# Some photos from recent shoot



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 25, 2009)

Opinions welcome.


----------



## tellner (Apr 25, 2009)

With respect, Bob, you've done much better work.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 25, 2009)

What doesn't work here?

(ok the photoshop on the last one's lame, I've had a few people tell me that and I agree)

are the crops off, is it the coloration, etc?


----------



## Gordon Nore (Apr 25, 2009)

The third picture simply isn't flattering. Pics one and two work because of the girl's face. Personally, I don't care for her outfit or look, but I assume she does, and she has quite a lovely face. I'd scrap the third one altogether.


----------



## Tames D (Apr 25, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> What doesn't work here?
> 
> (quote]
> 
> ...


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 25, 2009)

And just to show that you can't please anyone, I actually think that the third shot is the best .  

I like the composition as it makes me wonder what she's looking at and what she's thinking.

In all seriousness, in the feeling of present-but-distant it engenders it puts me in mind of some classical portraiture that I've seen.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 25, 2009)

#2 is a crop in of #1, for anyone wondering.


----------



## tellner (Apr 25, 2009)

Others here have some very good comments.

The thing that most stands out is that the lighting and angle of the first/second shots gives the girls face so little relief that it looks squashed, flat and distorted. It doesn't take best advantage of her features.

The shoes are definitely part of her look, but the prominence you give them make everything, and the subject herself, take on a clunky blocky air. It doesn't so much contrast with the surroundings as make her seem ungainly.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 25, 2009)

Its the lighting IMO. It was either too harsh or too washed out. Im no Pro Photog so take that as ya will.


----------



## Omar B (Apr 25, 2009)

Nice shots Bob!  The third one makes her look a bit chubby around the tummy, and the effects are ... not so cool.  I like them though, she's cute, just do something about that third one.


----------



## Tames D (Apr 25, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> #2 is a crop in of #1, for anyone wondering.


 
I noticed that. My point was that # 1 could be cropped anywhere and still look good (in my opinion). It looks great as a close up. But still too much clothing...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 25, 2009)

I think she'd be a great figure model, but at the moment it's not something she's interested in doing. I'd love to shoot her again though.  This shoot was rather rushed (only had 45 minutes) and the conditions weren't favorable (4pm lighting, outdoors was wet and windy so limited to the indoor portion of the gardens, etc).


----------



## Gordon Nore (Apr 25, 2009)

Gordon Nore said:


> The third picture simply isn't flattering. Pics one and two work because of the girl's face. Personally, I don't care for her outfit or look, but I assume she does, and she has quite a lovely face. I'd scrap the third one altogether.




I counted the shots wrong -- it's fourth one that I don't care for.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 25, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Its the lighting IMO. It was either too harsh or too washed out.



My thoughts exactly. The cropped shot was a nice composition and the third shot had possibilities, but I found the over/under lighting distracting throughout.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 25, 2009)

Some reworking on #4.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 25, 2009)

Ah, much more to my tastes but the uneven lighting on her upper back and on her arms remains a distraction to me!


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 25, 2009)

As a side question..what is the story with those sort of boots? Is there some "story" behind them or are they simply a "looks cool" statement? I see the "alternative culture" sorts wearing them quite a bit. Those and the "bell bottom extreme"/skirt/hakama style "jeans".


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 25, 2009)

Honestly, no idea.  I think its the "looks cool" thing.  What I've been told is that they are very comfortable, nice n cushy, etc.  Course, they said that about Doc Martins and those $125 pos made my feet bleed...something the $20 jungle boots didn't do. LOL


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 26, 2009)

tellner said:


> Others here have some very good comments.
> 
> The thing that most stands out is that the lighting and angle of the first/second shots gives the girls face so little relief that it looks squashed, flat and distorted. It doesn't take best advantage of her features.
> 
> The shoes are definitely part of her look, but the prominence you give them make everything, and the subject herself, take on a clunky blocky air. It doesn't so much contrast with the surroundings as make her seem ungainly.


That's what I was trying to figure out how to say...

Something about the lighting is off to me.  It looks washed out, flattened...  just off.

The reworked-photoshop is better -- but the lighting is still off...  Too bright, but not enough contrast, maybe, if that makes sense?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 26, 2009)

1 more contrast
2 more contrast spot dark.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 26, 2009)

First - EEK!  A palantir!!! What are you doing girl!? 

Second, I think you need to do the digital equivalent of burning the overly lighted right shoulder and upper back.  The brightness draws the eye away from the focus (no pun intended) of the shot.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 26, 2009)

Can't burn there.  Blown highlights.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 26, 2009)

Rats!  Hmm - could you use a few texture painting tools to bring back something to work with?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 26, 2009)

I probably could, but that's a lot of work, I'd hazard 10-20 hrs of digital skin grafts and blending.  easier to reshoot under better lighting, lol!


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 26, 2009)

True - it's my Taurean nature to see a problem and batter my way through to a solution of that problem rather than simply go around :lol:.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 26, 2009)

Here's a thought....rather than fix it, explain it.  
Sunbeams?

(quick rough in)


----------



## Omar B (Apr 26, 2009)

Now it just looks like she's standing in front of a green screen.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Apr 26, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Opinions welcome.





Bob Hubbard said:


> What doesn't work here?
> 
> (ok the photoshop on the last one's lame, I've had a few people tell me that and I agree)
> 
> are the crops off, is it the coloration, etc?





Bob Hubbard said:


> #2 is a crop in of #1, for anyone wondering.




Bob,

I think the light and shadow on the face would be a nice picture. My first thought was on the first picture was that it should be face only. 

Then you cropped it in but still not enough for my thoughts, on the second one. 

I would like to see a crop that was just her face or face and neck. 

The get the right feel to it you might have to remove the tree branch. 


The third one is not bad, but I think if you cut it closer to her face and shoulder just past her strap it might give a different look. 

On the last one, it is the wrong angle for her. Plus the background of the trees are not in perspective. The depth is all wrong. 



Now for the legal comments. This Poster can take pictures, but most of them are not right in focus or in many other ways. The poster also realizes he has no skill in photo shop and is amazed at what people can do in general. Since the poster cannot be called a photographer at this time, and is not skilled enough to be called an instructor, the only thing the poster is remotely qualified to be is a critic. So take the comments with that in mind. 


Thanks


----------



## Rich Parsons (Apr 26, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> 1 more contrast
> 2 more contrast spot dark.




I like the second one better.

But the background is too far away. The lower left really kills it as it goes from her feet to the slope and there is no continuity or connection in perspective.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Apr 26, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Here's a thought....rather than fix it, explain it.
> Sunbeams?
> 
> (quick rough in)




I think the sun beams are a good add to show where the light is coming from. But a stated by Omar it does still look like a green screen. 



Note: I wish I had 1% of what you got for this skill set. I take pictures of plants and landscape and most are bad, and some are ok.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 26, 2009)

Again, opinions on art are ever going to be widely varied and, to be clear, I think that is a very good thing.

I like the adjustments made to the shot.  The 'sunbeams' were an inspirational simple solution :tup:.

To me the oddly forced perspective makes the shot work as a portrayal of a magical event.  The warping of the surroundings isolates the subject, strongly indicating to the viewer that something out of the ordinary is happening here.

To add to the 'choir', my missus likes it too - she says to tell you that she should know because she's a properly qualified photographer and has the degree certificates (and the thousands of pounds worth of kit) to prove it.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 26, 2009)

Final version (I hope), LOL!


----------



## tellner (Apr 26, 2009)

Definitely a better shot even with the flat/artificial appearance of the background. The light and contrast are better. The subject appears less distorted.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 26, 2009)

Agreed! The sunbeams definitely help.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 26, 2009)

Sorry, Bob...

I don't like it.  The shot just looks artificial and cobbled together on photoshop.

It's a neat concept.  Try it with a better starting point.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 27, 2009)

About the only improvement I could suggest that would balance the shot better for those who don't like the surroundings 'warp' is to remove the tree by her bum.  Without that there the background would fit more easily with the centre of shot.


----------



## Tames D (Apr 27, 2009)

QUI-GON said:


> Bob Hubbard said:
> 
> 
> > What doesn't work here?
> ...


----------



## KELLYG (Apr 27, 2009)

Bob,

Nice photos.   Like sherkin the tree by her rear looks as if she is backed up into it.   I also like the mirror ball with out all the lightning bolts.  The other photos I understand one is a closeup of another picture but her face angle and eye angle to similar.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 13, 2009)

v2 is a big improvement Big Guy


----------



## Carol (May 13, 2009)

I can't say I like it.  Bob, please remember I'm better at being blunt than I am at being tactful.  So pretend I'm sugar coating this 

She has these thick, interesting looking braids but they are paired by these greasy-looking stuck-flat bangs and the two don't blend.  It spreads around her face like a morass which makes her skin tone look odd.    

Her clothes are these tired black been-worn-and-machine-washed-a-buncha-times pieces and it seems to clash with the natural and organic surroundings.  I think she'd fit in better with scenery that was as worn and tired as her clothes.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 18, 2009)

I'm such a glutton for punishment.
http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=451987



> 4 is horribly photoshopped. Just terrible.
> +Your photography skills in general are barely amateur.


4 is the crystal ball shot above. The others in question aren't visible unless you have a membership there, and I can''t post them here.


----------

