Retrofitted

anonymouscuban · May 12, 2012

Another shot I took a while go. Experimented with it a bit in post. Watcha think?

Hackbone · May 12, 2012

Needless to say a great model. The processing is not where I want it to be. I'd like it to be more white in the skin tone. AKA Alvarado. However it is nice.

VayCayMom · May 13, 2012

love it but imho it could be even better, my impression of the beauties in this genre is that they had very nipped in waists, I think the pose could be improved here, it doesn't flatter that area.There are tricks to twisting this way and that to highlight a trim tummy. A "perfect" figure then according to my old 1940s or 1950s copy of John Robert Powers Beauty book ( I wish I still had it) was bustline and hips the same size and then the waist 10" smaller. 36, 26 36 was to die for

anonymouscuban · May 13, 2012

Chuck.. I get what you mean. My wife was pretty tan in this shot but I've lighten up the skin tone in this version. Not sure which I like better:

VCM... I think it's all about the posing, angle from where the shot is taken and focal length. I think had I shot this with a longer focal length and from a lower angle, the waist would look more narrow. That or I can have my wife get a couple ribs removed.

I guess I could use the liquify tool to narrow the waist to unrealistic proportions but I kind of like sleeping in my bed. We do have couches that are pretty darn comfortable but I may end up in the dog house for something like that.

Nikolai · May 13, 2012

Nice work Alex!

My only nit is that she looks suspended in a thin air and then PS-ed into the BG frame...

anonymouscuban · May 13, 2012

Nikolai wrote: »

Nice work Alex!
My only nit is that she looks suspended in a thin air and then PS-ed into the BG frame...

Nik. I struggled with this. In the original shot, I used a muslim BG. I had wrinkles and also I did a really crappy job of lighting it. So I cleaned up the BG in post and it ended up losing all it's depth so it looks like she's floating.

Icebear · May 13, 2012

I do understand that we hold ourselves and each other to very high standards on DGrin, but geeze . . . IMO this is absolutely fabulous. No one, other than someone out to judge a photo contest would ever notice any of this. I don't care if this was on the wall of a feed & seed store, I'd buy their stuff!

angevin1 · May 13, 2012

Icebear wrote: »

I do understand that we hold ourselves and each other to very high standards on DGrin, but geeze . . . IMO this is absolutely fabulous. No one, other than someone out to judge a photo contest would ever notice any of this. I don't care if this was on the wall of a feed & seed store, I'd buy their stuff!

Kinda what I was thinking. Alex, this is a Winner as is, no doubt about it. The only arguments to be made are simple aesthetics because this is a Stellar production!

Hackbone · May 14, 2012

Icebear wrote: »

I do understand that we hold ourselves and each other to very high standards on DGrin, but geeze . . . IMO this is absolutely fabulous. No one, other than someone out to judge a photo contest would ever notice any of this. I don't care if this was on the wall of a feed & seed store, I'd buy their stuff!

angevin1 wrote: »

Kinda what I was thinking. Alex, this is a Winner as is, no doubt about it. The only arguments to be made are simple aesthetics because this is a Stellar production!

Got to make a comment here........when we don't hold ourselves to high standards in CC I feel we are dumbing down our profession. Every shot should be given great consideration to all aspects pertaining to that shot. Good enough is not a standard I want to be associated with. I'll be the first to admit that I don't do it at all times but we should should always strive to keep standards to a professional set.

anonymouscuban · May 14, 2012

I appreciate all the comments and feedback.

In all honesty, I found my home here on Dgrin because the members take the time to give real feedback. I've posted images on many forums and found that the "Nice Pic" comments just don't work for me. I want to improve this craft and without critical feedback, it's going to be much more difficult.

Hackbone · May 14, 2012

Alex, quick question......what was the name of the type set used?

anonymouscuban · May 14, 2012

Don't recall off top of my head but I will let you know later today. It was a free font I downloaded.

anonymouscuban · May 14, 2012

Hackbone wrote: »

Alex, quick question......what was the name of the type set used?

Chuck. Name of the font is "Marcelle Script". You can find it here:

http://www.dafont.com/marcelle.font

Hackbone · May 15, 2012

Thanks Alex, I've been looking for that one for awhile.

Pono Photo · May 15, 2012

Thanks for that font! but oh man, did that open a can of worms. Every time I get onto a font site, time just stands still and I end up downloading way too many of them. Now I have to install another 120 fonts or so... lol

Nikolai · May 15, 2012

Pono Photo wrote: »

Thanks for that font! but oh man, did that open a can of worms. Every time I get onto a font site, time just stands still and I end up downloading way too many of them. Now I have to install another 120 fonts or so... lol

Remember though: fonts eat your system resources like there's no tomorrow. Even though today's systems are fiarly efficient in that respect, every font you don't use just sits there like a dead weight.

Pono Photo · May 15, 2012

Oh I know. I just have a collection of them. I install them and try them out to see how I like them. Then uninstall until I actually need them. I've been doing this for years. Odd obsession I guess. I've got somewhere in the order of about 14,000 fonts stored on an external drive, along with a spread sheet of what they all look like.

Retrofitted

Comments