Cyndi Who?

Bilsen

Cyndi is a Dr. Who fanatic so we put together the 10th Doctor shoot for her to go from guy, to girl, to whatever. I don't know jack about the show but some of you might.



2.


3.


4. Some compositing help


5.


6.


7.


8.

Hackbone

Different taste but done well #6 is just fantastic. Expression, lighting and pose, when you have all three you've got it.

Seefutlung

Dr. Who ... YES!!!! Good job on these. My nitpick ... I think the cropping can be improved on many by being tighter and having the subject a bit more centered.

Foques

i'm confused by her hair..

Bilsen

Thanks Hack. I agree it's different but she's the Dr. Who nerd and she created both characters pretty accurately. Keep in mind, Cyndi and I are at 40+ shoots over three years and change so we are always looking to get outside the envelope. This Sunday Cyndi, Anylza and Kay will be doing Dia de Muertos, sugar skulls and all (like this)



Thanks See. Centering the subject is usually not optimal but I do have a couple like that in the galleries.

Foques, Google Dr. Who - the 10th Doctor. The hair is dead on for both characters (the Doctor and Rose Tyler)

Foques

I know who doctor who is. That's not what's confusing me. :P

Sam

Nice set, I likes it. Who knows Dr. Who could come back as a girl / woman / female, etc.

Sam

Bilsen

Foques, then your confusion confuses me.

Sam, whatever she/he/? is, that's a good looking 930 year old.

Bilsen

and to once again prove I do listen on occasion, here's a set with the 85mm 1.8 that I finally pulled out of the bag:



2.


3.


4.

jmphotocraft

You did a great job. Nice control of bg and light. The second set with the wig is obviously a wig or Photoshop, even if I didn't know what she looked like, so I highly recommend trashing them all.

Bilsen

Thanks JM. Interesting that you see the wig.

puzzledpaul

Bilsen wrote: »

... Interesting that you see the wig.

I didn't see any evidence / clues of one being there, even tho' I knew there was one ... but I'm no wig expert, either ...

Btw, recently bought a 24-105, based on various things I've seen, including noting your use of same. For a compromise bit of kit, I reckon it'll do fine for an upcoming gig next yr

pp

Bilsen

The 24-105 may be a "compromise" from your love of primes but it is my main lens and best after my 70-200 f4 IS. I think you're gonna find it useful.

Foques

Bilsen wrote: »

Thanks JM. Interesting that you see the wig.

it isn't?

the #4 just creams a cheap wig. (or reaaaaallly dirty hair)

Gaby617

#4 in set 2 is awesome, looks a bit oversharpened for me but I love the expression. You ever played w/ a 135L? You might enjoy it.

puzzledpaul

Bilsen wrote: »

The 24-105 may be a "compromise" from your love of primes but it is my main lens and best after my 70-200 f4 IS. I think you're gonna find it useful.

Wires slightly crossed here, methinks ...

Dunno where you've seen me state a love of primes, especially in view of my infrequent visits to this particular neck o' the woods?

I used the word 'compromise' solely because that's the term another regular poster had used in another (of your) threads re the gear you currently use.

Since I know you use yours to decent effect on different bodies,and I needed some sort of lens in this region of the focal length spectrum, a 24 - 105 seemed like a fair choice

Whilst it's as much use to me as a hole in the head for my usual avian based attempts at filling sensors with coloured junk, the 5 - 600 or so frames that I've taken with it that're closer to its intended use (next yr*) suggest it + me are going to get on just fine (altho people with less than perfect skin / complexions might well complain )

It's the first decent and certainly L series WA EF lens that I've ever owned - because I don't normally have a use for such an animal. Time might change my opinion, but for the moment, it's fine.

pp

*daughter No1 knot tying palavar ...