Some photos from recent shoot
- Thread starter Bob Hubbard
- Start date
OP
- Thread Starter
- #3
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?
(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
Senior Master
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.
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.
. 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.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #7
#2 is a crop in of #1, for anyone wondering.
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.
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
Senior Master
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2007
- Messages
- 4,555
- Reaction score
- 154
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
Senior Master
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.
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...
OP
- Thread Starter
- #12
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
Senior Master
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.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #15
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
Senior Master
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2007
- Messages
- 4,555
- Reaction score
- 154
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".
OP
- Thread Starter
- #18
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
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?
OP
- Thread Starter
- #20
