Hey Nik - looking pretty good. One nit - I think the light(s) you are using to illuminate the front aspect of your model needs a slight boost in power. In addition, in the first couple, your side lights are a little hot - her skirt and right shoulder are blown a bit.
Disclaimer: Don't infer from any of the above that I think I could do any better!! I think your work is improving by leaps and bounds and I'm having a lot of fun watching the progress.
Hey Nik - looking pretty good. One nit - I think the light(s) you are using to illuminate the front aspect of your model needs a slight boost in power. In addition, in the first couple, your side lights are a little hot - her skirt and right shoulder are blown a bit.
Disclaimer: Don't infer from any of the above that I think I could do any better!! I think your work is improving by leaps and bounds and I'm having a lot of fun watching the progress.
Scott,
thank you for commenting!
I guess you're right, I underestimated the lightness and reflectiveness of the fabric. Need to make a mental adjustment for this factor too. I guess I got so used to shooting a bare skin;-) that I forgot that the clothing can make some impact, too...
Oh well, we live we learn...
Nik...I'm loving the poses....what is bothering me is the plastic skin. I love skin softening but these are a bit "not soft" as the specular highlights reveal some unnatural looks. Otherwise, I absolutely love the backdrops and model. Just my take.
Nik...I'm loving the poses....what is bothering me is the plastic skin. I love skin softening but these are a bit "not soft" as the specular highlights reveal some unnatural looks. Otherwise, I absolutely love the backdrops and model. Just my take.
Thanx
David... sorry, but she just happens to have a good skin, it happens in even here in California
Plus we used a nice MUA for a change:-), that also could add to the softness :-)
#1 - 6 I like these looks and poses. Gorgeous model and #5 is my fave. I also like #1 a lot but Scott isn't the only one with a lighting nit.
#1 - 4 Her face is too dark imo. Too much rim not enough main.
#5 and 6 exposed to the left. If you are metering for white skin shouldn't you take the meter reading and over expose that reading by up to a stop? Other than the bright rim hitting her shoulder in #5, there's almost nothing above middle on the histo and it shows in lost color.
My wife just walked behind me looking and pointed out in #6 it looks like she has a huge butt from the way the dress is framing her, which I guess supports your own comment:
I guess you're right, I underestimated the lightness and reflectiveness of the fabric.
Probably could have used a rim to show a little more detail in the dress.
Left is your original. I think I like the middle the most. Hope you don't mind.
Canon 40D : Canon 400D : Canon Elan 7NE : Canon 580EX : 2 x Canon 430EX : Canon 24-70 f2.8L : Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L USM : Canon 28-135mm f/3.5 IS : 18-55mm f/3.5 : 4GB Sandisk Extreme III : 2GB Sandisk Extreme III : 2 x 1GB Sandisk Ultra II : Sekonik L358
#1 - 6 I like these looks and poses. Gorgeous model and #5 is my fave. I also like #1 a lot but Scott isn't the only one with a lighting nit.
#1 - 4 Her face is too dark imo. Too much rim not enough main.
#5 and 6 exposed to the left. If you are metering for white skin shouldn't you take the meter reading and over expose that reading by up to a stop? Other than the bright rim hitting her shoulder in #5, there's almost nothing above middle on the histo and it shows in lost color.
My wife just walked behind me looking and pointed out in #6 it looks like she has a huge butt from the way the dress is framing her, which I guess supports your own comment:
Probably could have used a rim to show a little more detail in the dress.
Left is your original. I think I like the middle the most. Hope you don't mind.
Damon,
thank you for your detailed comment (and I don't mind at all:-)
I agree that speaking from a genral positions it could use some "enlightment", but... whenever I look at the original I like the softness and certain "chamber" mood of the lower-than-usual lighting and the subdued tones it provides. I don't think I'm looking for too much of a pop here
I see. That's what makes photography interesting to me. All the details and thought process involved. What I may consider underexposed or overexposed may be exactly what you were trying to achieve.
In that case, I think the subdued works in 2, 3, 4 and 6. Not 1 or 5. Number 5 to me is the perfect chance to show off her eyes, skin tone, jewelry color, hair color, and the makeup job.
In 2 and 4 there's a dreamy effect created by that lighting that I do like.
Canon 40D : Canon 400D : Canon Elan 7NE : Canon 580EX : 2 x Canon 430EX : Canon 24-70 f2.8L : Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L USM : Canon 28-135mm f/3.5 IS : 18-55mm f/3.5 : 4GB Sandisk Extreme III : 2GB Sandisk Extreme III : 2 x 1GB Sandisk Ultra II : Sekonik L358
I see. That's what makes photography interesting to me. All the details and thought process involved. What I may consider underexposed or overexposed may be exactly what you were trying to achieve.
In that case, I think the subdued works in 2, 3, 4 and 6. Not 1 or 5. Number 5 to me is the perfect chance to show off her eyes, skin tone, jewelry color, hair color, and the makeup job.
In 2 and 4 there's a dreamy effect created by that lighting that I do like.
Yeah, I guess different things can be used for different pics, and in any case it's all soooo subjective:-)
I do hope I'll get some more variety this weekned :-)
I'm getting a feeling that I'm following my own tracks over and over, need to start blazing a new trail
I'm getting a feeling that I'm following my own tracks over and over, need to start blazing a new trail
I think these show you are still experimenting, which is just fine.
For me, there's more happening between the model and the camera here then I've seen in some other series of yours.
Also, I can see that you are trying ideas for lighting the face, from the hard edge extrovert highlights to the lower contrast introvert.
For me, the back drapes are still too detached from the action in all but the last. It's interesting that you give these drapes an architectural quality. I remember your series where the model is manipulating them in some way, like props. So, once again there is exploration going on through all the series. I wonder if bokehing the background drapes to some extent would both integrate them more and also make them less static, while still keeping some architectural quality. I very much like the draping for the last shot. Good choice of pattern and hanging for the drape for this shot.
I still think you could move the camera more in relation to the action of the model, making more interplay between them. In most of your shots all through these series the camera is the observer and not the participant. I've suggested before getting in with the action with your camera. This would loosen up the backgrounds, too. They would become quite unpredictable, which would be an improvement, I think. You'd have to set the scenery up in a semicircle, maybe, which would allow you to move around and keep it in the image. Lighting also would have to be able to embrace a constantly changing target.
How much do you talk to your model live while you are shooting? It looks like you mostly just set up the shot and shoot it. If you are moving with the model's action she will respond to that and then in turn so will you, feeding back to each other all the way. That creates a process out of which comes the unexpected, and that will contain that elusive el dorado of lively connection of the model and camera, and ultimately provide the viewer's experience of connection with the photo. (It will also increase the percentage of rubbish!) The question is, is it more technical technique or more something else that will take you to the next level?
So, if you are looking for a new tack, set up the space and lighting for three dimensions instead of two, get the camera off the tripod and put on your runners! :D:D
I think these show you are still experimenting, which is just fine.
Yeah, I'm trying to deviate, if ever so slightly...:-)
I understand that one of the main point of your critique is "to get more interaction", which in my engineering mind is translated into "snap on a WA lens and get up close & personal". Kinda the way cmorgan does. Which is great and dandy, but it's not what I'm after, at least at this point.
BTW, I yet to use a tripod for this kind of shooting, it's all handheld.
Talking-wise: yes, I do talk to my models. Sometimes more, sometimes less, but I'm always trying to give my subject an instant feedback, which is often mixed with directions. Each "bout" usually lasts a few minutes after which we either take quick breather and change something slightly or go for a whole new look and maybe a new lighting schema, and we keep talking during that, unless a MUA is invloved, in which case she usually can take care of that part for me:-)
Comments
Disclaimer: Don't infer from any of the above that I think I could do any better!! I think your work is improving by leaps and bounds and I'm having a lot of fun watching the progress.
My Photos
Thoughts on photographing a wedding, How to post a picture, AF Microadjustments?, Light Scoop
Equipment List - Check my profile
thank you for commenting!
I guess you're right, I underestimated the lightness and reflectiveness of the fabric. Need to make a mental adjustment for this factor too. I guess I got so used to shooting a bare skin;-) that I forgot that the clothing can make some impact, too...
Oh well, we live we learn...
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
www.intruecolors.com
Nikon D700 x2/D300
Nikon 70-200 2.8/50 1.8/85 1.8/14.24 2.8
NAPP Member | Canon Shooter
Weddings/Portraits and anything else that catches my eye.
www.daveswartz.com
Model Mayhem site http://www.modelmayhem.com/686552
David... sorry, but she just happens to have a good skin, it happens in even here in California
Plus we used a nice MUA for a change:-), that also could add to the softness :-)
I swear I didn't touch the skin in PS :-)
#1 - 4 Her face is too dark imo. Too much rim not enough main.
#5 and 6 exposed to the left. If you are metering for white skin shouldn't you take the meter reading and over expose that reading by up to a stop? Other than the bright rim hitting her shoulder in #5, there's almost nothing above middle on the histo and it shows in lost color.
My wife just walked behind me looking and pointed out in #6 it looks like she has a huge butt from the way the dress is framing her, which I guess supports your own comment: Probably could have used a rim to show a little more detail in the dress.
Left is your original. I think I like the middle the most. Hope you don't mind.
dak.smugmug.com
Damon,
thank you for your detailed comment (and I don't mind at all:-)
I agree that speaking from a genral positions it could use some "enlightment", but... whenever I look at the original I like the softness and certain "chamber" mood of the lower-than-usual lighting and the subdued tones it provides. I don't think I'm looking for too much of a pop here
In that case, I think the subdued works in 2, 3, 4 and 6. Not 1 or 5. Number 5 to me is the perfect chance to show off her eyes, skin tone, jewelry color, hair color, and the makeup job.
In 2 and 4 there's a dreamy effect created by that lighting that I do like.
dak.smugmug.com
Yeah, I guess different things can be used for different pics, and in any case it's all soooo subjective:-)
I do hope I'll get some more variety this weekned :-)
I'm getting a feeling that I'm following my own tracks over and over, need to start blazing a new trail
I think these show you are still experimenting, which is just fine.
For me, there's more happening between the model and the camera here then I've seen in some other series of yours.
Also, I can see that you are trying ideas for lighting the face, from the hard edge extrovert highlights to the lower contrast introvert.
For me, the back drapes are still too detached from the action in all but the last. It's interesting that you give these drapes an architectural quality. I remember your series where the model is manipulating them in some way, like props. So, once again there is exploration going on through all the series. I wonder if bokehing the background drapes to some extent would both integrate them more and also make them less static, while still keeping some architectural quality. I very much like the draping for the last shot. Good choice of pattern and hanging for the drape for this shot.
I still think you could move the camera more in relation to the action of the model, making more interplay between them. In most of your shots all through these series the camera is the observer and not the participant. I've suggested before getting in with the action with your camera. This would loosen up the backgrounds, too. They would become quite unpredictable, which would be an improvement, I think. You'd have to set the scenery up in a semicircle, maybe, which would allow you to move around and keep it in the image. Lighting also would have to be able to embrace a constantly changing target.
How much do you talk to your model live while you are shooting? It looks like you mostly just set up the shot and shoot it. If you are moving with the model's action she will respond to that and then in turn so will you, feeding back to each other all the way. That creates a process out of which comes the unexpected, and that will contain that elusive el dorado of lively connection of the model and camera, and ultimately provide the viewer's experience of connection with the photo. (It will also increase the percentage of rubbish!) The question is, is it more technical technique or more something else that will take you to the next level?
So, if you are looking for a new tack, set up the space and lighting for three dimensions instead of two, get the camera off the tripod and put on your runners!
JM2C
Best.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
I understand that one of the main point of your critique is "to get more interaction", which in my engineering mind is translated into "snap on a WA lens and get up close & personal". Kinda the way cmorgan does. Which is great and dandy, but it's not what I'm after, at least at this point.
BTW, I yet to use a tripod for this kind of shooting, it's all handheld.
Talking-wise: yes, I do talk to my models. Sometimes more, sometimes less, but I'm always trying to give my subject an instant feedback, which is often mixed with directions. Each "bout" usually lasts a few minutes after which we either take quick breather and change something slightly or go for a whole new look and maybe a new lighting schema, and we keep talking during that, unless a MUA is invloved, in which case she usually can take care of that part for me:-)