
|
|
Ok, so my wife got dressed up, we went downtown, and I did told her to stand around while I took pictures of her before dinner reservation. I stole the bag on the steps idea from ConfusedUs. I hope he doesn't mind. I like these the best. I am going for the fashion look to show off the outfit and the bag.   
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2009 02:58
|
|
|
Your wife has got to be the most unhappy model in the world or something.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2009 03:56
|
|
|
Any thoughts on this shoot I did for my friends' band? Honestly, if anything good came out of it, it was purely by accident. I didn't really have any direction in mind, they didn't either, and because of time restrictions we pretty much shot between 1PM and 4PM, which isn't exactly a super time for natural light. Any feedback is appreciated. http://www.flickr.com/photos/jontomassi/sets/72157621950643514/detail/
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2009 04:09
|
|
|
I went and shot my sister-in-law's wedding this last weekend, and did a portrait session for her a couple days before the ceremony. It was a ton of fun and we got some gorgeous pictures.     
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2009 04:43
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:Ok, so my wife got dressed up, we went downtown, and I did told her to stand around while I took pictures of her before dinner reservation. I stole the bag on the steps idea from ConfusedUs. I hope he doesn't mind. I like these the best. I am going for the fashion look to show off the outfit and the bag. I don't like the construction stuff in the second and third at all, but the biggest problem is her expression. She looks unhappy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2009 04:45
|
|
|
man thats gross posted:Any thoughts on this shoot I did for my friends' band? Honestly, if anything good came out of it, it was purely by accident. I didn't really have any direction in mind, they didn't either, and because of time restrictions we pretty much shot between 1PM and 4PM, which isn't exactly a super time for natural light. Of the three group shots, this one is the best, except for the left-most guy's expression, which is   I like the composition and the expression on this one, but the other individuals don't do much for me.  The white balance seems off on all the pics not taken against the blue wall, too. Really, you stated your own biggest problems. Harsh light and no clear direction. Without light and an idea of what you want to accomplish, you don't have a leg to stand on, and you will always fall short.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2009 04:48
|
|
|
I wouldn't be so short if I had legs! I agree about the WB too. I need a grey card. I loving suck at eyeballing it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2009 04:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 06:52 |
|
|
man thats gross posted:I wouldn't be so short if I had legs! Do you get what I'm saying, though? It's hard to put together a coherent portrait set without at least some idea of what you want it to look like before you start. Even if it's something generic like "I want them to look tough" or "I want pretty mountains as scenery," at least that's something to build on. You have a foundation. Somewhere to start. You can get as detailed as you want when it comes to conceptualizing your portrait shoots, but if you don't even have the slightest clue where to start, you're screwed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2009 04:55
|
|