- This topic is empty.
Some brighter pics…
-
Here are some pictures of Danielle, one of the nicest models I’ve had the pleasure of photographing recently. They were taken a couple of months ago, when it was still autumn. I took lots, here’s some…
(are these better Thorsten? :) )
1
2
3
4
5
6
lude
I like them all………I like the 1st one # 3 and the last one the best…….nice shots……..
my .02 cents worth
Ellude haveto agree like them alll particularly No2 so natural and the last 1 a great picture. And more lovely eyes.
Sodaellude wrote:
(are these better Thorsten? :) )
Yep, definitely. Whatever else you do, never stop doing work like this – it’s simply outstanding. These are cracking images. I think every model out there should have some shots by you in her portfolio.
Now before your head gets too big, each of these images has a different problem……….
…….nah, only joking :lol:
Thorsten wrote:
Now before your head gets too big, each of these images has a different problem……….nah, only joking :lol:
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Got to be numbers 5 and 6 for me. Goes to show that the model need not always engage with the camera
to produce a cracking image.Rob.
Initially, I liked 3 and 6 the best. I still think the face and surround in 6 is fantastic, but the angle of the right hand coming in from the bottom looks awkward – I assume she’s looking over her right shoulder at the camera.
The sharpness and the detail is what strikes me about these elludde (without being overharpened). Where does the name come from by the way?
I would be interested to know what camera adn lens you were using for these – I would guess 50mm 1.8 or therebaouts?To steal a catchphrase from Soccer AM…
Badda badda badda BING!
Cracking stuff (he says, trying in vain to scroll down to where he’s typing his comment).
:-)
David.Rob wrote:
Got to be numbers 5 and 6 for me. Goes to show that the model need not always engage with the camera
to produce a cracking image.Rob.
Thanks Rob – I usually like to try a mix a of shots, some looking at the camera and some not. I guess it depends on the subject what works best.
jlang wrote:
Initially, I liked 3 and 6 the best. I still think the face and surround in 6 is fantastic, but the angle of the right hand coming in from the bottom looks awkward – I assume she’s looking over her right shoulder at the camera.
I think its actually a fairly ‘straight on’ shot – Danielle was sitting on a park bench at the time and I was right in front of her. Difficult to know about the hands. I just thought it looked best this way at the time, but would have been interesting to try some without her hands in the frame.
Paul H wrote:
The sharpness and the detail is what strikes me about these elludde (without being overharpened). Where does the name come from by the way?
I would be interested to know what camera adn lens you were using for these – I would guess 50mm 1.8 or therebaouts?Paul, I took these pics with my 20D camera and a 70-200 zoom (except for the last one which was indeed with a 50mm lens!). Nearly all were shot with the zoom wide open at f4, and I was mostly at the long (200mm) end, which gives a field of view almost the equivalent of a 300mm lens on a film camera. I like the slightly compressed look a long lens gives on shots like these. I don’t really use a tripod much, so the main thing to watch out for sufficiently high shutter speeds for a steady shot. In dim conditions I generally find a tree or wall or something I can lean against and that helps a lot. Using fill-in flash is another good way to get sharp shots, and the spin-off of a darker background is an added bonus that works well too.
Afraid ‘ellude’ doesn’t really mean anything :) I used to use a similar name on a usenet group for people interested in ‘magic’ (sleight-of-hand conjuring tricks) – so kind of a derivative of ‘illusionist’. Just something I’ve always had a passing fascination with :)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
