Lexie: finals
Come here, ye faithfull: last week tease came to fruition :clap
1 Red swimsuit
2. By the fence
3. Upper body
4. With the hat
5. Purple swimsuit
6. With glasses
7. Without glasses
8. Kneeling
9. Comfy this way
C&C welcome, enjoy! :thumb
1 Red swimsuit
2. By the fence
3. Upper body
4. With the hat
5. Purple swimsuit
6. With glasses
7. Without glasses
8. Kneeling
9. Comfy this way
C&C welcome, enjoy! :thumb
"May the f/stop be with you!"
0
Comments
My Gear
#2 Gorgeous. Nitpicks are the position of the left hand "ouch", and the weed pointing to *cough*. If her hand was facing other way pinky towards camera and fingers through the fence it would look a lot more glamourous.
#3. Nice! Not sure how I feel about the makeup on the cheek.
#4. NiCe!! No complaints! Option to clone out the stalk under the left arm.
#5. Man I really like this shot, but I have to point out the shadow on the suit looks like she's holding a tennis ball between her tummy and the suit or she has some belly button issues. It took me 10 scrolls to notice that but still thought I'd mention it. Also I gotta ask if the branch was intentional like your other series.
#6 SexY!
$$$7 My fave! Nice light, even a sparkle in the glasses!
I think you got it!
#8. 2nd fave, again love the light and the look!
#9. No complaints really again! Just wondering what was going on in the background? Did you miss an Aurora?
dak.smugmug.com
I gotta ask though Nik. Are the models happy with how their skin is depicted in these "final" photos? I am no expert on fashion photography. But I do look at some top international photographers from time to time (Frank Doorhof is one of my faves) and while you're doing an awesome job, I shouldn't be able to see the veins under this pale girls skin. I felt like there was similar overabundance of skin detail in the "Shade" set too. I am not sure how else to describe but feel like the skin is looking clinical and sterile, hard....like I'm in a doctor's office.
I imagine its a combination of light modification and PP that gets that smooth (but far from plasticky) effect.
Hope this hasn't offended you, as I'm certainly in awe of your talent. But we also are here to help each other grow. What are your thoughts?
50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, 24-70 2.8L, 35mm 1.4L, 135mm f2L
ST-E2 Transmitter + (3) 580 EXII + radio poppers
It's not fun having transparent skin.
*
http://member.onemodelplace.com/member.cfm?P_ID=214042
Agree on the left hand.
Yeah, I missed it, I'll prolly remove it...
Tummy shade: Yeah I know, it worried me too, I was thinking to remove it, but I guess just got lazy. I like the pose, though, so I decided to keep it..
Branch: semi-intentional. Obviously I didn't plant it this way, but I like it. Creates nice connection IMHO...
The effect only becomes visible when it gets dark, otherwise it disappears on the relatively bright sky. To totally kill it I'd have to use some gobo/flags contraption, which is a bit too much to carry on a hike in addition to everything I already have to bring...
Thank you once again!
You could give workshops!
I do have a lighting question. Just to qualify, these images don't show the effect I am asking about.
When using studio strobes outside I have seen photos where the model is properly exposed, and has separation from the background, but the background is still bright, and well exposed.
Now if we metered for the background alone in daylight, and hypothetically have a properly exposed background at say 500 @ f5. How do you shoot this with your strobes?
I can only use about 160/1 with my strobes. (200/1 with the speed lite). This would blow out the background. I guess I could use the smallest aperture possible, but that would eliminate any DOF effects I may want to incorporate in the image.
I hope I have explained this adequately. Inquiring minds want to know.
Sam
Frank does not do a lot of PP. MUA and hair stylist help with the preproduction and then his use of light can minimize a lot of those extra "flaws". I would love to go to one of his workshops I've been asking him to come to NY.
LoL. Also, if you look at Nik's setup shots on his outdoor shoots, he's using a lot of undiffused light so he may pick up a lot more skin flaws/texture and shadows.
dak.smugmug.com
I only asked because I was expecting pretty much the same background light from the previous two pics. That last background looks like a Muslin. lol.
dak.smugmug.com
Thank you very much for your comments!
I agree, skin is always a big issue for the female subjects. And yes, I know how and have specialized tools to clean/soften it. However, if you ever did it yourself you know all too well that it takes ungodly amount of time to do it right. And since all these are essentially non-paid sessions (I'm gathering portolio material), spending any more time than I already do (and I already spend a lot, in some cases "removing" huge tattoos, scars, bruises, bad skin patches, etc.) is simply too much. The models, actually, are already very grateful for the amount of post-processing that goes into finals, I can tell you that 90% of the LA fashion photogs don't do even a fraction of that, at least for free shots (and from what I hear, many simply can't do it at all).
Essentially I limit myself as to the how far I go. If a model has a "transparent" skin and large veins - well, so the does...
Very good question, Sam, I totally know what you're talking about.
First of all, all my strobes are OK at 1/250s - I tested them, actually:-). In fact, 580EXII can go 1/350 (and even shorter if I use HSS), but the rest can't, so I limit myself to that.
If you noticed, the vast majority of my outdoor shoots are sunsets. The reason for this, apart from getting a great looking natural background;-), is exactly the fact that I can expose for the sky while being in range for the strobes.
I'm usually plan to start shooting at least one hour before the actual sunset time. At this point the sky is usually way too bright for a flash to compete with it in any meaningful way. That is, unless there are nice clouds, but in SoCal that's more like an exception.
So I use this time to get pics like this:
or this:
and finally, this:
This normally happens about 20 min before the sunset. From this point on (and even a bit earlier) the ambient light usually falls under f/5.6 at 1/250 and I can safely use my strobes. By this time both me and my model are already warmed up and this is when the "real" shooting starts. Over the next 30 to 40 minutes the light falls about 3 stops. I typically start with underexposing by ~1 stop to darken it and then eventually go even.
Depending on the clouds pattern and some other circumstances we shoot till 10..30 minutes after the sunset.
HTH
And yes, MUA/HS can do wonders to minimize the post efforts skin-wise. Yet they often take a lot of time and often cost money. I think their usage is highly appropriate for a commerical work with a decent budget (especially in the studio environment), but for a quick outdoor freebie it's an overkill...
Also, for some reason, most of the MUA I dealt with would not be able to take those hikes, and the hike itself can ruin any makeup if done in advance.
And yes, large diffusers do soften. However, I have already expressed earlier my personal attitude towards their usage in the cloudless SoCal outdoors. I totally can see the situation can be different in other areas where the overcast is typical.
+1
http://danielplumer.com/
Facebook Fan Page
Facebook: Friend / Fan || Twitter: @shimamizu || Google Plus
It was both, but yes, she definitely knows her stuff
I'll holler if I'm down in OC again:-)
Great model as well.
But I must say, these pics need some major retouching in order to reach their maximum potential.
But in the shadows, Vysionous was watching, and with patience awaiting the night.
http://vysionous.deviantart.com
Thank you!
As I mentioned earlier, I simply don't go overboard with touchups for the free shoots.
I know this is not such a recent thread, so I appologize.
But I just checked out this guys work - Frank? - and to say he doesn't so a lot of PP is an understatement. His models have no pores, they look 100% plastic. It's cheesy, typical LA retouching and photography to the nth degree.
But I was going to also chime in and say, Nikolai, that the main flaw with these images being "portfolio material" is that your retouching is lacking or non-existant. Too many flaws, too much cellulite, big when things could be small, wrinkles, saggy skin.. etc. And this is the general consensus to most of your series of late.
http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=874077&postcount=11
Don't you think that when you show images to the rest of us, or your clients, they should be receiving the same treatment that your portfolio gets? These images could stand the treatment.. it would be worth the wait?
I'm giving you a hard time, but one reason why I don't post here so much is the lack of effort that goes into the work that people want to receive critique on. Not only that, but photoshop proficiency is lacking.. and in this day and age, if you want to call yourself a photographer, you should be as good in photoshop as the darkroom printers were in the darkroom days of yore. My initial critique list is long before I can even get to what the photo is about - which is half the battle. Enough of this "technique" stuff. Your (not necessarily you, general vent here.) exposure SHOULD be right, your focus SHOULD be on, your highlights should NOT be blown.. The technique should be there, and not distracting, so the issues, the meat, the heart of the photograph can be discussed.
Owen,
Since you don't frequent dgrin like you used to, let me clarify: my main concern currently is lighting. In six months I went from two sunpacks and two umbrellas to eight studio strobes and a huge array of studio accessories. It's a very steep learning curve. I know I can use photoshop. I'm actualy pretty good at it. It's not my primary interest at the moment. I'm trying to learn the lighting scenarios, and I deem prudent to share what I learned.
Yes, if a particular frame were destined for a spread of a nation-wide glamour magazine it would receive an extra treatment. But in that case the few K$ of royalty fees would make it worth my while. As for the TF* work...
I apologize if my half-cooked images do not meet your standards. But hey, it's SoCal, we're kinda relaxed here...
Something I learned a while back in my life. Get dressed up everyday becasue you just don't know who is checking you out - put on make up and lipstick even to go to the corner grocery.
For you it's only lighting. You have no idea where these model portfolios will end up. Nik, you are working too hard to have them be shown unfinished to someone who will pass you by because they think your work isn't capable of the best all of the time.
A great example was the other day I went for a haircut. The lady next to me what getting her hair dyed. My hairdresser said to her, I was a photographer and pulled out an ad piece I made with images on it. I had no idea that this woman was the photography buyer for a medium ad agency here in LA. She loved my work. The agency does some pretty hefty advertising for some amazing clothing businesses who dress kids. One of the kids was in an outfit from the clothing line. She's going to call me.
Every photo you produce out there is an ad for you and your work.
Flash Frozen Photography, Inc.
http://flashfrozenphotography.com
Kathy, thank you, interesting observation, congrats on a new business contact!