it works! well exposed, in focus, clean and dramatic!
Thanks, Qarik..... I've been finding the SP thing,,,,,, TUFF - I have come to conclusion that I just don't 'take' a typical portrait. Once I moved away from getting that, this came to be in just one attempt.
Diva, I don't mean to contradict you, but I don't believe that was Rembrandt lighting. I don't see the triangle under the eye. Also, this one is clearly lit to the side. Taditional Rembrandt is usually 45 degrees or so from the front and higher than where he had his light's positioned.
Buggs, all in all, this is a great SP. The B&W treatment add to the drama. Being a person that takes a lot of SPs, I can appreciate how difficult this could be. Especially if you don't have a remote shutter. I like this one alot. You have a piercing gaze and it was captured lovely here.
I also find it hard to do self portraits, though I'm sure if I practice more I'ld probably be more at ease with it, I just don't like the brutal honesty of the camera.
I think this is a wonderful image, I really like the lighting. Sometimes I think about a portrait too long and too hard and forget that sometimes, all it takes is one light. Very nicely done.
Diva, I don't mean to contradict you, but I don't believe that was Rembrandt lighting. I don't see the triangle under the eye. Also, this one is clearly lit to the side. Taditional Rembrandt is usually 45 degrees or so from the front and higher than where he had his light's positioned.
Well, to me the triangle looks like it's small and actually on his eye, hence why I called it "tight" R lighting. Forgive me if I've stretched the definition beyond where it should go (I'm still a n00b!). It just seemed to me that with the eye itself in light, it was more related to R. than straight sidelighting. By all means correct me -I'm trying to learn and I seriously don't have all this stuff down pat yet, so corrections are good!!!!
Well, to me the triangle looks like it's small and actually on his eye, hence why I called it "tight" R lighting. Forgive me if I've stretched the definition beyond where it should go (I'm still a n00b!). It just seemed to me that with the eye itself in light, it was more related to R. than straight sidelighting. By all means correct me -I'm trying to learn and I seriously don't have all this stuff down pat yet, so corrections are good!!!!
Diva, I'm still a noob also. LoL. I, in no way, meant to offend you. I'm just trying to understand the light/lighting also.
Diva, I'm still a noob also. LoL. I, in no way, meant to offend you. I'm just trying to understand the light/lighting also.
Offend me? :lol4 You have to be kidding - I'm genuinely grateful! You're WAY more technically up on all the lighting stuff - I still find myself going on trial, error and luck (improving all the time and I'm starting to "know what I know", ie the stuff I use a lot, but outside that small realm I'm still seriously at the beginning of this journey!)
Diva, I don't mean to contradict you, but I don't believe that was Rembrandt lighting. I don't see the triangle under the eye. Also, this one is clearly lit to the side. Taditional Rembrandt is usually 45 degrees or so from the front and higher than where he had his light's positioned.
Trevlan is correct on this. what gave me the eye and chin/cheek high-lite was from the "wrap-around" of a close sitting soft-box, 90dg off my beek.
Buggs, all in all, this is a great SP. The B&W treatment add to the drama. Being a person that takes a lot of SPs, I can appreciate how difficult this could be. Especially if you don't have a remote shutter. I like this one alot. You have a piercing gaze and it was captured lovely here.
Thanks! I have a remote but a tethered monitor would RULE in these efforts
> A guy could reposition accordingly without leaving the chair.... That, or hire a Lovely Assistant to capture images.
I also find it hard to do self portraits, though I'm sure if I practice more I'ld probably be more at ease with it, I just don't like the brutal honesty of the camera.
I think this is a wonderful image, I really like the lighting. Sometimes I think about a portrait too long and too hard and forget that sometimes, all it takes is one light. Very nicely done.
Comments
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
Thanks, Qarik..... I've been finding the SP thing,,,,,, TUFF - I have come to conclusion that I just don't 'take' a typical portrait. Once I moved away from getting that, this came to be in just one attempt.
Like me, it's simple (hence thread title).
Good B&W conversion too.
http://blog.timkphotography.com
Thanks, Tim.
Its appreciated.
Buggs, all in all, this is a great SP. The B&W treatment add to the drama. Being a person that takes a lot of SPs, I can appreciate how difficult this could be. Especially if you don't have a remote shutter. I like this one alot. You have a piercing gaze and it was captured lovely here.
Nikon Shooter
It's all about the moment...
I think this is a wonderful image, I really like the lighting. Sometimes I think about a portrait too long and too hard and forget that sometimes, all it takes is one light. Very nicely done.
Well, to me the triangle looks like it's small and actually on his eye, hence why I called it "tight" R lighting. Forgive me if I've stretched the definition beyond where it should go (I'm still a n00b!). It just seemed to me that with the eye itself in light, it was more related to R. than straight sidelighting. By all means correct me -I'm trying to learn and I seriously don't have all this stuff down pat yet, so corrections are good!!!!
www.cameraone.biz
Diva, I'm still a noob also. LoL. I, in no way, meant to offend you. I'm just trying to understand the light/lighting also.
Nikon Shooter
It's all about the moment...
Offend me?
Thanks Hack, I appreciate it.
And no, not on bizz cards,,,,,,,, but I'm thinking beside the doorbell.
EXACTLY where I got stuck!
Keep trying.