Dani California

Trevlan

Very recent shoot I had. Recalibrated my monitor to smugmug's printshop specifications. I'm curious to know if the colors and brightness look right to you guys. Most of my work doesn't find the printshop anyway. Not sure if it's worth it to work in this color space/brightness setting, if it's going to look bad online. C & C welcomed also.

Side note: Posted these XL so you can see the details better.

Thanks.


#1


#2


#3


#4


#5

Nikolai

Frank,
you should've come to workshop...
Sitting female models (esp plus size) are NOT to be shot from below or even level... Broad lighting (3 out of 5) is also not their cup of tea...

torags

I'm no expert, but I like #5 the best.

It appears the contrast is less than on the other shots;could be cam shake, but I think it improves the image and the lighting is nice

Rags

Flutist

#5 is the clear winner hear, crisp shot, lovely capture of her beauty. Being a heavy set girl myself, I would have felt self conscious of the poses chosen. I honestly do not like being photographed below my bust line, nor from a direct side angle where my forearms are viewed in their full glory

Agnieszka

I agree Most of the poses are not flattering to her body type. The last one looks best too me, even thought it looks a bit like a snap shot (a vertical crop might have been better?)

She's a very pretty girl, and you got some interesting light here ... it's just the posing ...

Malte

Does it occur to anyone that this lovely lady might be perfectly happy about her size and weight? Or would that just be impossible since she's not average or smaller?
Kudos to torags for keeping it on topic.

I love shot number two.

Malte

Agnieszka

Malte wrote:

Does it occur to anyone that this lovely lady might be perfectly happy about her size and weight? Or would that just be impossible since she's not average or smaller?
Kudos to torags for keeping it on topic.

I love shot number two.

Malte

I don't think anybody is critiquing her size. She's beautiful indeed. Me for example, I just don't think her beauty was shown from the right perspective ....

Nikolai

Malte wrote:

Does it occur to anyone that this lovely lady might be perfectly happy about her size and weight? Or would that just be impossible since she's not average or smaller?
Malte

Since the comment most likely pointed at me... It's our responsibility as photographers to know what works for what types of subjects and what not. This knowlegde doesn't come easy, fast or cheap. I have shot a fair share of models that are considered "thick"/"plus size"/whatever (esp.by Hollywood standards, where anybody below 5'8" is "short" and anybody above 110lbs is "heavy") and was able to produce the results that were both true to life yet beneficial to the subject.
Thou shalt know thy angles/lighting!

Malte

Nikolai wrote:

Since the comment most likely pointed at me... It's our responsibility as photographers to know what works for what types of subjects and what not. This knowlegde doesn't come easy, fast or cheap. I have shot a fair share of models that are considered "thick"/"plus size"/whatever (esp.by Hollywood standards, where anybody below 5'8" is "short" and anybody above 110lbs is "heavy") and was able to produce the results that were both true to life yet beneficial to the subject.
Thou shalt know thy angles/lighting!

Trevlan wasn't asking for techniques on how to make a big person look smaller, he was talking about colors and brightness. And what if the model actually wants to look like she does in her photos?

You try to come off as blaming the Hollywood mindset, but in fact, you are perpetuating it. Own it Nik.

Malte

amp'd

The colors look fine to me. I can see them best in #5, which is also my fave shot. =0) She is very lovely!

Trevlan

Thank you all for the replies. Most of the poses were selected by me. I attempted to hide her 'plus sized' frame by accentuating her face, and hiding the rest in shadow. Regardless if a person doesn't like their body or not, (In this case, she's comfortable with her size) we can't always shoot head shots. You have to give the client the option to love or hate the shot. I can't make that descicion for her. As in the case for this set, she loved #1 and #2 the best. (Aside from #5 which I think is her best shot.)

I think the reason why she loved those shots more, is because of the new dress she had on for her birthday. The broad face lighting doesn't look horrible in 2,3, and 5. She's a very attractive woman. Yes, she's what we like to call "Thick". But there are two things you can do: Hate it and get in shape, or embrace it. 90% of the population is short or 'heavy' according to hollywood standards. Fortunately for me, this wasn't a hollywood shoot. It was a simple portrait session for her birthday.

If the colors, brightness and all else look fine, then this is the calibration I'll keep. Two birds with one stone. Good on print and good on the net.

Nik, I only wish I could have made it over there for that lighting class. Hopefully you'll have another in the fall or next year. I really appreciate your work as well as your patience and straight shooting critisism. Like I tell my students in Karate. "This isn't for everyone. If you can't handle it, quit." I chose to be a photographer. I enjoy it, and it also feels good when you are considered skillfull enough to be paid for your services.


Here are a few more shots. These offer more color than the previous ones. I edited these with the same monitor settings. Your opinions on the color and brightness are always appreciated. C & C as well.

#6


#7


#8


#9


#10

bdcolen

Malte wrote:

Trevlan wasn't asking for techniques on how to make a big person look smaller, he was talking about colors and brightness. And what if the model actually wants to look like she does in her photos?

You try to come off as blaming the Hollywood mindset, but in fact, you are perpetuating it. Own it Nik.

Malte

The comments have nothing to do with perpetuating any "hollywood mindset," but rather making this young woman look as good as she can possibly look. The last image does it - she's lovely. It's also clear from this last image that she is not thin, small, etc. etc. She has a full face, and one would assume a full body. But this last image exentuates her beauty. The previous images are, sorry, but just poorly posed and lit in such a way that do not begin to do her justice. In fact, seeing this last image, I am surprised by how lovely she looks.

I'd suggest re-reading the post from Shannon, who was telling us how she reacts as a woman .

Qarik

The lighting doesn't work for me in almost al l the shots.

Malte

bdcolen wrote:

...but rather making this young woman look as good as she can possibly look.

Sooo, beauty is no longer a matter of perception, "in the eye of the beholder" and all that jazz? Because you are speaking of your opinion of beauty being the same as everyone else's, right? I mean, since you have no idea of what her perception of beauty is.

bdcolen wrote:

The last image does it - she's lovely.

Oh you men the one where none of her body is actually showing? Yeah, that one has to be the keeper!

bdcolen wrote:

It's also clear from this last image that she is not thin, small, etc. etc. She has a full face, and one would assume a full body.

So why, oh why, wouln't you want to see it? Cause fat = bad right?

bdcolen wrote:

I'd suggest re-reading the post from Shannon, who was telling us how she reacts as a woman .

I read it carefully the first time and I'm sad that Shannon feels that way. She probably does cause people say stuff like "Hey, watch how you light that fat woman!"

Malte

Qarik

Malte,

I don't believe a single person here has made any judgement on how fat or thin she is. The judgments have solely been on technique. If we can't point out technique because the subject may be on the heavy side..well that seems kinda silly to me.

D'Buggs

For the most part, I'd have too agree with most of the C&C. And this comes from a fella that likes his ladies a little 'hunky'.

- I'm liking 5 the most, followed by 1... If it had a little fill, I'd proly like it more.
- 3 - The low angle doesn't work for me
- In the remaining, the arm struggles for dominance and I lose interest, FAST (makes for a confusing picture).

WATS, She's GORGEOUS! and I'd try goin at her with 'traditional' lighting approaches that would accentuate that inherent fact.... she could still be done in full or 3/4 poses that show off her new dress, just lit/shot differently.


.... It's not about being fat. Its about capturing her beauty in the best way possible. Maybe try looking @ + size catalogs for posing ideas.

It's do-able.

mayassa

I didn't like the light in the first set, looks harsh to me

Trevlan

I regards to the light, yes it was hard light. I explained this to her before the shoot. For some reason, people love this shot and want to have shots similar to this. I explained to her that hard light doesn't work well with females. This is what she wanted, so that's what I did.

Those were from the first batch of the shoot. We then changed location and involved her children. There is one shot with her daughter that is a clear winner. All in all, this shot was a technical nightmare, but she loved it the most out of all.

I had more traditional shots, if you care to see them.





I picked the others because I was intrested in knowing if the brightness/colors looked okay, since they were hard light and all.

Do you prefer the last two I posted, in regards to plus sized framing and posing? What about the baby shower shots? Do those look okay in regards to the brightness and color?

And please my friends, there is no need to get into heated debates. All is well and ends well.

mayassa

I clicked the link it was a blur?

Do you have any flash modifiers? How are you bouncing your flash?

kdspencer

On my monitor that (I think) is calibrated, the brightness/colors look okay. But I'm no expert.

Can someone else chime in who has a calibrated monitor??

~Kathleen

NeilL

This is an intriguing set of pics. They seem to be probing something, as if the photog is stepping back and assessing a new idea.

What is remarkable about many of them are a raw, but not unpleasant, use of one light flash; subject placement (which is basically an application of the rule of thirds); and outdoor evening light. #1 is typical.

So far, I am not convinced these ideas yield interesting enough results. They are not particularly striking or beautiful.

One problem with #1 and related shots is that the environmental subject behind the woman is struggling to find a role in the composition. There is negative tension between it and the flash light (which opposes it in direction) and the woman. That environmental element might be more at ease, and finally contribute something positive, if it was much more OOF, and not so cut off on the left side.

I can imagine a very harmonious and striking effect if the camera were above the woman and further away, so that she was in a pool of light to which the environmental light was seeming to contribute.

About the matter of flattering the subject and the subject's beauty or otherwise, I think that a conscious distinction needs to be kept in mind between the attractiveness of the subject and the attractiveness of the image. They are not the same thing. Usually a photo which has a beautiful subject is praised as a beautiful image, but there could be a trap in that confusion. The beauty of the subject can cover a multitude of unbeautiful aspects of the photographer's job.

In the discussion here, when the subject's beauty is at last seen in #5, all is forgiven! Come on! The problem with the others is not mainly that the subject is unbeautiful, but that the photographer did not create a beautiful image. So, in that, I am in agreement with B.D.