Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
bellows lugosi
Aug 9, 2003

Alternatively you could invest in an incident meter and not care about reflective metering

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

bellows lugosi
Aug 9, 2003

McMadCow posted:

I use an incident meter for my model work, but don't you as a landscape/architecture shooter primarily work with a spot meter...?

I can't afford a spot meter (too much film), so I psuedo-spot - I run around and take incident readings under different light and try to fudge the zone system that way

bellows lugosi
Aug 9, 2003

m4mbo posted:

I hope I don't sound contrary, because someone responding to constructive criticism with nothing but rebuttals is very annoying, and I value your opinion.

I like the idea of working with the sheet music, but the playing I'm not sure about, tbh I don't think she will want to be shot like that, the embouchure for playing is constant, and doesn't marry with the kind of image I'm trying to create.
There's a lot I can work with around playing though, construction, reed scraping, and I'm going to have a think as to how I could work her idiosyncrasies into the picture.

Take his advice, your original shots are pretty boring. On the second she's just standing in front of a wall, listlessly holding an instrument. That doesn't say anything about being a musician - it just looks like she's holding a prop.

bellows lugosi
Aug 9, 2003

If your lens has vignetting wide-open (most do) you'll assuredly make it more obvious if you're tweaking your curves right.

bellows lugosi
Aug 9, 2003

LargeHadron posted:

Do you mind posting pictures of your own that have the same intent but actually do it well?

Here's a little picture I took of an environmental portrait. As you can see the image is about the landscape but I have added a person in it for a better feel

bellows lugosi
Aug 9, 2003

LargeHadron posted:

Were you really not comprehending the discussion or are you just being funny? If the latter, then yes that is pretty funny. If you're sincerely trying to denounce an entire aesthetic, you're going to have to put more effort into it than that.

Huh.

LargeHadron posted:

It's nice that you took the time to write all that. Excepting the awkward one of her on the stairs, I was consciously trying to achieve a very minimal type of portrait in which the subject is there just a part of the composition (and something more interesting to look at than a log or whatever else it could have been).


016_a by Large Hadron, on Flickr

There's no "minimal" look to this at all. You have a person directly framed in the center of your composition and you're trying to say the subject is just part of it - no. The subject *is* your composition. If you want to create something where the subject is merely a component of the entire composition, you can't just cut out a portrait, place it on a background, and call it a day.

bellows lugosi
Aug 9, 2003

It also looks like you're standing on a step stool looking down

bellows lugosi
Aug 9, 2003

Paragon8 posted:

Out of curiosity why did you choose to frame this horizontally?


sw1gger posted:

Probably because most of the visual mediums we as an audience are exposed to today are closer to this framing than a vertical one.

desktop backgrounds

bellows lugosi
Aug 9, 2003

QPZIL posted:

Those are just two shots we did outside. The rest are in front of a plainer background or in front of a backdrop indoors.


Thanks for the feedback, you're absolutely right. Is this better?



Best clown portrait I've seen in a while.

bellows lugosi
Aug 9, 2003


You might want to check your monitor because it looks like I'm seeing this image through a clear pane of urine.

bellows lugosi
Aug 9, 2003

Mannequin posted:

Not quite vintage enough for you? Sorry, my bad.

Just a typical New York bitch.

bellows lugosi
Aug 9, 2003

I think those would all benefit from some curves for contrast.

bellows lugosi
Aug 9, 2003

Your boner is showing.

bellows lugosi
Aug 9, 2003

Your boner is showing.

bellows lugosi
Aug 9, 2003

Is there any reason to stuff them all in the right side of the frame?

bellows lugosi
Aug 9, 2003

Wario In Real Life posted:

Presumably so text can be added as necessary to the left side.

The reasonable assumption isn't always the right one.

bellows lugosi
Aug 9, 2003


Floating head portraits are very en vogue

bellows lugosi
Aug 9, 2003

notlodar posted:

While a rim light would help, there IS separation.

Zone 0, Zone 1, who's keeping track?

bellows lugosi
Aug 9, 2003

Photos are serious. Old houses are serious. Pleasure is a myth.

bellows lugosi
Aug 9, 2003

It's like a photo taken by someone who hasn't been exposed to any photography that wasn't inside of a Maxim issue.

bellows lugosi
Aug 9, 2003

Heroin's a killer.

bellows lugosi
Aug 9, 2003

iSheep posted:

Awesome. I am insanely jealous of how many gorgeous subjects you have shot. That has got to make for a solid portfolio. Are you friends with these girls or are they clients?


Or is he the client? :)

bellows lugosi
Aug 9, 2003


This one feels really weird, it's oddly unbalanced on the left.

bellows lugosi
Aug 9, 2003

What bothers you about "dat" border?

bellows lugosi
Aug 9, 2003



bellows lugosi
Aug 9, 2003


bellows lugosi
Aug 9, 2003



8x10 street at night with Musket

bellows lugosi
Aug 9, 2003

Cross-posting from the "street" thread. 8x10 at night.



bellows lugosi
Aug 9, 2003

SB800 at full power about 4 feet away at 45 degrees with a diffuser, I think. Nothing special.

bellows lugosi
Aug 9, 2003

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?

bellows lugosi
Aug 9, 2003

Musket posted:

Maybe tell her to look at the camera next time?

Nah.

bellows lugosi
Aug 9, 2003

bellows lugosi
Aug 9, 2003

-- nevermind i just won't shitpost --

bellows lugosi fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Oct 25, 2014

bellows lugosi
Aug 9, 2003

That's a nice watch strap, where did he get it?

bellows lugosi
Aug 9, 2003

bellows lugosi
Aug 9, 2003

What do you think of your work?

bellows lugosi
Aug 9, 2003

Can't see past the purple. Have you considered turning your image into an 18% grey solid?

bellows lugosi
Aug 9, 2003

Dude you need to stop loving posting.

bellows lugosi
Aug 9, 2003

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

bellows lugosi
Aug 9, 2003

It's a limited edition print by MrBlandAverage of a photo I took of Mido. It's really layers of art to appreciate here

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply