|
 I'm wary about the shadows at his feet -- I think I should 'shop one of them out. I thought I might want to clone them both out, but then he'd look pasted into the scene (which I don't want). The one on the left looks all blobby, but it makes more sense, given the lighting. The one on the right is cleaner, but makes less lighting sense. I just don't know which shadow to remove, or if I should. Also, I'm quite aware of the loving wrinkled shorts. Note to self: always bring an iron/steamer/spray bottle if models are self-styling. Other thoughts?
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2011 07:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 19:21 |
|
|
Ok, so I have some more photos, which are kinda old.   So, I'm aware of the first 2 being a little OOF, and I think I should've kicked some more light into her face (I had a reflector there, but didn't think it needed adjusting at the time...). I'm also curious about the composition of the third. And the hair at the top of her head. I kinda think it's distracting, but I hesitate at cleaning up portraits too much so as to remove the naturalness of them. But I might do it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2011 05:52
|
|
|
Ah, yes, the first 2 are too warm. I thought I took care of that to look more pleasant in ACR, but probably not enough. (I processed them down from 6500 to 5500 just now, and they do look better, without losing her skin tone.) I think the hard light wrap comes from the ill-positioned reflector. I had it more camera-right, and should've pulled it around the front more to more evenly balance the backlight from the window. Ugh. Also, the canted angle crop is intentional on the 3rd. I still like my canted angle better than the even horizon line. I don't generally prefer canted angles, and I know the Dorkroom doesn't either (see: Terrible Photos thread w/ plenty of 45-deg canted angles) , but I think if it creates some interest and you have a line in your photo that parallels the dominant edge of the photo, it can work out (and I think my version closely parallels her back with the vertical edge). I also think she looks hunched over when the horizon is straight, where she would otherwise look stiff if I told her to straighten up, and the canted angle leaves her looking poised and relaxed/approachable at the same time. It may benefit from a closer crop, though I did want to leave plenty of space around the subject.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2011 08:59
|
|
|
Gazmachine posted:"A TAAAAAAART!" I fuckin' love this one.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2012 00:22
|
|
|
I think this is great. I would've probably tried for more shots in order to get either no hair or more hair over her face, as I feel that piece of hair bisecting her brow and crossing directly across her eyes to be distracting. Though, in my experience with cats (holding them by the stomach and jumping around with them), you sometimes take what you can get. Also, I don't like that busy poo poo at the top. The light fixture which then intersects with the dirty vent as your eye follows the leading lines -- it throws off the simplistic feel of the photo with some ugly business.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2012 20:34
|
|
|
What aliencowboy said (except I don't do any mirroring). I've edited out worse. I switch between the healing brush and clone stamp tool a lot, and I update my sample points regularly. Sometimes I'll throw in an exposure or curves layer on top of the layer I'm cloning/healing to, so I can get better definition of what the surrounding objects are so that it keeps making sense. I delete that layer after I'm done with my bad stuff removal. Cloning quickly gets rid of stuff you don't want and replaces it with stuff you do, healing, well, heals stuff and mixes it in so it looks better, but it can be finicky sometimes (like that area where her dark hair meets the light background, you'll get pockets of explosion of light color into dark or dark color into light). Don't be afraid to zoom in to 800% if you need to. Also, not everything needs to go, unless everything needs to go. Or if you know how, make a clipping mask and go from there.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2012 08:22
|
|
|
aliencowboy posted:Another option: http://freewareme.com/199-photoshop-psd-man-female-hair-download.html Hahaha! Beautiful. Weaves for your digital pictures.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2012 11:32
|
|
|
Gazmachine posted:Could you elaborate on this a little for me? This sounds useful.  It was hard to get definition of the hair against her jacket, so I used an exposure layer to pull it out of the darkness, since I also know that her hair is a different color of the jacket, and could get a good look at what I'm removing and what I'm sampling from. Notice the wrinkle in the jacket, which I'll need to keep while I also remove her hair that crosses over it. You'll also notice I have a curves layer turned off, which I was using to help clone out her brown hair against a light background.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2012 22:54
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:I've asked for some tips on shooting basic headshots for a company address book before (thanks everyone, by the way) and there's something I didn't think of in advance but could have, given the number of people. How do you generally deal with people who have strabismus or other disorders that cause their eyes to not be properly aligned? Something to minimize it during shooting, or "fixing" post? Or nothing, even? I ask, "Do you prefer one side of your face over another?" since I know plenty of people prefer one over another. I personally generally prefer my left side.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2012 04:27
|
|
|
I learned the hard way with shooting too many pictures with no room to appropriately crop, so I now intentionally shoot with plenty of room to crop how I like (especially handheld). It's kinda tough to get used to shooting that way, but cropping's become a very important step in my post workflow.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2012 02:52
|
|
|
Cyberbob posted:Steampunk style this time. Ooh, great work. I especially love the first one.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2012 07:42
|
|
|
Gazmachine posted:That's exactly what I did for the first three days of this week and, man, I feel sorry for the poor sap who does that for free, because it's a long day. Yes. I just took out 5 girls from my part-time job, did 2 looks each with a hair stylist/make-up artist and spent a good 13 hours on set (the stylist was supposed to have an assistant, but she never showed...). I can't imagine doing that on someone else's expectations and not get paid for it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2012 07:32
|
|
|
I have mixed feelings about the crotchiness of the photo. Generally, I like lots of crotch (if going through the tearsheets I pull from magazines is any indication of what my tastes are). But these are usually coupled with "hard" or "bold" or "sexual" expressions on the faces of the models and/or a very leggy pose. Her face is less "in your face" -- it's soft and approachable, maybe a bit sensual, and while her legs are a very big factor of the photo, I wouldn't call it "leggy." So, yeah, I guess I agree with what everyone else is saying about crotch, in this photo.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2012 23:25
|
|
|
Cyberbob posted:Few from me of a new model we haven't used before I really like this one; her expression is really great. I just don't like the bit of tube top bottom-right. I'd show a touch more, or crop it out, or just build some skin over it to remove it (I don't like this method too much, but only if it "makes the most sense").
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2012 02:05
|
|
|
Gazmachine posted:For something to look at - I don't think I've shown the dorkroom any of these works from yet another project I'm doing (and, of course, haven't finished). The eventual idea for these is to print them out nice and big, as the file sizes are 7200X7200. This one is (obviously) shrunk so you don't spend 40 years downloading it. I really like this. I've actually had a project of a similar idea floating around my head for the past couple months. Must be in the universal consciousness.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2012 22:58
|
|
|
bisticles posted:I'm always fighting to keep my focal length long, but I'm on a crop body, and and some of the places were pretty tight. What the... is this supposed to be innuendo? Paragon8 posted:umm the main thing I did is bouncing bare heads directly into the ceiling which creates pretty effect. Also a lot of flash right next to the camera where traditionally you'd have it coming off to the side balanced with a fill. I love this move a lot. Bare head to ceiling is a great fill light, and the bare bulb next to camera is like an almost-on-camera-flash-and-also-but-not-really-ringflash. ----------------------------------------------------------- And for stuff: About a month ago I spent a day with a hair stylist/MUA friend and we made pictures happen with a few girls we know. The goal was 2 looks for each girl, one light/day look that was more natural/laid-back, like a Dove or Aveda, etc. beauty ad. The other look was a dark/night look which had a "night out" feel. I really didn't plan on taking photos below the shoulders very much, if at all, so I only instructed them to wear black camisoles. If I'd know I'd change my mind (which I didn't, b/c that's why it's called changing your mind), I would've taken more into consideration for wardrobe styling. Also, I have made comments on each model. Kayle: The light look is one of the very first pictures of the day. She was a tad awkward for the light look (quite possibly from being the first to shoot, it being early and her not being a model), but she really opened up with the dark look and brought a fun and breezy feel while hopping from one pose to the next, to the next, to the next.  Tina: She was by far the hardest to work with, but definitely the most improved -- very self-conscious in front of the camera, looks big to camera (she's really not very big, like 5'7" and size 7, well, maybe 8, but that's big to camera), and that hair style in the light look was awkward to work with. At one point I handed her the camera and made her take pictures of me demonstrating how to pose and doing some example poses I wanted her to do. She rather enjoyed that.  Lathena: This girl went to modeling school  and has done a handful of MM TFP shoots. She was generally really easy to work with and shoot, but it took some coaxing her out of her usual routine with the dark look. I can't decide if her dark look is really killer or really cheesy or both. But I fuckin' love it. Sabrina: She was only at the shoot for the dark looks, and she was the superior model, never having done anything like modeling before. Except for drama through high school (helping prove my belief that having some background in acting really helps out models). I can click through her film and say "good," "good," "good" for about 90% of it. She responded immaculately to my directions, and snapped into the look I wanted without wrestling her into it.  Overall, I'm super happy with the entire shoot. It was 14 long hours of working with non-professionals, but I feel like the stylist and I absolutely achieved our goals. The past month has been a poo poo-heap of time in front of PS, but I've completely turned my abilities around (I think... here's a link my post to the PS thread). That said, I will fight tooth and nail against shooting friends and/or coworkers as models. Everyone wants to be a model, but nobody wants to model. Subjunctivitis fucked around with this message at 12:32 on Mar 1, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2012 11:49
|
|
|
Clown posted:This is really good, I'm learning a lot! Seconding this. I thought I had a pretty decent handle on giving direction and posing, but she makes some obviously genius points. Edit: THE HAND BRA!!! I hate the hand bra, too. Subjunctivitis fucked around with this message at 03:22 on Mar 3, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2012 02:50
|
|
|
CarrotFlowers posted:I had a group shoot with some volunteer models last weekend. It was my first exposure to having non-friends as models. Some of my favourites: I want to really like this one, but I feel like it suffers from a lot of "almost." It looks like she's trying to do something with her hands, but she doesn't know what, and they're both placed awkwardly, i.e. one of them needs to go somewhere else while the other one loosens up into a more natural position on her neck or face. And her face says a lot of "?????" to me, without engaging the camera with her eyes or her eyes being engaged on anything. They look kinda dead and mostly confused. CarrotFlowers posted:
I think this one is the best. Great high-key lighting, nice B/W conversion, and she does well giving off the haughty look. Overall, Great Job! on your fist time with unknown models. The more you do it, the more you get better! Keep it up!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2012 09:08
|
|
|
I personally don't have a problem with the hands on face (see my pics above), it's more of how. My model Tina had a hard time doing it well when I asked her to do it, so I had to find a way to talk her into being comfortable about trying it out while not pressing on her face or having a stiff hand or generally being unnatural. In the link above, the photographer talks about how the pose can be good, but then it's all stiff. Hands and jaws tend to hold a lot of tension that becomes incredibly magnified on camera, so people need to be coaxed into loosening up into a pose that's both good and looks natural and comfortable. When I review my photos, I look not only at the composition and pose, but the expression on the face, the eyes, the mouth, the jaw; at the body language, the hands, the shoulders, legs/feet. A lot of little factors add up really quickly. I'll post a few of my "discards" from my earlier post later on and explain what I do and don't like about them.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2012 10:05
|
|
|
Alfajor posted:Question though: What's on her left shoulder? Looks like red hairs. It looks like the red stuff is a shadow of the hairs on her shoulder that got saturated when the contrast on the image was adjusted.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2012 23:37
|
|
|
Bioshuffle posted:I know that if I like a picture I've taken, I like it, rules be damned. Others are free to disagree. For instance, goons seem to have a selective coloring, but I think it works sometimes. I'm still at the stage where I'm studying the rules. I feel like before I can ignore the rules I have to study and learn them first. My understanding is that with enough practice these rules become second nature and I'll be able to focus more on the feel of the picture rather than breaking it down technically. I would still apply the rules as guides, in general. I forget who that photographer was that Paragon8, I believe, posted a while back with hands and feet chopped off and crops on joints, etc. When I looked at those photos, what I saw instead of the use of rule of thirds and no "bad cropping" were photos with the focus being a big oval in the middle. It's still a rule being applied, it just did a different thing. I just like to ask myself with every crop/composition: Does this make good visual sense?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2012 23:12
|
|
|
love this
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2015 07:55
|
|
|
iSheep posted:Then tell us what is so good about these photos. Because I'm not exactly seeing it either. And neither does anyone else that I show them to. Because they're rad.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 19:21 |
|
|
thetzar posted:I am posting to receive handjobs. I'll give you one for that snap on the right.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2015 23:42
|
|
