DSLRUsers.com

Backstage at Fashion Week. shot with the 28-70, flash on SC-29 remote cord.

i'm pretty proud of getting this one British international model Lilly Cole.
She was always being photographed by the mob and by chance i got this


Amelia Jennings


Annika Kaban. This one was shot in available light, luckily it was overcast difussed light


Zoe Loveland


Dialup warning - more here:
http://www.zeduce.org/images/portraiture/model.htm
.

Terrific set of images here Wendell. Love the composition of #1. You have framed it effectively from the hand placement to the tight crop the viewers attention is drawn to those gorgeous eyes. The last I also favour. The angle, slightly top down, the tight crop, lighting & model's facial expression with simple clean background make this image work. Probably it would be good to tone down (dodge) the hotspots on the model's forehead and along the bridge of the nose. Superb shots
cheers
marco

Wendel,

A good collection of pics here - ones that maybe worth some money in the future ie. these show the model - not the stories she's wearing

I particularly like the last one, lighting is bang on and it holds my interest as it presents more "mystery"

Got links to any catwalk work - I'd be interested to see them if you have

thanks again.

love that no #3 images..very nice. I am the available light man

Is it me, or does Lily Cole have a moustache?

There's more than a hint of "Blue Steel" in the last one, Wendell

Nicely done - I like the lighting

Absolutely beautiful... nice work Wendell, im not a fan of runway models... dunno why... but these are a whole other calibre... just absolutely beautiful collection of images there Wendell!

Tim

Zeeke wrote:Absolutely beautiful... nice work Wendell, im not a fan of runway models... dunno why... but these are a whole other calibre... just absolutely beautiful collection of images there Wendell!

Tim

Tim,
Your photo with a giant snapper is more or at least equal to these

True Birdy... but I dont get to photograph models.. so ive got to compliment those who I think are brilliant at it..

Tim

leek wrote:Is it me, or does Lily Cole have a moustache?

I thought that too. Maybe she was Les Cole before the operation...

Manta wrote:

leek wrote:Is it me, or does Lily Cole have a moustache?

I thought that too. Maybe she was Les Cole before the operation...

hhahaha maybe she's post op. lol

I like the last three. The second one had a large hotspot in the middle-upper forehead.

Great portraits, Wendell, especially the last 3, the lighting is very nice.

ALex

Wendellt, very nice pics mate as usual they all look ok to me but then this is not my scene but i would be happy with them all.

thankyou everyone, i appreciate the honest feedback

i'm just getting stuck into editing the rest of my images, weeks after the event, lesson don't take to much editing and captioning really kills you or more importantly kills the interest.

Simon it may be while before it's complete but you can see runway stuff here, well all the seconds anyway, my agency have sold most runway shots weeks ago, i can't post anything that is sold

http://www.zeduce.org/mafwsyd.htm

Wendell,

again, a set of almost good images.

#3 is the standout here, but the lighting in the other 3 lets you down.

Throw a diffuser of some sort onto the SB800. Or bounce ot off the ceilinng. Bring it a little closer to you as well: it's too close to the models, and too far to their sides, thus elongating the shaodws of their noses across their faces.

The light needs to be much softer, perhaps a tad higher, and a bit more front on.

hi

i have to agree gstark, the 3rd stands out becuase of the soft light. also becuase of her eyes.

did you do any retouching to it?

thanks for sharing

christian

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one Gary..i think Wendell is developing his own style - so it's a little raw. It's his style and i think if you're gonna make an impact these days you've got to make your mark in your own way. Chances are an agency will notice that Wendell's style is a bit different to the norm and it could become the next big thing! There are plenty of photog's out there using bounced diffuse light (i'm one of them!!) so I think it's good to see something a little more 'stylised'.

Just my two bobs!

Liam =]

I'll second what Gary said, pretty much took the words out of my mouth.

Liam,

beetleboy wrote:I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one Gary..i think Wendell is developing his own style - so it's a little raw. It's his style and i think if you're gonna make an impact these days you've got to make your mark in your own way. Chances are an agency will notice that Wendell's style is a bit different to the norm

Perhaps, but if you're going to have such stark lighting, then do so with gusto: take it further. Sharper, harsher. Look at Matt's (Rokstar's) shoot the other weekend, with the elongated shadows from his flash.

IMHO a much better attempt at what I think you're trying to suggest lives in these images. In this instance he's not super harsh with the lighting, but far too harsh for it to be anything but somewhat unflattering.

Contrast image #3 with any of the other: soft, even lighting wins hands down.

All valid Gary..obviously we have differing opinions but that's ok!

I did like Rokstar's shoot..it was a lot more polished than these shots but for the circumstances Wendell shoots in (fairly impromptu) I think he does a pretty good job of it!

Anyway, all I really want to say is - Wendell, keep it up. I have no doubt that your style will evolve and many people will respect your effort to strive for originality.

Liam =]

perhaps you havn't seen my other work
i did use a difusser light box thing by lumiquest at fashion week
for some backstage work

my agent says the result looked boring
i.e see my ring flash thread, lots of other fashion photogs using the difussers
al their work looks the same, to sell you need to be different

I do however understand what gary is saying, i need to prnounce the need to use my lihgting techniques more, there are many more opps to refine my technique

wendellt wrote:perhaps you havn't seen my other work

And why would that be relevant, Wendell?

You posted four images, here, in the section named "Image Reviews and Critiques".

I am offerring a critique on those four images that you chose, and you posted.

You did not offer other images for critique, and your question begs any sort of relevance.

i did use a difusser light box thing by lumiquest at fashion week
for some backstage work

But not, it seems, for these. I'm not discussing "some" work. I'm discussing these images.

my agent says the result looked boring

Did he say why?

i.e see my ring flash thread, lots of other fashion photogs using the difussers
al their work looks the same, to sell you need to be different

To sell, you also have to be good.

Not almost good, but genuinely good. As I said in my original post, these images are almost good. Does almost cut it? You tell me.

You could also post photos that are poorly framed. Out of focus. Poorly exposed. They would certainly be different.

But would they be considered to be good?

I do however understand what gary is saying, i need to prnounce the need to use my lihgting techniques more, there are many more opps to refine my technique

Yep.

Making a good photo is not a simple task. it's very technical - you need to understand light intensity, quality, and fall-off, shutter speeds, aperture, depths of field and focus, contrast, sensor and/or film charactersitcs, how to use a lens, framing and composition ... as just a small number of starting points ...

And be able to assess and apply all of that in a poofteenth of a second.

If it was easy, Aunt Mabel would be winning pullitzer prizers for her images of her canary.

But it's not, and she doesn't.

You're young and remain quite inexperienced. From looking at some of your other images I think you're still failing to do one of the very basic tasks, and that is to take a moment to examine what's all around the edges of your viewfinder before squeezing the shutter. But that is not relevant within the context of this thread, because, and as I've already noted, I'm only critiquing these images that you've posted.

You're young, and you're learning. That's a good thing, and if you listen, then it's to be hoped and expected that you'll improve. That's the purpose of this section: to offer opinions and suggestions for improvement.

You can choose to either accept the suggestions and move on.

Or you can reject them, and move on.

Doesn't bother me either way: I'm simply critiquing what has been offered for critique, and nothing more.

I'm going to hijack the thread abit here, Wendell don't take offence to what im about to say as they have nothing to do with the quality of your images.

<rant> I don't see whats so super about supermodels, to me they're often unattractive and very skinny and also extremely fake, would someone care to explain to me why they are so super and so sought after </rant>

i took the critique in that context

i'm sory if the tone of my last message sounded arrogant

even weeks after the event the situations and circumstances are played over and over in my head i'm always thinking how to balance innoving and gettign a technically good photo, in hopes of the next time nailing it

i thank you for your ongoing honesty and wealth of knowledge

Michael wrote:I'm going to hijack the thread abit here, Wendell don't take offence to what im about to say as they have nothing to do with the quality of your images.

<rant> I don't see whats so super about supermodels, to me they're often unattractive and very skinny and also extremely fake, would someone care to explain to me why they are so super and so sought after </rant>

again michael it's my Sony wording
i thought not to name it 'models' - sounds boring

they are super in their own right because they fly aroudn the world at a young age and get paid lots and lots of money they handle it quite well so emotially strong people at such a young age

mayeb it is better to describe them as successful models rather than super

further to that models don't look attractive in a wholesome sense
most of them just have certain exotic fatures that give them presence and stature it's a way of the way they carry themselves to that make them models

but there are a few of them who are attractive in a wholesome sense

wendellt wrote:

Michael wrote:I'm going to hijack the thread abit here, Wendell don't take offence to what im about to say as they have nothing to do with the quality of your images.

<rant> I don't see whats so super about supermodels, to me they're often unattractive and very skinny and also extremely fake, would someone care to explain to me why they are so super and so sought after </rant>

again michael it's my Sony wording
i thought not to name it 'models' - sounds boring

they are super in their own right because they fly aroudn the world at a young age and get paid lots and lots of money they handle it quite well so emotially strong people at such a young age

mayeb it is better to describe them as successful models rather than super

I'm talking about supermodels as well as the models in your post as a WHOLE to include even super models, I just don't get it. anyways well wendell you're images are unique as always can't seem to really pic any faults nor do I have any niggles.

Michael wrote:

wendellt wrote:

Michael wrote:I'm going to hijack the thread abit here, Wendell don't take offence to what im about to say as they have nothing to do with the quality of your images.

<rant> I don't see whats so super about supermodels, to me they're often unattractive and very skinny and also extremely fake, would someone care to explain to me why they are so super and so sought after </rant>

again michael it's my Sony wording
i thought not to name it 'models' - sounds boring

they are super in their own right because they fly aroudn the world at a young age and get paid lots and lots of money they handle it quite well so emotially strong people at such a young age

mayeb it is better to describe them as successful models rather than super

I'm talking about supermodels as well as the models in your post as a WHOLE to include even super models, I just don't get it. anyways well wendell you're images are unique as always can't seem to really pic any faults nor do I have any niggles.

they are the best australia has to offer apart from Lilly Cole
so in that sense they are australia's super models

Love all of these.

The diffused light in #3 is cool, but I appreciate the high contrast thing is something that appeals to some tastes.

High contrast is very stiking and strong, which is a really great thing to go for. I do think that it makes your images different from a lot that I see. Diffused light is good to make normal people look better - but these aren't normal people - these chicks have the bone structure to experiment with!