- This topic is empty.
Portraits of Beth
-
Very nice pictures… the first especially so..! The eyes are great… no doubt somone will pop up and suggest cropping this and cloning that but to my untrained portrait eye they are great…! ;-)
Richie
The first one is great, lovely expression and mood, i think it may just be perfect. The third one is also pretty good but doesn’t appeal to me the same way as the first one does. Is it just me or does the second one seem a little flat? I think it would benefit from either croping or darkening the background.
//Cian
First one is absolutely amazing. There is nothing I would change in that.
The third is close to perfect for me too, but the shadow on the left eye is a bit too much for me.
Second one is good but there is something I cant pinpoint with it.
All good, Gerard,
just maybe too many here for me to make any detailed comment,
tho I’m tempted-The immediate difficulty with the second one for me,
is the Christine Keeler pose,
on the wrong chair-Any shot posed like that will inevitably draw comparison.
The first one is lovely,
tho might have been interested in a tiniest bit of fill from the left-Third one looks like really good simulated sunlight-
Again,
maybe just too many all in one go-
And the same with the Architecture shots=j
Gerard, here’s my tuppence, briefly…
Image one; great expression, crop and composition. DOF too shallow for my
liking though as it throws the left eye out of focus and jars the image somewhat.Image two; the pose is remininscent of the famous Keeler image, though that works
ok for me. My eyes seem to want to automatically crop away the ‘lower part of the chair you can
see through’ or whatever the technical term for this is. I like the sharp shadow of the fingers
across the breastbone, but the shadows behind don’t work for me as they bring the background
a little too close to Beth. Might be better if she seemed more isolated.Image three; like number one, fantastic expression. Shadows really work well, though the eyes
seem to lose something and might tolerate some lightening. Again, perhaps a little too much
DOF as the brow is pin sharp while the chin is slightly out of focus.All in all, I like all three image, very nice work. Great model too. I’d be pleased if I managed
to get half as good.Rob.
:P Hey I havent seen the first one before and the third is a different tangle tot he one i have seen, but I really like them. I showed number two to someone and they said – ringshadow, now this means nothing to me – maybe it will to you lot? Gerard was a pleasure to work with and i hope to work with again in 2007(crikey ‘007(!) already). So although it is probably really cheeky to say I love these images, I don’t care!! Great work Gerard :lol: – keep me in touch with when you are free next!
And thanks to any of you who commented on me – so far your support has been outstanding on this and other posts so thanks.
Beth
Gerard I really like N0 1 and no3, 1 is a great portrait and as for three can’t really explain there is just something I like about it.
SodaThanks everyone for checking and commenting. I think ringshadow is a (made up ?) term to describe the shadows cast by the light on a subject creating a ring of shadows on the wall behind them – I could be wrong about that though. I think the dof on these is probably down to personal preference – I prefer a tighter dof and normally go as tight as 1.4.
I am familiar with the keeler image but it doesnt present a problem for me – any picture is liable to draw comparisons based on the use of props/furniture/lighting or pose. I liked the pose and took the picture. If you look at any image /pose its highly possible that the pose of the model/angle of the shot has at some point in the past been used before. Though admittedly the keeler one was iconic of the 1960’s and the whole profumo affair I dont see any relevance here. Somone mentioned about the amount of space around the model in one of the shots – that was intentional too and after trying different crops I went with that one as I wanted the amount of space to emphasise the model. Plus I liked the yellow-ish tones and it seemed to work imo. The original was full length and I may revisit that at some point. Thanks again for checking.
2 and 3 for me Gerard! Funny how one man’s drink is another man’s poision…. :lol: Number 1 doesn’t compare with the other 2 in my book.
Good stuff – I like the fact that she is looking down from above in the 2nd one. It gives a nice air of superiority to Beth (which no doubt she deserves.. :P ). And I suppose the 3rd one is the opposite in that she is looking up at the camera. What makes it for me are the pose/expression and the hair and hair-shadow on her face.Ross
I agree with Brandyman, 2 and 3 are the ones
I think they show Beth in her best light. She is a very pretty lady and think these two give her a slight mystique and sexiness.
I’m going to buck the trend here – my preference is for 1 and 2. Although 1 may be technically flawed, I think it shows of Beth’s natural beauty.
Can I add that if anyone’s interested in doing some shots with a model, you probably couldn’t do much better than working with Beth Scott – she can come up with pose after pose after pose but at the same time, takes direction very well when the need arises. A most professional model if you want my opinion, and I’m sure you’ll agree, pretty amazing looking too!
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
