Options
Practicing with a reflector
Did these for a friend this evening (hair to die for or what?!) - we finally had some SUNLIGHT (after what seems like weeks and weeks of rain), so we went and played for an hour or so. C&C welcome!
Some of these were taken through the Magic Glass Bricks (not quite as good as The Magic Garage, but hey - we make do with what we have
), and the others were outside, all around 6pm.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Some of these were taken through the Magic Glass Bricks (not quite as good as The Magic Garage, but hey - we make do with what we have
), and the others were outside, all around 6pm.1.
2.
3.
4.
facebook | photo site |
0
Comments
IMO, it's the "Rabbit Shot".
NICE work there, diva.
Curious Q: When in the shoot did this one come to life (early or later)?
It's reminiscent of the 'other' ladies pose that I liked.....
T
www.studioTphotos.com
"Each day comes bearing its own gifts. Untie the ribbons."
----Ruth Ann Schubacker
-Melissa
www.naturalphotography.smugmug.com
www.naturalphotographydesign.blogspot.com
Well done!!
I find the covered eye in 2 distracting.
3 is good, but the smile feels a little forced.
4 the lighting looks kind of flat. How did you light that one?
http://clearwaterphotography.smugmug.com/
Buggsy, you make me laugh out loud (literally) - I KNEW as soon as I saw your name there'd be mention of a rabbit in some form
Mitchell, #3 and #4 were once we moved outside and are actually in the exact same position and light - I just moved slightly between shots, I think. For these it was the low sun behind her and a reflector aimed at her, gold side used for most of them although as the sun went down and got weaker I switched to silver. I think the difference can be accounted for in that she doesn't like "bright" and although she gamely put up with it (and is THHHRRRRIIIILLLEEEED with the pictures :whew) she kept instinctively moving OUT of the reflected light so some of this series worked better than others.
One thing this set really shows me is that I really need to process them all as well as I did that first one - the last three had less done to them (you can see that in the skin texture) and although I think they're "ok", they don't have the same wow factor IMO. Definitely time for me to try and streamline my workflow and, more importantly REMEMBER my workflow when I do these quite-retouched-but-want-them-to-look-natural shots. I spend an awful lot of time trying to make it look like I did nothing at all....
Thanks for the kind words and pointers, as always - appreciated!
I don't like the hidden eye in #2;
In #3 the lighting is great, but the eyes are closing up a bit.
I think #4 looks too flat.
- Wil
Wil, there are a few where the hair is more prominent but I've actually had to crop some of it out in those - definitely a risk of the "Cowardly Lion" look if there's too much....
Still processing and trying to remember what I did. I know I added a "screen" blend layer at some point which seems to have been what really made the skin tone just right, but I can't remember at what point (and because I'm low on hdd space at the moment I didn't save it as a .psd with all the layers like I usually do - wouldn't you know it!!)
PS "Canoes"? (not quite sure I know what that means in this context but I think it was a compliment so.... thanks!!)
GaryB
“The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it!” - Ansel Adams
The eye whites in shot 1; with her looking up, the bottom whites are exposed, thus creating an image of an exaggerated 'canoe'.... Look back, you'll see what I mean.
Well duh - once you point it out, it's obvious!
A couple more from the series - I find it fascinating how different this gal looks dependent on the angle and lighting. Sure, true of everybody to some extent, but I REALLY see it in her - very different facial planes depending on how you shoot her.
She is ECSTATIC with them, which comes as a much needed bright spot after a few really tough days - I'm so happy. Best part was she said they "gave her a boost of confidence" when she saw them, and I honestly can't imagine a better compliment than that. YAY.
1. Can't decide if the hint of flare bothers me or not, but I like the way her eyes came out in this one.
2. Decided to have some fun with processing
3. Does this one need more pop? Can't decide....
So far the original "rabbit" is the winner BUT,,,, there's potential here in this set.
JMO.
OK, I wouldn't worry too much about the flare; if anything, it softens the image slightly, which isn't A Bad Thing (IMNSHO). The eyes are SO IMPORTANT when thinking about portraits.
(1) they have to be in focus (yeah, obvious, right
(2) look at the eyes; if the head is tilted down (even slightly), the eyes have to look up slightly (to look into the lens and connect with the viewer) and the "canoes" are there, and the subject seems subservient, or humble or modest†. Now, have the subject tilt the head up, and of course the eyes have to now look down, and the total subject/viewer relationship has changed; now the subject seems to peer down at the viewer, seeming to be almost being aloof, superior or scorning.
OK, so the question is: "humble, subservient, modest" is more attractive than "aloof, proud, dominating, scornful" ? I'll let you decide on the answer…
(I'm not just making this up, it really is just Portraiture 101
Sorry if this sounds like I'm preaching, but that's the way it works; eye contact is so important in human interaction; it always has been, and it always will be - the eyes are the windows of the soul. It is exactly the same when you look at portraits - The Eyes Have It!
- Wil
† actually, I've just thought of an exception: check out Alfred Eisenstaedt's picture of Joseph Goebbels taken in Geneva in 1933 (makes me shudder!)
Goodie - that was the goal
This is awesome - I really work for "sparkly eyes", but I have no formal art theory training, so hearing it codified like this is both fascinating and really helpful. Thanks for taking the time to write it up!
Buggs, I left the bottom of the shirt in that one as-is for PRECISELY the reason you mentioned... which is why it was a bugger to crop
The neat thing about this whole shoot is that it has just been FUN. Whee!!
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003085685580
It's the lighting in 3..... the shadow cast makes her shnozz look bigger in that of 1. All I'm thinking about is what her thoughts might be IF presented with both photo's, side by each.
To havin' "fun"! (cheers).