- This topic is empty.
Tonynho
-
Hi all, I’d welcome your comments on this effort. For the record, it was a candid shot so unprepared, clothing was ‘model’s own’ ;), lighting was natural through the window. Gave it a slight x-process style and a crop as I thought it suited.
Thanks!
That’s very direct eye contact. I like it, really kinda demands attention.
I was going to say it looked a little underexposed, but I think it’s just the screen I’m viewing it from.
Maybe a tad too much cyan, but that could be this screen too.Got any more?
Sharp as a razorblade Stas… :D
There does seem to be the slightest blue tint in the whites though. Maybe that’s the processing?
Other than that a fine portrait shot and nice lighting. Nothing like doing it au naturale. :wink:
jessthespringer wrote:
I was going to say it looked a little underexposed, but I think it’s just the screen I’m viewing it from.
Maybe a tad too much cyan, but that could be this screen too.Thanks Sinead – The original was underexposed, which I had to bring up, and on my screen it looks OK. I went for processing style, but did another version with a tad less cyan – difficult to know sometimes ;)
Expresbro wrote:
There does seem to be the slightest blue tint in the whites though. Maybe that’s the processing?
And with razor sharp hawk eyes like yours, you’re right to pick up on the eyes – seem to remember I had this issue before… Something I should watch out for. Good man Robbie!
His eyes, by the way, are naturally quite ‘cloudy’..
Rehashed version with a tad less cyan and saturation dialed down on the eyes:
jessthespringer wrote:
Got any more?
There were a few, not as dramatic as that one, though they are more spontaneous (as candids tend to be, like..) and a bit off-focus & some with blur, but sure, here ye go (keeping same processing style):
And an au naturel (as in normal processing!) posed shot:
Love them all, great character coming through – well done, a credit to you.
Very good…
I like your re-edit, that guy has an amazing face. Are you going to shoot him again?
Like the others you’ve added too, except maybe for the last, looks a bit over posed,
but that’s just my taste…The first one of him smiling, just great, made me smile too…
Thanks a mill Marie ;)
Hi Sinead, yes he’s very photogenic, and a brilliant trumpeter (1, 2, 3) too. I’m lucky in that I have some very photogenic musician friends around me. One of these days I might get round to a project that’s been on my mind for a bit, which is to photograph them with their instrument by natural window light. So yeah I plan to shoot him again some time – again these were just candids in the moment. I’m not too keen on the last pic either tbh, just posted it as a variation and with ‘normal’ processing.
All the best
Stas
I think the second to last is best for me-
The others are perhaps a bit too tightly framed-
they rely too much on the face, and perhaps cut out all the attitude which I’m sure he must have-
which might be better portrayed by his pose and stance.Is it a portrait, or just a picture of a face?
There is nothing that tells me about the fact that he’s a musician, for example-
and I don’t mean just including his instrument-Regarding those deep shadows-
perhaps a little back light might have been something to try-
as it is, there’s no difference in tone between his hat and his face,
and I think a little complexity in the lighting might have helped this shot-
as well as a little space-Regarding the processing, perhaps slightly funky-
not sure if it’s what I’d call cross processed.From what you say about this, I think I might prefer to see it without the crop-
j
J – thanks a lot for your comments, some good stuff there that’ll certainly come in useful in future.
Some of the comments don’t apply to the posted pic(s) in my opinion, which is fine (won’t hold that against ya ;) ) – that he’s a musician is irrelevant in my OP; I had no intention of portraying him as such and only mentioned it as an afterthought further down. The pictures themselves were a few casual grab shots without particular planning, so setting up lighting or whatever wasn’t on anyone’s agenda.
The scenario, to explain, was a recording session that I sat in on, and had my camera with me; the room was quite narrow and rectangular & cluttered (as recording studios can be) and not much room to maneuver for four people. The agenda for the day was recording rather than taking pics. Setting up reflectors or lighting would have interfered with the recording schedule and equipment on this occasion.
So.. these shots can be judged on their own merit and result – though I take from your post some observations for a planned shoot. And I agree with you about the shadows and (lack of) tone in hat/face, so thanks for bringing that up.
I’m a fan of getting in close, maybe too close for some people’s tastes ;).
“Is it a portrait, or just a picture of a face?” –
That’s a good question! Not sure that I know the difference, or how to define it! What’s your interpretation? (And anyone else too?)Here’s the uncropped, as shot, version of the OP image:
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
