|
poopinmymouth posted:On this note, pay attention to how much of the eye shows. As a general rule, you should have a bit of white on either side of the pupil. If it's a 3/4, don't let them be so far turned you lose sight of the inner white because the nose cuts it off. Also don't let the farthest eye actually be along the silhouette. There should be a bit of skin to "hold in" the eye. There is basically a dead area from 3/4 to full profile you should never photograph unless you have a very good reason to. Either show all of the far eye while including the skin on the far edge to hold it in, or none of the far eye and let the bridge of the nose be the edge of the silhouette. 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. brad industry fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Jul 17, 2009 |
#
¿
Jul 17, 2009 19:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 16:29 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
Comping images is a good reason to not like her work? Why does it matter?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2009 06:44
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:You know I like your work, but anytime anyone tries to get you to articulate what you're doing you avoid it with responses like this which is pretty lame.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2009 22:18
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:It seems a bit funny that people suddenly care about that sort of thing in a thread that has thus far been 100% about gear/technique and had a very strong 'commercial' bias. It seems silly to complain about this when up until just now whenever anyone asked about these issues in your work (in this thread and others) you avoided discussing it or posted snarky responses. I mean I hate the focus on process/gear too in these threads, but it goes both ways. Anyways Reichstag posted:^ The first and third of those are part of an ongoing series that I am working on that centers around the primacy of subject-viewer contact and model as object. It's not entirely defined yet, and won't be for a while. This is basically what I figured, and I think this is a really interesting concept to be exploring. I think of the 3 you've posted here the first stands out and the others aren't really doing it for me. The second just seems a little too confrontational in relation to the other work you've posted and works against the model-as-object thing. I think my favorite out of the ones you've posted was back in the PAD thread I think, with the girl out of focus against the landscape. I'm curious as to what other photographers/artists you're looking at too. Toupee posted:Portraiture is about flattering the subject though. Why do you think this? What do you think a portrait is? I can think of plenty of unflattering or even degrading pictures of people that are extremely successful as portraits. My avatar is a pretty famous Arnold Newman one (Alfred Krupp, Nazi war industrialist) where he had to actively deceive the subject and then flee the country after he took it. Is it not a portrait?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2009 03:50
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Pretty sure the only thing necessary to be a portrait is something sentient (or that used to be) somewhere recognizably in the photo. Be it animal, person, dead-baby, or otherwise. It's a fairly loose genre. It doesn't have to be a closeup of a smiling blond bride to be a portrait. I've heard some people who shoot landscapes claim their work is really portraiture because they make images that are about people even though they don't actually contain any. Really I think portraiture, kind of like photography, is a broad medium and I'm OK with people calling whatever they want a portrait if they can justify their position. plaguedoctor posted:Whereas, if I were in a cultural Mecca like New York or San Francisco or Tokyo, I'd be able to get away with having less than flatting pictures. I think you're confusing geography with what your clients want. You shoot flattering pictures because the subject is your client. There's nothing wrong with that. When I shoot editorial work I am free to be as flattering or unflattering as I want because the subject isn't the one commissioning the work, the magazine is. Fine artists are free to explore whatever ideas they want in relation to portraiture because the "client" is their own vision. quote:The ratio of pivotal, ground breaking portraits taken at Olen Mills or Picture People is probably 1:1,000,000,000. You know it's easy to knock those places, but Arnold Newman worked at one and credits it with his ability to connect with a subject. Richard Avedon shot mugshot ID photos for the Merchant Marines.... against a white background.  Anyways this is way more interesting of a discussion than talking about butterfly lighting or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2009 03:23
|
|
|
plaguedoctor posted:*SO*, I totally understand art. If you want to make things intentionally ugly, that is totally cool. If you want to make BECK-style ironic photos in the way of "I'm a loser baby", and you have an audience that will pay money for it, that's totally cool. It has nothing to do with making ugly or ironic images. "Personal vision" is just another way of saying you have a consistent and unique perspective or aesthetic, whether that is nicely lit, typical, flattering portraits or something else. If you can't make a living doing the kind of work you want to do that seems more like your own failure to market your work to the right clients than the fact that you have a vision. Actually I can't even really tell what your point is, photographers who have no perspective are the ones who don't get hired, no one hires people who are all over the place. And this has nothing to do with the the fine art world which is different. plaguedoctor posted:To use an old example -- everybody likes "Friends". But people that know about TV and storytelling think it's poo poo. Okay, be edgy and forward-thinking -- great on you, but at the same time, you still have to eat. I don't like Friends, and I'm pretty sure shows like The Wire, Mad Men, or any of the other edgy and forward-thinking TV that's out there are still winning awards and getting good ratings. brad industry fucked around with this message at 16:17 on Sep 20, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2009 01:46
|
|
|
Way too far on the eyes
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2009 23:22
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:
I think the background is a little busy on these, it either has to add to the composition or you have to work around it with shallower DoF or something. Especially this one, the sword just kind of becomes one with all the trees behind it and it's hard to read.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2009 21:05
|
|
|
Yeah pretty much, longer focal length and more distance from the subject. That blue stuff is CA but it's pretty easy to fix in post.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2009 21:20
|
|
|
If I have the room to do it I tend to use a large softbox/umbrella behind the camera instead of an actual ringlight. Or bounce a bare head into a V-flat behind it. Same effect, more control.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2010 01:38
|
|
|
Two softboxes at even 45 degree angles and then two black fill cards to subtract really close to his head on either side. Probably a black card under his chin too.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2010 20:43
|
|
|
There's at least 2 or 3 Cobra Snake wannabes in every major city now, it's so annoying. edit: This pretty perfectly sums up how I feel about them: Travis Jeppesen posted:As a photographer, Nan Goldin has inspired a legion of imitators who tend to confuse certain lifestyle traits with artistic substance, a privileging of content over form with an excuse for taking sloppy photographs. I tend to think of them as the Vice generation, after the magazine that first published many a Goldin copyist under a hipster anti-ethos saturated with attention begging and unwarranted self-destruction. From a review of a Nan Goldin show http://www.artforum.com/archive/id=24055 brad industry fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Jan 4, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2010 23:04
|
|
|
angryhampster posted:I like the composition in that one ^, but it's pretty obvious that her face has been massively brightened. It looks fine to me. If you don't calibrate your monitor is probably way too bright.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2010 23:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 16:29 |
|
|
fordan posted:As an employee taking pictures as part of his job, I'd assume the copyright would rest with his employer, making publicity rights/model releases the sticking point. Photographers should never give up their copyright, you're a contractor not an employee.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2010 21:52
|
|