Sarah Carroll

[Allinthemind]

October 9, 2007 at 12:52 pm

Thanks JB, That’s upped the level of symmtery IMO. Accentuated the beautiful lips (consider a darker than natural lipstick on the upper lip and slightly lighter than that on the lower), kept the jawline. A deeper shadow to lift the cheekbone and some lightening make-up under her eye and some to reduce the shine on her nose and you have the shot.

Super!

Si

[PeteTheBloke]

October 9, 2007 at 1:10 pm

Good to see you’re getting some expert advice here JB,
you put in a lot of work by the looks of it and it’s good to get pointers
from people who know what they’re talking about.

It looks to me as if you chose no.1 because the eyes are both sharp
but some of the other shots are definitely more flattering – and
importantly – more likely to show Sarah’s character. The last shot
looks great.

[jb7]

October 9, 2007 at 1:23 pm

Thanks again you two-

Simon, thanks for your continued involvement-
really appreciated, its good to have it crystallized like this-

Your last comments should be of particular interest to Sarah and Colette as well as myself-
Instructions were given for natural looking make-up,
and I think it was very successful,
but your observations will be very helpful for the next time-

Pete, I chose number one not because of the sharp eyes (a backhanded reference to the last shot)
but because I had so many to choose from, and there had to be a first somewhere-

One quality which I would like to highlight is particularly intangible-
intelligence-
and I think it might come across in 1 & 2-
Though I could just be talking rubbish as usual-

Thanks again for all the comments and suggestions-

j

[Rob]

October 9, 2007 at 1:33 pm

jb7 wrote:

One quality which I would like to highlight is particularly intangible-
intelligence-
and I think it might come across in 1 & 2-
Though I could just be talking rubbish as usual

Not rubbish at all. Intangible it may be, but it does come across
rather well. I still think number two is the stronger of all you’ve
posted so far from this shoot; strength, character, attitude and
intelligence in spades. Sometimes, with portraits anyway, there are
more important things than light and shadow…

Rob.

[PeteTheBloke]

October 9, 2007 at 1:52 pm

Would that there were an art
to read the mind’s construction in the face…

Something like that anyway.

[Allinthemind]

October 9, 2007 at 4:52 pm

PeteTheBloke wrote:

Would that there were an art
to read the mind’s construction in the face…

Something like that anyway.

Isn’t there?

I can’t remember the quote either, but you can certainly use expression to portray traits and emotions.

Si

[jb7]

October 9, 2007 at 6:16 pm

Nice theatrical segue there Pete-
And true what you say Simon,
but you can also use expression to conceal those same things-

Thanks Rob-

j

[Allinthemind]

October 10, 2007 at 6:49 am

..and I believe that to be theart of the portrait photographer. Minimise and maximise features and expressions. I posted one recently looking for the most subtle expression on the blandest of backgrounds, trying to find the line where the expression just disappears into blandness.

This has been an interesting thread, will you post the image used as her sptlight shot when you’re done JB?

Si

[jb7]

October 10, 2007 at 8:37 am

Cheers Simon, will do-

Not entirely certain I’ve taken it yet though-

Yes, I recall that thread-
subtle expressions-
They can be quite enigmatic-

Thanks for all the suggestions so far-

j

[Mick451]

October 10, 2007 at 10:46 am

1st image:
like the head on with the narrow depth of field
feels like she’s thinking about what to do next,
slightly surprised look in the eyes,
small pupils in the eyes – one of the first things I noticed.
Quite natural but a too saturated perhaps.

2nd Image
Like this processing best
great pose, subtle but smart
more character to see in the expression
self confident look

3rd Image
Too close
Chin too prominent, just because of where it sits in the overall composition
lighting a bit too harsh

4th image
very nice, great light and good composition
really natural
wish their was a tiny bit more expression

5th image
really like this one, just wish there was slightly more depth of field in the mid-ground so that her left eye was a bit more in focus – as her right (near) shoulder seems in focus there seems to be room to move the DOF further back.

Really good work, JB, and I’m just being very niggly…and a tad jealous you’ve got such great looking models to work with.

[jb7]

October 10, 2007 at 11:05 am

Mick, thanks for the very detailed responses-
much appreciated-

I suppose the size of the pupils is down to the use of natural light-
in a studio with dim modeling lamps and flash lighting the pupils would be much larger-
Still, I’m quite pleased with the location for these,
and the light it produces-

The shallow focus is as a result of the large aperture-
mostly hits, but some misses-
All the light is indirect-
I’d like to be able to work with f/5.6, but when the clouds come around,
I have to open up-

Can’t wait for the next generation of noise-free cameras-

I think Sarah will be pleased with your critique-
again, much to think about for both of us-
and we should be much better prepared the next time-

Thanks again for the detailed comments, to everyone who made them-

j

[Mick451]

October 10, 2007 at 11:40 am

JB, to increase the pupil size just get people to close their eyes for a few seconds.
If they’re posed and ready and know where to look when they open them, you snap.
So her indoors says ;)

[jb7]

October 10, 2007 at 12:18 pm

Thanks Mick, had forgotten about that one, will give it a try-
It might also have the advantage of slowing down the session,
so that I end up with a lot less pictures to trawl through-

I’m considering a few on the 5×4 too,
for much the same reason- :wink:

j

[Mick451]

October 10, 2007 at 6:46 pm

You shooting digital or film on the 5×4, JB?

Or polaroid…you can get some very nice results transfering to watercolour paper, but it’s hit and miss…and expensive ;)

[jb7]

October 10, 2007 at 7:07 pm

Film, Mick-

I love the Polaroid 55,
but the neg is about 30-40 asa,
a yellow filter is at least a stop and a half,
and I’d need to use at least f/16, on 300mm lens,
so flash lighting would be inevitable-

Much slower way of working though,
perhaps warm up on digital and swap cameras when it looks right-

I’ve never shot portraits on 5×4,
I don’t have the right 5×4 for portraiture either-
but its definitely worth a shot at some point-

I mentioned these to Rob in another thread-

http://www.hollywoodpinup.com/glamour/glamour_shots_1of2.html

and while not trying to actively emulate them,
they are at least mostly shot with optics of a similar length-
to a similar magnification-

Depth of field would be extremely shallow,
but at least focus can be placed on a plane defined by the eyes and lips-

Type 55 is not a transfer film-
it does give a beautiful negative though,
rhumoured to be Kodak Technical Pan-

About ?7 a pop, I think-

I also have some Agfapan 100, and HP5-
both out of date, but still useable,
if I have to use the extra speed-

And some Kodak colour neg in a rollfilm holder, maybe-

I’ve been threatening to do it for a while now-
so I should stop talking about it, and just do it-

j