- This topic is empty.
Scars
-
That’s a million times better Graham – I think you hit the nail on the head here – i can really appreciate the lighting here which is great, the texture really took away from that in the first edit as was really harsh on the eyes :) . Looks like you also toned down the “rust” ;). Spot on bosco. Me likies.
Thanks Ali – glad you like it – the whole rust thing was a bit of gamble.
I do like the texture so I’m gonna put some work into getting the colour right.
As you said toning it down a little.Hi Graham!
Really great self portrait! i know how hard these are to get right as i’ve tried a few and they aren’t easy, getting the focus right and stuff
i know i’m only new to this forum, but i would like to comment.. i have to agree with the other’s about the cropping of the shoulder out, but i definitely would have kept the darkness on the right side of the photo especially on the face, i think it adds to the photo, i also luv the texture.
Mark
Thanks Mark – never be worried about commenting.
All comments are always very welcomeLove the edit without the texture. Works far better in my humble opinion.
Dark, as you say, but not too dark. Moody shot, well executed.Rob.
Dark.. Disturbing…
Are we seeing a little glimpse of your inner psyche here Graham?! lol
As for the 2nd shot, LOVE it! It’s a great shot, and doesn’t need any “jazzing up” in my eyes.
Out of interest, what did you use to light this?
Tim
PS: As for roasting my shots, please feel free – a comment pointing out all the flaws in my shot is infinately more helpful for me to learn from, than a comment saying “great shot”. Will I live to regret that statement?! :D
Must come by these parts (People) more often. That second edit really works Graham. Waaay better than the original posting. The light and shadow combined with the pose make it work for me.
I don’t know why…but I keep thinking “Midnight Cowboy” when I look at this shot Graham. As has already been said, it’s a great atmospheric shot and I’d be in the camp that prefers the second shot, as I’m not a big fan of textures in a shot. Saying that I think it does work with this one and almost looks like a different shot.
The only negative thing I’d say about it is that you should try go for a better looking model next time….hehehehehe!! (Just kidding …I’m sure you’ll have a whole gang of female admirers now…and maybe a few male ones too…. :wink: )
Well done.
Thanks a million for all the comments folks.
It’s a great feeling to finally start getting them right.Aidan – Next time I’ll put a parrot on my shoulder for all the wildlife folks :lol:
Tim – I used a softbox positioned at head height just to my left. It is only slightly out of frame.
there is also a model light just below that to give light to area below my left arm. Diagram below. Add in some PS work
and i’m done.Robbie – this model was cheap. I had to settle really and he was very hard to work with. He hadn’t a clue what he
was doing. Not sure about the admirers thing though. PS is a wonderful thing but it’s a shame it doesn’t work in real life.Again thanks for all the comments folks – glad you like it. I’m thinking about trying a whole series of this lighting shots.
Hopefully i’ll pull them off.
It’s a great portrait – whether ‘self’ or otherwise, you’ve done a good job. The second one is better IMO, less clutter but I think it’s dark & moody, wouldn’t look out of place on an album sleeve.
Thanks Pete – apprieciate the comments. Not sure how successful the album would be
with my mug on the front of it though. :oops:The photos are good. Something almost prehistoric about them. I’m not sure which period of prehistory though.
Are the tattoos real? If yes, then you probably wouldn’t be allowed to become an accountant.
Bjorn wrote:
The photos are good. Something almost prehistoric about them. I’m not sure which period of prehistory though.
Are the tattoos real? If yes, then you probably wouldn’t be allowed to become an accountant.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Bjorn, you’re cracking me up…Rob.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
