Damn, Mike. How do you do it? If I'd known all the beautiful women lived in Boise, I'd have moved there decades ago. Seems like they're either in Boise or Russia (Yuri Patov.)
John :
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
Only teeny nit is that the eyes are a tad bright for me - knowing you, I'll bet that's all light rather than PP, but on this monitor just a teensy bit "alien" cause they are so light.
Wow, again, wow. The fact that her hair and the mane are almost the same colour but vary in texture is just amazing.
Thanks everyone, appreciate you taking the time to comment.
The girl is a natural on a horse which helped her to be very relaxed.
Yes the light in her eyes is natural, I actually toned it back a bit. There was a bright straight line across the top of her eye (the horizon I think) and then a bright spot in the lower part of her eye (no idea on that one) which I took out.
And as part of the continuing discussion on skin cleaning.....this girl has skin that needs work, lot of little bumps and color splotches. She had on almost no makeup.
I put this through Portrait Professional at a medium setting and then cloned out any remaining noticeable bumps.
If you look close you can still see some work that could be done around her mouth and between her eyes.
I believe it is important to leave some "character" or they start to look overworked.
This is actually from last fall, I have so many pictures I never post, so once in awhile I put up an older one.
I will be shooting her again next month.....supposedly .
The pose is great, lighting is great and I like the PP on her face - just enough. Only nitpik would be a slightly greater DOF so her upper body was in focus.
This is actually from last fall, I have so many pictures I never post, so once in awhile I put up an older one.
I will be shooting her again next month.....supposedly .
No reflectors...ever.
Is that because you have something against reflectors or you just don't like hauling around equipment?
Is that because you have something against reflectors or you just don't like hauling around equipment?
yes Zoomer, what's the deal with "no reflectors...ever".
Not judging since I have not yet used them either or flash for that matter, but I"m starting to explore the possibilities so I have to know why the adamant statement.
Those of you who have read many of my comments know that my portrait sessions are more of a running commentary than a start and stop photo taking mission. My subjects seldom know when I am going to take a picture.
Reflectors are VERY disruptive of this process..classic example of equipment getting in the way, very distracting and inhibiting.
Reflectors are frustrating and inconsistent tools to use correctly. If I am trying to use a tool that I cannot get consistent results from in every situation every time then it is wasting my time.
Reflectors require an assistant with enough knowledge on how to use a reflector so that I am not conistently having to instruct....or they require stands to hold them....which require tear down and reset up at every new spot.
Once I learned how to make use of the existing natural light and/or off camera flash and never have felt the need for a reflector.
Studio lighting experts (these setups can also be used outside) make great use of reflectors with their setups....but that is not what I do. I am a run and gun shooter.
I could go on but you get the idea...they just don't work for me.
To nitpick: the blur is done in photoshop? Her hand is in about the same plain as her face, but 'out of focus', which looks odd to me.
Mmmm . . I'm guessing not. Her face is forward of her arm. If you look to the lower right corner of the image, you'll notice the horse's neck is in focus. It's in the same plane as her face. Didn't register as odd to me on first impression, nor now after scrutiny.
John :
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
Mmmm . . I'm guessing not. Her face is forward of her arm. If you look to the lower right corner of the image, you'll notice the horse's neck is in focus. It's in the same plane as her face. Didn't register as odd to me on first impression, nor now after scrutiny.
Thanks Icebear.
I can count on one hand the number of times I have added blur to the background. Shooting dancers from below with a wide angle is the only time I remember doing it.
I normally try to shoot wide open or 1 stop down with a long lens.
Mmmm . . I'm guessing not. Her face is forward of her arm. If you look to the lower right corner of the image, you'll notice the horse's neck is in focus. It's in the same plane as her face. Didn't register as odd to me on first impression, nor now after scrutiny.
Okay, maybe it is due to the processing of her face. Nothing looks as sharp in the photo as her face and the top of her head. I know it is just f/2, but still
Her hair for example hangs almost straight down, with her hand a little bit more towards the camera. This should be at least as sharp as the top of her head. But I don't think it is. But I'll leave it up to Zoomer ;-) If he tells me it has not been blurred, I'll accept that in an instant
Check, just missed the comment by Zoomer!! Thanks and sorry
Don't forget that he said he used a little Portrait Professional on her face. That can sometimes create an intangible element that makes things seem slightly out-of-whack. If you crop his pic to a frame-filler, it seems to go away. This is why I mentioned the shallow depth of field, earlier. Her face does seem do be disproportionately sharp, and I'm betting that Portrait Pro has something to do with it.
What the hell are we doing? I'm not picking on anybody here, but merely making a general comment. I think the way we pick at images is sometimes just stupid. Step back from technical analysis for a minute and look at this photo like a normal human being. It's gorgeous. If it were in a magazine or hanging on a wall, your attention would go to her face, and your heart rate would speed up for a sec.
Some photos have glaring issues that are hard to get past. This is not one of them.
John :
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
No problem guys.... I shoot with very thin depth of field all the time, my normal look.
The focus plane in this shot includes her eyes, you can see it again in her hair on top of her head and then you can see it again in the horses neck, looks to be just about an inch or two wide.
The blurred areas lead your eyes to the in focus area...her eyes....having everything in focus is overrated .
The eye naturally looks for the brightest area or something in focus.
Nothing is "out of whack" from Portrait Professional...not sure where that comment is coming from.
No problem guys.... I shoot with very thin depth of field all the time, my normal look.
The focus plane in this shot includes her eyes, you can see it again in her hair on top of her head and then you can see it again in the horses neck, looks to be just about an inch or two wide.
The blurred areas lead your eyes to the in focus area...her eyes....having everything in focus is overrated .
Oh, I definitely looove the shallow depth of field I usually shoot at 2.2, 2.8, settings like that.
And like I said: I was just nitpicking. I still think it's gorgeous
Comments
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
GreyLeaf PhotoGraphy
Only teeny nit is that the eyes are a tad bright for me - knowing you, I'll bet that's all light rather than PP, but on this monitor just a teensy bit "alien" cause they are so light.
Wow, again, wow. The fact that her hair and the mane are almost the same colour but vary in texture is just amazing.
The girl is a natural on a horse which helped her to be very relaxed.
Yes the light in her eyes is natural, I actually toned it back a bit. There was a bright straight line across the top of her eye (the horizon I think) and then a bright spot in the lower part of her eye (no idea on that one) which I took out.
And as part of the continuing discussion on skin cleaning.....this girl has skin that needs work, lot of little bumps and color splotches. She had on almost no makeup.
I put this through Portrait Professional at a medium setting and then cloned out any remaining noticeable bumps.
If you look close you can still see some work that could be done around her mouth and between her eyes.
I believe it is important to leave some "character" or they start to look overworked.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21695902@N06/
http://500px.com/Shockey
alloutdoor.smugmug.com
http://aoboudoirboise.smugmug.com/
She's still just as beautiful.
Love your natural light work.
_________
This is actually from last fall, I have so many pictures I never post, so once in awhile I put up an older one.
I will be shooting her again next month.....supposedly
No reflectors...ever.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21695902@N06/
http://500px.com/Shockey
alloutdoor.smugmug.com
http://aoboudoirboise.smugmug.com/
www.cameraone.biz
please visit: www.babyelephants.net
Is that because you have something against reflectors or you just don't like hauling around equipment?
yes Zoomer, what's the deal with "no reflectors...ever".
Not judging since I have not yet used them either or flash for that matter, but I"m starting to explore the possibilities so I have to know why the adamant statement.
_________
I also need to know.
Great picture.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks
Reflectors are VERY disruptive of this process..classic example of equipment getting in the way, very distracting and inhibiting.
Reflectors are frustrating and inconsistent tools to use correctly. If I am trying to use a tool that I cannot get consistent results from in every situation every time then it is wasting my time.
Reflectors require an assistant with enough knowledge on how to use a reflector so that I am not conistently having to instruct....or they require stands to hold them....which require tear down and reset up at every new spot.
Once I learned how to make use of the existing natural light and/or off camera flash and never have felt the need for a reflector.
Studio lighting experts (these setups can also be used outside) make great use of reflectors with their setups....but that is not what I do. I am a run and gun shooter.
I could go on but you get the idea...they just don't work for me.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21695902@N06/
http://500px.com/Shockey
alloutdoor.smugmug.com
http://aoboudoirboise.smugmug.com/
To nitpick: the blur is done in photoshop? Her hand is in about the same plain as her face, but 'out of focus', which looks odd to me.
www.warris.nl/blog
Mmmm . . I'm guessing not. Her face is forward of her arm. If you look to the lower right corner of the image, you'll notice the horse's neck is in focus. It's in the same plane as her face. Didn't register as odd to me on first impression, nor now after scrutiny.
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
Thanks Icebear.
I can count on one hand the number of times I have added blur to the background. Shooting dancers from below with a wide angle is the only time I remember doing it.
I normally try to shoot wide open or 1 stop down with a long lens.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21695902@N06/
http://500px.com/Shockey
alloutdoor.smugmug.com
http://aoboudoirboise.smugmug.com/
Her hair for example hangs almost straight down, with her hand a little bit more towards the camera. This should be at least as sharp as the top of her head. But I don't think it is. But I'll leave it up to Zoomer ;-) If he tells me it has not been blurred, I'll accept that in an instant
Check, just missed the comment by Zoomer!! Thanks and sorry
www.warris.nl/blog
please visit: www.babyelephants.net
Some photos have glaring issues that are hard to get past. This is not one of them.
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
The focus plane in this shot includes her eyes, you can see it again in her hair on top of her head and then you can see it again in the horses neck, looks to be just about an inch or two wide.
The blurred areas lead your eyes to the in focus area...her eyes....having everything in focus is overrated
The eye naturally looks for the brightest area or something in focus.
Nothing is "out of whack" from Portrait Professional...not sure where that comment is coming from.
Appreciate your comment Icebear.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21695902@N06/
http://500px.com/Shockey
alloutdoor.smugmug.com
http://aoboudoirboise.smugmug.com/
Oh, I definitely looove the shallow depth of field
And like I said: I was just nitpicking. I still think it's gorgeous
www.warris.nl/blog