|
Chill Callahan posted:Hell yeah 
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 02:03 |
|
|
 8x10 street at night with Musket
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 05:54
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:
Owns so hard.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 06:02
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:
We killed it. Owns so hard. Mark is a character.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 14:48
|
|
|
A few from a recent shoot with a friend.  
Breadnought fucked around with this message at 07:43 on Sep 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
Breadnought posted:A few from a recent shoot with a friend. This is really nice, but you should clone out the hair on her face (especially below the glasses).
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lPJ9J-6vDw
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
You are like my 4th favorite poster, just thought you should know.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
Basically. The first shot was followed by the realization that the shrubbery (and by extension my friend) was covered in aphids.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:You are like my 4th favorite poster, just thought you should know. Aw thanks. Ditto. Here's a guy:  img005 by LargeHadron, on Flickr And here's a gal:  img013 by LargeHadron, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
 Chelsey by SPV Photo, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 08:23
|
|
|
Election day
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 12:40
|
|
|
You know Buster?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 12:56
|
|
|
Spedman posted:You know Buster? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 13:01
|
|
|
Shot some stuff for a class with a friend, turned out better than I thought it would.  _MG_2316.jpg by Photografaffer, on Flickr _MG_2325.jpg by Photografaffer, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
Chekans 3 16 posted:Shot some stuff for a class with a friend, turned out better than I thought it would. This is like the most uncomfortable-looking pose ever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
Which is a shame, because the lighting is really nice. Also not sold on the full-length there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
William T. Hornaday posted:This is like the most uncomfortable-looking pose ever. Yeah, it was a struggle getting him to look anything close to natural. That was probably the best pose out of what we shot at that location so I went with it. The other shot was nearer to the end of the shoot, which I think is why he looks more comfortable. 365 Nog Hogger posted:Which is a shame, because the lighting is really nice. Also not sold on the full-length there. I cropped it to a 3/4ths shot and I think I agree with you. I was more preoccupied with having a full-length to turn in when I was editing them. I might just turn them both in like that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 02:02
|
|
|
Done a few kind of portrait shots recently so I thought I'd post, obviously these are all over processed but eh whatever. Wrestling  EPW State of Origin 2014 by bang3rachi, on Flickr  TMDK - Marcius Pitt by bang3rachi, on Flickr Band shoot  Dead White males by bang3rachi, on Flickr  Dead White males by bang3rachi, on Flickr  Dead White males by bang3rachi, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
edit: nvm Subyng fucked around with this message at 04:30 on Sep 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
 Cross postin' from the feedback thread.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
iSheep posted:
I hate the "Terry Richardson" look. It's not very flattering and it's not "good" light. Just my personal opinion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
somnambulist posted:I hate the "Terry Richardson" look. It's not very flattering and it's not "good" light. Just my personal opinion. Can you please define your personal opinion of what good light is? I'll ignore the part where you assume that portraits are supposed to be flattering.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
iSheep posted:
I like it. Good expression on your subject.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
it looks a touch too red/orange to me. also the focus is on her hand which makes it look a bit off.
Paragon8 fucked around with this message at 11:31 on Sep 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 11:29
|
|
|
Cross-posting from the "street" thread. 8x10 at night.  
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:Cross-posting from the "street" thread. 8x10 at night. How are these lit?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 03:22
|
|
|
SB800 at full power about 4 feet away at 45 degrees with a diffuser, I think. Nothing special.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 05:32
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:Can you please define your personal opinion of what good light is? I'll ignore the part where you assume that portraits are supposed to be flattering. Everything about this lighting technique screams lazy snapshot to me (which is kind of the point, I understand, but the story its telling better be damned compelling if im going to just start shooting subjects by blasting light in their face). And yes, I do believe a portrait should be flattering or at the very least interesting. An awkwardly posed subject with a hand that is distracting more than anything with light blasted in her face isn't working for me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 06:30
|
|
|
somnambulist posted:Everything about this lighting technique screams lazy snapshot to me (which is kind of the point, I understand, but the story its telling better be damned compelling if im going to just start shooting subjects by blasting light in their face). And yes, I do believe a portrait should be flattering or at the very least interesting. An awkwardly posed subject with a hand that is distracting more than anything with light blasted in her face isn't working for me. It's honestly no more lazy than setting up a beauty dish camera left. I like on camera flash because it's supremely democratic. In a world where lighting budgets can hit five figures just on rental it's really cool to see someone use equipment that literally everyone with a camera has access to. If you like the hard punchy light is it more legit to be using a 10,000 dollar pro 8 pack connected to a 1000 dollar head with a 800 dollar reflector on it? I don't think so, I like just throwing a speedlight on my camera and going at it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 10:42
|
|
|
I personally can see the appeal of the look, but I don't think som's critique has anything to do with the cost of lighting, and I think anyone would agree that a single beauty dish is just as lazy. It's not about the cheapness or complexity of the light, it's about the thoughtfulness, and it's basically impossible to make a direct lighting shot look like it had any thought put into it unless you're doing something extremely drastic or unique with your subject. A person standing awkwardly against a wall does not fulfill that expectation. On the one hand I can see the romanticism in the "anyone could take this shot" aspect, but there's something that seems ridiculous about using expensive digital equipment to replicate a look you could get with a $10 disposable. If that's the look you want, why not just use equipment that can only achieve that instead of dumbing down your equipment to make some kind of statement? Yeah anyone with camera access can get that shot, so why use a several thousand dollar setup to get it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 11:23
|
|
|
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". I should clarify a couple things: I think it's great iSheep is experimenting with different lighting techniques, and I don't want my critique to make him feel bad or give him the idea he should give up or something stupid like that. CreativeLive.com just finished their photo week, and I just finished some classes with a portrait master Sue Bryce. While her style is very specific, and she doesn't know a lot on the technical side (she BARELY started using strobes and literally only used window light for over 20 years) she taught me so many valuable things about a portrait. I'm not suggesting everyone should stop being creative and emulate other techniques, be unique, create a style of your own- that's great. But ultimately you need to ask yourself: What is this photo for? If anything, MAYBE it could be used for an editorial piece, but otherwise I dont believe many clients would want portraits taken in a light that doesnt flatter their face that well. She is a very pretty girl, and I believe better light and better hand placement (and the form of the hand) would make this a thousand times stronger. I hate the shadow on the wall, it is making my eyes stare at it, when I should be staring at her eyes. And since the lighting is so flat, she kinda blends in to the wall and its just a limitation to that style. Ignoring the shadow, even if I stare dead on to the image and TRY to stare at her eyes, the ugly highlight on her hair is more visible then her eyes. somnambulist fucked around with this message at 11:46 on Sep 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 11:43
|
|
|
I think one issue is that this is a "portrait" thread and a lot of pictures posted in here aren't what people would traditionally think of as portraits. I post pics of people in here, but hardly any of them are waht I would consider portraits. The on camera flash look would/should never be used for, say, an actors headshot. But it is useful for creating a very gritty and raw feel.
TheAngryDrunk fucked around with this message at 15:15 on Sep 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 14:40
|
|
|
Yo dawg, I heard you like on camera flash... Megan by SPV Photo, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 15:07
|
|
|
On camera flash is just one of those trendy things, I guess. Whenever I do a couple like that and show them to the models I shoot, they always love them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 15:12
|
|
|
It is very trendy right now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 15:14
|
|
|
It only looks good if the subject is in front of wood paneling of some type.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 15:41
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:If that's the look you want, why not just use equipment that can only achieve that instead of dumbing down your equipment to make some kind of statement? Yeah anyone with camera access can get that shot, so why use a several thousand dollar setup to get it? Because obviously what matters is how much the equipment you're using cost, not what you want to do.\ somnambulist posted:But ultimately you need to ask yourself: What is this photo for? If anything, MAYBE it could be used for an editorial piece, but otherwise I dont believe many clients would want portraits taken in a light that doesnt flatter their face that well. She is a very pretty girl, and I believe better light and better hand placement (and the form of the hand) would make this a thousand times stronger. Ask yourself: does everything need a marketable niche?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
somnambulist posted:And yes, I do believe a portrait should be flattering or at the very least interesting. 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! For the record it's not that I think the portrait in question is all that great, just that hearing someone respond to it by making GBS threads on an entire completely valid style of photography just because "it's not for them" is pretty ignorant sounding. You should have just said the photo isn't working for you. mr. mephistopheles posted:It's not about the cheapness or complexity of the light, it's about the thoughtfulness, and it's basically impossible to make a direct lighting shot look like it had any thought put into it unless you're doing something extremely drastic or unique with your subject. 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. mr. mephistopheles posted:On the one hand I can see the romanticism in the "anyone could take this shot" aspect, but there's something that seems ridiculous about using expensive digital equipment to replicate a look you could get with a $10 disposable. If that's the look you want, why not just use equipment that can only achieve that instead of dumbing down your equipment to make some kind of statement? Yeah anyone with camera access can get that shot, so why use a several thousand dollar setup to get it? I don't understand, are you saying that in the event that I to want to take some photos that like this, the correct way to go about it is to not use my existing equipment that would work perfectly fine for the task, and instead spend money to purchase additional equipment that is more basic? I really want to write a car analogy right now, but I'm going to refrain. somnambulist posted:But ultimately you need to ask yourself: What is this photo for? If anything, MAYBE it could be used for an editorial piece, but otherwise I dont believe many clients would want portraits taken in a light that doesnt flatter their face that well. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say most of his work, and your work, and the work of 99% of the posters on this forum, aren't for anything besides to sit on the internet and earn flickr awards. Even if your end goal is to build a kick-rear end portfolio to shop around later in life while on your path to becoming a big-shot photographer please don't assume that is what everybody wants, or what they should want. Maybe they just like taking pictures because it makes them feel good. So what is the photo for? Probably nothing. Well, that settles that. TheAngryDrunk posted:I think one issue is that this is a "portrait" thread and a lot of pictures posted in here aren't what people would traditionally think of as portraits. I post pics of people in here, but hardly any of them are waht I would consider portraits. Is your brain broken? What do you consider a portrait? Your photostream from the last two years is literally only portraits of girls.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 16:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 02:03 |
|
|
voodoorootbeer posted:How are these lit? by me, the flashmonkey.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 16:45
|
|