- This topic is empty.
Sarah Carroll
-
jb7 wrote:
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’ve been threatening to do it for a while now-
so I should stop talking about it, and just do it-j
…Well… we’re still waiting. Just do it…
Rob.
If you’re looking for a model with a permanent three day beard, grumpy disposition,
halitosis, and more wrinkles than Monica Lewinsky’s frock, then I’m your man…It looks like you’ve got the guts of a great C&W song there-
Don’t worry about the halitosis,
that’s why you use long lenses for portraiture-j
Always been a huge fan of these this old school bunch as far as portraits go
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Penn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Avedon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horst_P._Horst
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_BeatonGo on, use the 5×4…you know you want to ;)
Cheers Mick-
I know I want to is right-Thanks for those links,
was good to get reacquainted,
and I hadn’t seen the Horst stuff before-The Avedon work is fantastic, (in particular, for me) and I found a link to his foundation through the wiki-
well worth a look-http://www.richardavedon.com/#s=0&a=0&mi=2&pt=1&pi=10000&p=7&at=0
Thanks for all that-
j
You can usually adjust the modelling lamp (quite often on full), so as to get the iris and pupil widts the same, this, IMO, looks about right. The danger is the model can look like Kate Moss on a bad night if you let the pupils get too big.
Generally, big pupils are great for romatic/boudoir style shots, it happens naturally when one is attracted to another person.
Si
Rob wrote:
If you’re looking for a model with a permanent three day beard, grumpy disposition,
halitosis, and more wrinkles than Monica Lewinsky’s frock, then I’m your man…:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: and I bet your not the only one Rob.
Joseph plenty of people giving you the techy part if your waiting on me SORRY, but I really like the 4th picture although it is a bit bright .
SodaCheers Soda-
All comments valuable,
I like the fourth too-
though the far eye is a little soft,
and could do with a little more depth of field-I do like the pose though-
Simon, if they’re handing out bad days with Kate Moss,
put me down for one-It was well spotted by Mick, and he does have a point-
and the long blink will definitely be tried on the next daylight shots-
as it will be for Rob when he turns up wearing Monica Lewinski’s dress-That will be an interesting test of the attraction theory-
Hopefully we’ll get some studio shots too where the light levels will be lower-
Thanks again for the comments-
j
jb7 wrote:
…and the long blink will definitely be tried on the next daylight shots-
as it will be for Rob when he turns up wearing Monica Lewinski’s dress-That will be an interesting test of the attraction theory-
:lol:
Rob wrote:
jb7 wrote:
…and the long blink will definitely be tried on the next daylight shots-
as it will be for Rob when he turns up wearing Monica Lewinski’s dress-That will be an interesting test of the attraction theory-
:lol:
Bet that one gets the most comments ever :lol:
SodaNice series Joseph!
I will comment just the first one, if I may.
I am usually not too fond of the front face shot, but here it works fine. Surely because of the great eyes of the model.
The light is nice as well. A bit too much sharpening on the eyes for my taste.
There are some details that I would, IMO, reprocess: the “red lines” in the eyes, the little hairs around the face and the white spot on the lip.thanks Luc-
appreciate your comments-I had a previous comment of yours in the back of my mind when I made the decision not to apply any sharpening at all to these images-
they’ve been converted from the raw, and reduced, that’s all-I know the clear-eyed look you’re talking about-
I’m not a huge fan of it-
along with skin smoothing, and the dislocation and replacement of cheekbones, and necks-There was a link to some particularly horrific software posted here once-
which was the natural extension of airbrushing taken to extremes-
I know you’re not suggesting that, but it just reminded me of it,
for a nip/tuck bloodcurdling moment-If its asked for, I’d do it,
but without a specific request, no.Its not really up to the photographer anyway,
there are still demarcations within the industry;
that’s something that would be applied by some retoucher to conform to some house style-Dust, yes, blemishes, yes, perhaps if it became an issue in the print,
I’d tone down the vein,
but I’m happy with the overall representation, for the moment-Maybe there’ll be a little more local stuff to be done when it comes time to print-
the spec on the lip, definitely-Thanks again for the comments-
j
First one and last one~~~without a doubt Joseph!
You actually could have just posted the first one and I would have melted in a puddle over it’s classic quality.
I didn’t even know you did portrait work..hmmmm.
Shar
Thank you Sharon-
now don’t go puddling on me-I don’t do much portraiture,
but that’s not the same as never having done it-
And I’m quite looking forward to doing some more.There are more pictures-
I had another look last night,
and its really difficult to make a selection-Even from this shoot, there are maybe stronger ones-
Thank you for the comments-
j
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
