July 28, 2013 at 10:46 am #99102
This photo was part of a test shoot to familiarize myself with my new Pocket Wizard AC3 controller.
Camera Body: Canon Rebel Xsi
Glass: Canon 50mm 1:1.8 II
Flash: 2-Canon EX430 II – Key flash in 40″ softbox, secondary flash through 42″ umbrella
Flash Settings: ETTL
Shot Settings: f8, 1/250 second
I liked this shot so I thought I would let the “sharks” comment!
July 28, 2013 at 5:12 pm #99168
@mike88ParticipantGives Permission to Edit Their Photos: No
This portrait could have been improved by softer lighting and a less awkward pose. I would like to see more of the hair and face shown by some back lighting and also the use of reflected light to enhance her facial features.
Being unfamiliar with the AC3 controller I am unable to comment on its use.
Thank you for posting.You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
July 28, 2013 at 5:46 pm #99177
Thanks, I could dial down the key light which was coming from the left side of the photo and dialed the secondary flash up a notch (on the right side of the photo), possibly putting it in a soft box as well. Another thing might be to move the flash units closer to soften the light as well as re-position the secondary flash a little more to the front to illuminate the face better. Also a rim light from behind would define her hair better.
The AC3 controller is a fantastic device that gives so much control over the flash units, I just have to learn how to use it to its fullest extent.
Again, thanks for the critique.You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
July 28, 2013 at 9:10 pm #99211
@paulygassParticipantGives Permission to Edit Their Photos: No
I would get a lot more light in the shadows. It is always the eyes that make a portrait. You can hardly see her eyes. Have her turn her face toward the light more.You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
July 29, 2013 at 12:43 am #99261
There are two tiny spheres in both glasses just below the upper rim … I first thought it was lint on my screen but nope … and they are not in her eyes and are no catchlights.
You liked this shot, but did the model? Unless there is a specific purpose for the pose and the dress, why on earth would you draw the viewers attention to a pair of sagging breasts and a half-revealed tattoo on one of them? Plus that heavy skin fold just above her left breast and below the armpit (in the photo this is on the right). I honestly don’t think that a woman her age should wear this kind of dress for a posed upper body portrait shot.
When looking at it in high-res, nothing seems to be in focus. The shadows seem still rather harsh.
I find the skin tone colour-version definitely not to her advantage and would experiment with B&W instead.
The right side of her face needs some brightening up and the folds could do with some smoothening .
There seems to be a part of a chair or sth similar peeking out in the lower left hand corner which I find distracting as I cannot see it anywhere else which means it is of no importance. That said, I also think that her right arm on that side should not be cropped like this.
I just think you didn’t show her from her best side but there might be more to the story we do not know …You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
July 29, 2013 at 1:07 am #99264
That does it! I can’t hold back any more. A dress critic. This may well be the woman he loves. She might be overweight, sagging, tattoed, short sighted and aging but that’s the way it is with some people. The photo has delivered the goods on all that. Like my comment on the fat guy on the bike, if the photo delivers the goods, that’s all that counts. This is a photo of one hell of a woman and who in their right mind would want it any different.You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
July 29, 2013 at 1:28 am #99266
In this forum she is a model and it is a photo and it has been thrown into the shark tank.
I am a proponent of how the Brazilian photographer Sebastião Salgado describes it: “If you take a picture of a human that does not make him noble, there is no reason to take this picture. That is my way of seeing things.”
I did ask how the model felt about the photo … or would that not matter?You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
July 29, 2013 at 2:14 am #99275
I think in a forum like this we have to be careful not to throw the gauntlet for the wrong reason. If a member submits a photo, whatever personal attachment there might be, should not play a part in the critique. It should not matter what the subject of the photo is, we still look at it from all angles.
It is much easier with landscapes, travel photos, wildlife and a few others but when it comes to people, I do think that we photographers also have a duty which is to make the other person, the model, look their best whatever their age, physical shape, etc. I am not talking about glamour shots but I am talking about making them come across as someone others would take an interest in. Documentary style photos are of course an exception.
We all have shots which do not meet those criteria but perhaps we should think twice before making them public or we need to be prepared to take some heat.
My intention was not to insult and if anyone felt I did, I honestly apologise. If the forum’s moderators feel that I crossed an (invisible) line, please feel free to delete my post but in general I expressed what I would think if this photo crossed my desk for a critique or analysis.
@tomdinning, with all respect, I find your comment that you can’t hold back anymore interesting as it would make me assume that your were waiting for something like this to step in. I respect what you are defending but from my POV it has nothing to do with the photograph as such. I hope we can move on after here without getting into shark-fights too often.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
- This reply was modified 4 months, 2 weeks ago by Walter Lustig. Reason: typo
July 29, 2013 at 1:37 pm #99436
Absolutely no respect intended @fidelito. There are two things under discussion here. One is the photo and the other is the appearance of the woman. If you don’t like the photo that’s fine. If you don’t like the look of the woman that’s fine as well. Just don’t get your wires crossed. Neither of your comments has anything to do with the quality of the image, like most comments in this thread.
As for her appearance, this may be as good as she gets or wants to be. This is the woman @bodwell is married to and it may be the way he wants to see her. ‘ nobility’ in a human isn’t judged by how someone looks to you or me.
What is insulting is your assumption that you know what you’re talking about here.You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
July 29, 2013 at 7:16 pm #99488
@dragonswingParticipantGives Permission to Edit Their Photos: No
I agree with @fidelito. My first impression was that she should cover herself up. And it has nothing to do with her age. I dislike even teenagers exposing so much of their breasts. It seems modesty does not exist anymore. A different top would make the photo much more appealing.
Other than that, as others have already mentioned, her face is too shadowed and those two light spots (what I suppose are glare spots on her glasses) are very distracting. Could the picture be taken without the glasses on, or the flashes arranged in a way that the glare wouldn’t occur?You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
July 29, 2013 at 3:33 am #99292
I find these “discussions” interesting. One of the good things about this forum is I can pick and choose from the comments what I want to take as constructive criticism and separate those parts from what I perceive as personal preferences. @fidelito has some valid technical points and those I take to heart. As for his remarks about my wife, I can let those slide as those are, in my opinion, his personal tastes and after all, his comments are not the definitive authoritative but just that, his personal view. @tomdinning, thanks for your view as well.You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
July 29, 2013 at 4:14 am #99303
@adminKeymasterGives Permission to Edit Their Photos: Yes
Sometimes the pose / look etc of a model affects a photo. That’s ok.
Just keep it respectful.You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
July 29, 2013 at 1:47 pm #99437
You have to be kidding. You started this. Asking people to be blunt and courteous is like asking Mohamed Ali not to hit so hard.
Here we have random shots being thrown at innocent bystanders without some means of defense. It beats me why it’s so bloody popular. People must be masochistic . And you must be desperate for the numbers, Rob. Popular doesn’t necessarily mean helpful. Every day for years you have provided good advise to budding photographers and good opportunities to generate discussion. That’s what distinguishes this site from all others. Little of this stuff here is helpful. It’s nit-picking, discouraging, irrelevant, inaccurate and beneath you dignity.
Whatever came over you?You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.