|
I had the worst experience recently. I asked a friend if his ex that he's on good terms with would be open to letting me take a few portrait shots. He managed to turn it into a huge deal, he said that "she" demanded that he be there. He also said that he told her that he helps me out on all my shoots, and comes up with ideas for them. Really bizarre, and obvious he was just trying to be there. Ideally I should have just gotten her number, but do you have any tips for dealing with nightmare boyfriends/family/friends. Also, I'm not sure if you're a pro or not but how would you approach someone that you'd want to shoot?
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2009 10:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 00:31 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
The problem is the standard is so high in here that people forget what terrible photos really are. My god the awful stuff I've seen on facebook. Beach photos so overexposed it looks like the sea is a frozen field of arctic tundra. Even if you excuse facebook trash, I've seen "pro" students do things like make only the center third of a picture in color while having the rest in black and white.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2009 18:30
|
|
|
Penpal posted:did a bunch of portrait shots of my sister. I used a light box I created which was too her left, and a snooted flash at 1/16th behind her for the hair light. It's easy to work with someone when you're related and already have a decent relationship Counterpoint this girl on my facebook put up some sexy glamour photographs that it turned out her brother took. I was a little skeeved out by that. Not saying the pictures you took are in that vein, they're some great portraits and she is comfortable and at ease in them. My best portraits have come from girls I've known very well. I've decided to try and hunt down some casual acquaintances on facebook which I think would work better than just straight up strangers.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2009 23:29
|
|
|
TsarAleksi posted:Notlodar I think those are nice, I guess what I feel is missing is a level of polish, perhaps. Taking the librarian portrait, for example, for a commercial style portrait I think it could stand to have a lot more light in her eyes-- these kinds of shots seem generally to call for lots of light and a fairly bright nature rather than deep discrepancies between light and dark areas, particularly in the eyes. Your lighting is crisp and even. Two lights? The only flaws I'd say would be the posing. The first one suffers a bit from the head on gaze - a little tilt adds some femininity to it. The second I feel you could kick the lights up a bit higher to try and get some shadow under the neck to define the edge.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2009 00:28
|
|
|
Holy crap, I'm trying out the whole "time for prints" modeling world thing and it is so frustrating. I wish I could afford to hire professionals. Apparently in exchange for her services one model wants between 10-20 edited pictures AND all unedited pictures ... or 50 fully edited pictures.  AIIAZNSK8ER posted:Thoughts? Instead of matching clothes maybe go for a "they all shop at The Gap/whatever" theme. Have the outfits be similar but not identical.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2009 22:13
|
|
|
McMadCow posted: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'm on MM, I'll just friend you if you don't mind. I think the scene in London isn't terribly good.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2009 22:55
|
|
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.
|
nonanone posted:Yes, like McMadCow said, you should basically tell her to deal with what you choose to give or gently caress off. The truth is there are plenty of models who won't be picky, and if they're looking for portfolio pictures, YOU are providing a service that is worth money. So don't let them jerk you around. Yeah, I'm pretty sure I'm going to tell this girl to take a hike. I've tried to explain nicely that I would have thrown some unedited pictures on a temporary gallery for her to pick what gets edited, but she wants "sceer size" resolution. It isn't all bad for me - just mostly bad. I just visited a pretty awesome (and cheap) studio I'm going to hire for a couple of hours. I've had pretty great communication with a MUA, and decent communication with a model. So, hopefully it'll all come together on the weekend. If not I'm dragging a friend along who wants to assist and if no-one shows up she's modeling or else. Experiencing other parts of the internet makes me appreciate how reasonable SA can actually be.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2009 23:37
|
|
|
Why is it I'm somewhat abelivient about every portrait I go out of my way to take, but fall in love with the pictures I just snap on the spur of the moment?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2009 18:24
|
|
|
Yeah, the detail you lose on the white parts really kills it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2009 10:04
|
|
|
LuisX posted:Clubs and event: This guy has a really slick site, I like how he's added twitter urls to all the pictures - good way to try and stop people stealing his photos without credit. Also, ridiculously gorgeous women shot in an unabashed way.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2010 20:32
|
|
|
dude knows his clientele though, as bad as the quality seems to us it's probably 90% better than what's on all these people's facebooks and myspaces - he seems to be able to market himself well and probably makes decent money doing it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2010 23:43
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:when shooting on seamless white, how do you make the background come out black? Have enough distance between your subject and the background so that the light fallout renders it black. Using a small aperture and a fast shutter speed to limit how much light you get. Also, obviously light your subject independently from your background (which shouldn't be lit) but go here for a tutorial - http://www.zarias.com/?p=101 Paragon8 fucked around with this message at 19:13 on Jan 13, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2010 19:05
|
|
|
TomR posted:Alright fellas, rip this crap apart. I want to learn how to shoot people. Last one is the best. The model doesn't fill the frame or stand out enough in the first two. Be mindful of cropping appendages.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2010 02:46
|
|
|
The first two are great, your friend is very photogenic.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2010 16:49
|
|
|
fronkpies posted:
Positive critique incoming - you absolutely nailed the processing. I wouldn't worry too much about head trees if you're shooting with a wide aperture. It's only bad when everything when everything is in razor sharp focus. Even then the human brain tends to assume the thing sticking out of the head is in the background. It's the same when you crop off a hand or a foot - it's only natural to assume the person isn't an amputee. Although in the case of the latter there is a good reason not to from a holistic pov.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2010 21:12
|
|
|
BobTheCow posted:Meh, to each his own, but I definitely notice poo poo growing out of heads and it very often bothers me. I often throw out quite a few sports action photos for the same reason, when there's very little control. That being said, I only notice poo poo like that after becoming more serious about photography myself, so who knows what the general public would think. Case by case, I suppose. Yeah, once you start noticing it you can't see anything but that. If I do, I trash the photo ... even though 80% of people (people not photographers!) wouldn't notice.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2010 22:26
|
|
|
fenner posted:http://www.studiolighting.net/lighting-eyeglasses/ My only problem with the third one is that it doesn't look nearly so nice minimized on flickr. It really looks much better large. Great job on composition too. The first one I think you got too close to her - or cropped it too tight. I'd like to see more separation between her chin and her neck.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2010 15:17
|
|
|
Fiesty Francis posted:It's about time to get some feedback from people who will actually be critical. These were shot in either in the bedroom, or against a wall, so the background definitely could be less distracting. Also, some of the photos have been cropped for reasons which will probably become apparent. Reichstag isn't far of the mark. They're fairly boring, and you could probably do a lot better. The following is criticism to make them better "porn" pictures rather than just better portraits. With the ones of her lying on the bed go for a vertical crop, much tighter on her. http://j883376.mirror.waffleimages.com/waffleimages/files/1d/1d24167aac747afca72d978f0e1d2ed2e4e14b09.jpg - This is your strongest image of her I think - clone out her vaccine scar. The shower one is a nice idea that could use better posing. Maybe with her hands on her stomach? If you can do a reshoot, you definitely need one of her rear end to you while she looks over her shoulder coyly with a finger in her mouth. Remember the target audience you're going after - you should be filling at least 80% of the frame with her. Crop much tighter. Paragon8 fucked around with this message at 10:22 on Mar 29, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2010 10:19
|
|
|
This thread is hilarious how it alternates from child portraits, to nice headshots of wives to softcore porn. Another thing worth keeping in mind is that you don't want them to look too professional - the look that a lot of people are going for is that kind of amateur/voyeur quality. Guys want the feeling the girl they're throwing down four bucks a minute on is doing it all by herself. So, stuff like on the bed is great and in the shower too. Sex sells, and you don't have to be too subtle about it with this client. There's a definite difference when someone shoots a pornstar for porn stills or when just using her as a model. I've seen some really beautiful pictures of girls who I later found out did hardcore porn, it's pretty astounding how different girls look when working with different kinds of photographers and MUAs. I was also totally browsing the thread in PYF about pornstars and for a second thought it was SAD, and was all "wow, goons are getting pretty adventurous with their photography"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2010 15:19
|
|
|
psylent posted:When doing full length shots of people, I have this really terrible habit of cutting off their ankles. I don't know what the gently caress is wrong with me. At least it's better than cropping off mid-foot. It's a rough window. I find only cropping mid thigh really looks okay. So, it's either full body, mid-thigh, or portrait typically.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2010 13:47
|
|
|
Oprah Haza posted:Have you guys... tried reading portraiture books? A lot of the more recent ones are pretty bad, almost as if it's not even really trying. Are you talking about portraiture books being bad, or the pics in here? My mother got a weird haircut and asked me to photograph her, but it just made her look consistently like admiral ackbar so I gave up.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2010 21:29
|
|
|
dik-dik posted:I really like these recent ones. I'm definitely a fan of high contrast stuff when done well. Could someone advise me on blowing out the background hotshoe flashes? Is it doable or should I just go for AlienBees? It's doable.   Both of these I used a strobe to get a seamless white background. The first one the hair is a little hosed up because she was too close to the wall as I had no space. It's also not overexposed that's intentional processing as just a practice. The second, the wall wasn't quite white enough for me so I used a selective exposure mask to blow it out. These aren't prefect examples though, I'm sure they wouldn't pass muster for Oprah Haze - but I think with a little experimentation it's possible to get good results out of a two flash set up. Paragon8 fucked around with this message at 22:38 on Apr 2, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2010 22:32
|
|
|
Oprah Haza posted:I actually think these are pretty well done for a two-strobe setup. The second is better imo. I've taken great portraits with using a single speedlite, it's just all about thinking about how you're going to shoot instead of just clicking away. You can get stellar results with a reflector if you're low on strobes (I personally have two and use a reflector, would like a third). The main gripe I have is that we're seeing portraits with bad posing/angles and in some we're just cutting people's faces off unintentionally. Yeah, I know what you mean. I didn't really post for crit, I basically know what's wrong with them - just demonstrating that strobes can be useful. framing is always an important thing to think about. I tend to shoot really tight on the face for 3/4ths. Unfortunately I don't really have many friends in the country I moved to, so finding models is a bit more tricky. flickr is a great resource for finding great portraits in almost every style. As annoying as all the pretty young girls doing nothing but self portraits are, there are some great ones doing it. Paragon8 fucked around with this message at 00:49 on Apr 3, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2010 00:45
|
|
|
dik-dik posted:Yeah and every now and then one of them goes pro: http://www.flickr.com/photos/larajade/ The line between pro and amateur is so thin now. It can be really frustrating. She's great, and until recently I hadn't really been exploring flickr that much. It's astounding how there are people with 700+ comments on pictures. I mean admittedly 300 of those are "nice tonez" 300 are "you're so pretty!" and the remaining 100 are probably "I want to lick your feet" or "I want to eat your babies" I think I might start a photography e/n thread
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2010 01:31
|
|
|
dik-dik posted:Oh, maybe I should've included this: http://www.larajade.co.uk/1024/01portfolio.html Oh, I didn't mean in terms of quality - just in how quick you can jump from amateur to pro. Like Lara Jade probably didn't have to spend 5 years assisting to make her bones but rather got noticed on flickr and handed the keys to a studio.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2010 13:27
|
|
|
dunkman posted:I literally had not picked up anything but a lovely ultra-slim point and shoot until August of 2009. oh man, I'm not criticizing anyone in here I was just responding to Opera Haze
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2010 18:25
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:I guess the word "seem" is pretty operative in that sentence. When you spend years learning how to take photographs by yourself you learn much more than just how to take pictures that other people like to look at. You develop a personal sense of aesthetic, you learn to understand the form and its limits, why things happen the way do and how you can manipulate things to create the image that you want. Moreover you learn from what you see and you get a sense of what people are doing and what they have done so that you can draw your own photography from that collective experience. I find that people who "get traction within weeks" generally just get that by being fed a set of rules and tutorial instructions from blogs, forums, and flickr and all they really learn is how to create one image and, because they have no personal aesthetic, they are always unsure of the "quality" of that image. It isn't impossible to develop these things after the fact but I feel that it is much easier to learn later on and that there is a generally more even ground to ones photography if they develop first by taking photos of what they want purely for the fun with no regard for what is correct or right and over time developing their personal image organically. Yeah, this pretty much. Well said, actually just what I needed to hear. Thanks.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2010 19:35
|
|
|
psylent posted:Took a couple of shots of my wife while we were in Fiji with my new 85mm f/1.8. I love this lens. The headshot is a little bit too shiny for my liking, maybe a little wide dof so all of her hair is in focus - but otherwise it looks good. I really like the second one, because it just screams out "stop taking pictures of me, you jackass" - that blurred background is lovely.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2010 16:14
|
|
|
psylent posted:Is there any way to reduce the shinyness? Is it just the makeup she's using combined with the light? I've noticed that it's even more obvious under strobes. were you using any kind of modifier on the strobes? I'm not 100% but makeup might be a problem too.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2010 16:35
|
|
|
dunkman posted:How do I make the background white without losing her hair? Use a selective exposure mask in lightroom. It's like a paint brush you can set to have sliders like +2 exposure. It might be tricky to work around the hair though
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2010 14:18
|
|
|
Ric posted:Trying something new, comments welcome: Love the model, Love the couch. Not too sold on including the clutter to the left. Portrait crop look any good? That being said, I really like it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2010 18:18
|
|
|
BobTheCow posted:Hey guys, I feel like a douche posting a photo for review without adding any critique of my own, but I'm only just getting started in portraiture and so I don't really know what I'm looking for yet. Hope that's okay! The curve of her back isn't terribly flattering. She's kind of hunched over, be sure to direct models to keep their shoulders back and backs straight. The skirt/culottes she's wearing looks pretty baggy and gives the impression she has a vast rear end. I like the location and how she's being framed by the stair railing. Got any more shots from the set?
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2010 11:47
|
|
|
BobTheCow posted:I like the un-cropped version a lot more actually.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2010 14:14
|
|
|
BobTheCow posted:Well I don't like that one because of the drainpipe head, but here's the one I do like uncropped: Haha, it's ultimately about what you prefer. I just think it's good have a bit of space when you're working in a visually interesting environment. The lines all work really well. You've got the stairs giving "movement" towards the subject as well as the framing from the banister. I didn't really notice the drainpipe at all, but the more recent shot you posted gets rid of the problem. I think the quoted picture is the strongest crop. Giving stairs more horizontal room is nicer to me.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2010 14:49
|
|
|
Honestly, I can kind of dig it. It's an interesting statement on how far you can push digital photography - basically to the point where it looks like pixel art. I've frequently hit lines in my processing where I question if what I'm still working on is a photograph or just a digital image. Is that at all what you're going for Reichstag?
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2010 13:41
|
|
|
This is more proof of concept than any kind of final image. I was experimenting using the sun just before sunset for rim lighting. I think it came out pretty nicely, a nice warm dusky glow. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2010 00:36
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:I want to say you might react differently to it in person, the scan loses the richness of it. I can see what you're saying though, maybe I should have reflected a little light into his face, just to even it out. What about a tupperware container?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2010 10:49
|
|
|
AtomicManiac posted:So this month I'm going on a "Shooting Spree". 30 days, 30 shoots. I hope it'll improve my work a lot, and help put my name out there, and hopefully I'll have some great shots to show for it. I'm 3 days in and I've already got some amazing shots, and an offer to buy a print, so it's going great so far. Show the full face in the top one - maybe make the psycho killer graffiti more legible. Second one, be mindful of your cropping. Make it look decisive and less like an accident. I suggest cropping at mid-thigh. Maybe touch up that skin fold too.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2010 22:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 00:31 |
|
|
AtomicManiac posted:Thanks for the advice, the second one isn't cropped, yet, I'll have to play with it. How do you suggest cleaning up the skin fold? On the first one I used the liquify filter to tuck her tummy a bit because she holds it weird in some shots and it makes it look a lot bigger than it is, but I'm not super good at it and touching up shots like that always makes me hate them because all I can see are the major surgery in the shots. I'm the same way about retouching, but I think it'll really help. I'd say just clone the line. I meant framing instead of cropping, I'm sorry. Like how you've cut off half her foot - it doesn't look natural or intentional.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2010 22:46
|
|