DSLRUsers.com

My fav port to date..........




Here are some from a model who flew down from Brisbane to shoot with me







Cheers
dan

Dan,

I think No. 3 is the best of the lot. The composition is good, the movement of hair is great, and most importanty, the facial expression is appropriate.

No. 1 I think would benefit from a great DOF and more detail in shadows.

No. 2, I find the pose to be constrained and not enough DOF to render her face sharp.

No. 4 I find to have a nice DOF and very sharp face but the way the face is framed, doesn't work for me.

Cheers

Alex

#3 for me!!!

Nice expression, sexy without naughty. Can we see more from that set?!?

I'll beat the exposure nazi's to it.. are you pushing it in your PP? The exposure on the faux fur is fine, but the highlights camera right, and shadows under her hair, are white, and black. Did your original have more detail in her lingerie?

Oh, and send her down to Melbourne, my saturday is free!

Oz_Beachside wrote:#3 for me!!!

Nice expression, sexy without naughty. Can we see more from that set?!?

I'll beat the exposure nazi's to it.. are you pushing it in your PP? The exposure on the faux fur is fine, but the highlights camera right, and shadows under her hair, are white, and black. Did your original have more detail in her lingerie?

Oh, and send her down to Melbourne, my saturday is free!

yeah i have pushed them, but as you say (exposure nazi's) i don't live or die by perfect exposures, i push blacks and i push whites where need be.........so many people are dead scared to have a blown highlight, like really, big deal...........a perfect histogram for me doesnt make a perfect image all the time......AND again i dont know how many times i have to say it, the shadow detail in her hair (first one) is fine on MY calibrated monitor in the LARGE Res version...the conversion messes with this and makes it darker.....why i dont know but it does......


Dan

Cre8tivepixels wrote:

Oz_Beachside wrote:#3 for me!!!

Nice expression, sexy without naughty. Can we see more from that set?!?

I'll beat the exposure nazi's to it.. are you pushing it in your PP? The exposure on the faux fur is fine, but the highlights camera right, and shadows under her hair, are white, and black. Did your original have more detail in her lingerie?

Oh, and send her down to Melbourne, my saturday is free!

yeah i have pushed them, but as you say (exposure nazi's) i don't live or die by perfect exposures, i push blacks and i push whites where need be.........so many people are dead scared to have a blown highlight, like really big deal...........a perfect histogram for me doesnt make a perfect image all the time......AND again i dont know how many times i have to say it, the shadow detail in her hair (first one) is fine on MY calibrated monitor in the LARGE Res version...the conversion messes with this and makes it darker.....why i dont know but it does......


Dan

How are you converting them - my pics in high res, look the same when shown on this site - so what is your process for saving to the web

sirhc55 wrote:

Cre8tivepixels wrote:

Oz_Beachside wrote:#3 for me!!!

Nice expression, sexy without naughty. Can we see more from that set?!?

I'll beat the exposure nazi's to it.. are you pushing it in your PP? The exposure on the faux fur is fine, but the highlights camera right, and shadows under her hair, are white, and black. Did your original have more detail in her lingerie?

Oh, and send her down to Melbourne, my saturday is free!

yeah i have pushed them, but as you say (exposure nazi's) i don't live or die by perfect exposures, i push blacks and i push whites where need be.........so many people are dead scared to have a blown highlight, like really big deal...........a perfect histogram for me doesnt make a perfect image all the time......AND again i dont know how many times i have to say it, the shadow detail in her hair (first one) is fine on MY calibrated monitor in the LARGE Res version...the conversion messes with this and makes it darker.....why i dont know but it does......


Dan

How are you converting them - my pics in high res, look the same when shown on this site - so what is your process for saving to the web

I am using Cs3 and it as action that was part of the new bundle, to be honest its easy quick and i only whack them up online for everyone else to see and most dont have calibrated monitors anyhow so i am not stressing about it....i have read others who have had the same problem with CS3 (oot CS3 really is a dog)

Dan

Dan - you are still not answering my question - how do you save the image for viewing on the web - is it sRGB, do you use ”save for web” or what

sirhc55 wrote:Dan - you are still not answering my question - how do you save the image for viewing on the web - is it sRGB, do you use ”save for web” or what

I save it as sRGB/save for web, and i did answer you, i use an action that does it all.....then i pop it on flikr....its cool dont worry about it, i am not sliting my wrists over it.........

Cre8tivepixels wrote:

sirhc55 wrote:Dan - you are still not answering my question - how do you save the image for viewing on the web - is it sRGB, do you use ”save for web” or what

I save it as sRGB/save for web, and i did answer you, i use an action that does it all.....then i pop it on flikr....its cool dont worry about it, i am not sliting my wrists over it.........

Thanks Dan - that explains the so called ”plastic look” - save for web in PSCS is hopeless and you are far better off using the save as command and save as a jpg with a high value of 10 (obviously resampling the image to 800 pixels on the longest side.) I also leave the image at 300dpi.

EDIT: By uploading your pics for critique it is always better to get the best possible reaction by taking a little care over the saving of any said images. BTW - my monitors are calibrated

sirhc55 wrote:

Cre8tivepixels wrote:

sirhc55 wrote:Dan - you are still not answering my question - how do you save the image for viewing on the web - is it sRGB, do you use ”save for web” or what

I save it as sRGB/save for web, and i did answer you, i use an action that does it all.....then i pop it on flikr....its cool dont worry about it, i am not sliting my wrists over it.........

Thanks Dan - that explains the so called ”plastic look” - save for web in PSCS is hopeless and you are far better off using the save as command and save as a jpg with a high value of 10 (obviously resampling the image to 800 pixels on the longest side.) I also leave the image at 300dpi.

EDIT: By uploading your pics for critique it is always better to get the best possible reaction by taking a little care over the saving of any said images. BTW - my monitors are calibrated

Wow cool man thanks.......

Dan, I am a self-confessed exposure nazi and I personally try to avoid blown highlights in my own shots, especially portraits. The reason why, for me, is that my eye always goes to the brightest part of an image first and often tends to get drawn back there. I understand this is a physiological reaction - experience with an 8 week old shows that he will tend to focus on lights!

You are generating great photos but I believe you can get much better results if you try to avoid those blown highlights.

Of course, this is my opinion which is worth as much as you are paying for it

sirhc55 wrote:I also leave the image at 300dpi.

Why?

Nice work as always Dan =]

EDIT: forgot to mention, a RALPH photog did a shoot in our studio today..3 hot chicks in bikini's - how's a guy supposed to get ANY work done?!

beetleboy wrote:

sirhc55 wrote:I also leave the image at 300dpi.

Why?

Nice work as always Dan =]

EDIT: forgot to mention, a RALPH photog did a shoot in our studio today..3 hot chicks in bikini's - how's a guy supposed to get ANY work done?!

Why not

Furry muff!

beetleboy wrote:Furry muff!

sorry Dan, didnt mean to start this off topic, its not the key feedback, nice pics.

Is it my eyes getting old, or in the last, did her right breast move, or shake, or is that her pants out of focus? I see double lines. Sometimes you present very shallow depth of focus, interested to know if you PP it, or just use large apertures.

3rd one is obviously more alluring since there is eye contact and a great smile

the hair and fact shes wearing less is secondary to the images appeal

i like the first oen best much more mysterious and theres a hint of incipient drama id just say one thing about the composition for that type of framing the earing piece woudl of been better removed in real life or during post it detracts a little to the centre weighted composition

i like how you kept in the rides under the eyes instead of polish it out in post
even though most mags would get you fix that up

the makeup is great too so very well done

exposure is a relative thing when it comes to fashion sometimes shadow tones have to be pushed to black but only if it contributes to the image, it's obvious to see when it doesnt, im a big fan of overexposing to create that ethereal look but in the case of number 3 the blown highlights affect the edge of the fur coat so it seems like theres an exposure issue there in these cases a simple HDR can fix up those little problems
otherwise practice makes perfect

i like #1 just the way it is ... i think if it was "technically perfect" it wouldn't have the same effect for me.

Oz_Beachside wrote:

beetleboy wrote:Furry muff!

sorry Dan, didnt mean to start this off topic, its not the key feedback, nice pics.

Is it my eyes getting old, or in the last, did her right breast move, or shake, or is that her pants out of focus? I see double lines. Sometimes you present very shallow depth of focus, interested to know if you PP it, or just use large apertures.

For those types of shots you use a large aperture to get a nice smooth background and keep the emphasis on the foreground..

Dan