Here are some from a model who flew down from Brisbane to shoot with me
Cheers
dan
DSLRUsers.com
A discussion forum - and more - for users of Digital Single Lens Reflex cameras.
A Grorgeous Face!Moderators: Greg B, Nnnnsic, Geoff, Glen, gstark, Moderators
Forum rules
Please note that image critiquing is a matter of give and take: if you post images for critique, and you then expect to receive criticism, then it is also reasonable, fair and appropriate that, in return, you post your critique of the images of other members here as a matter of courtesy. So please do offer your critique of the images of others; your opinion is important, and will help everyone here enjoy their visit to far greater extent. Also please note that, unless you state something to the contrary, other members might attempt to repost your image with their own post processing applied. We see this as an acceptable form of critique, but should you prefer that others not modify your work, this is perfectly ok, and you should state this, either within your post, or within your signature. Images posted here should conform with the general forum guidelines. Image sizes should not exceed 950 pixels along the largest side (height or width) and typically no more than four images per post or thread. Please also ensure that you have a meaningful location included in your profile. Please refer to the FAQ for details of what "meaningful" is.
Previous topic • Next topic
18 posts
• Page 1 of 1
A Grorgeous Face!
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! 
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 Last edited by Cre8tivepixels on Thu Aug 02, 2007 9:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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  Chris
-------------------------------- I started my life with nothing and I’ve still got most of it left
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
Chris
-------------------------------- I started my life with nothing and I’ve still got most of it left
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  Chris
-------------------------------- I started my life with nothing and I’ve still got most of it left
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  Regards, Patrick
Two or three lights, any lens on a light-tight box are sufficient for the realisation of the most convincing image. Man Ray 1935. Our mug is smug
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 Chris
-------------------------------- I started my life with nothing and I’ve still got most of it left
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 Wendell Levi Teodoro
My Agents Press - Getty Images Creative Rep - T.I.D. FashionID, DBP Productions & The Nest Agency My Book - Zeduce
i like #1 just the way it is ... i think if it was "technically perfect" it wouldn't have the same effect for me.
 Shane
Life's too short to be sad ! http://bigred4x4.blogspot.com/2008/01/welcome.html http://bigred.redbubble.com
For those types of shots you use a large aperture to get a nice smooth background and keep the emphasis on the foreground.. Dan
Previous topic • Next topic
18 posts
• Page 1 of 1
|
- Mods Database • The team • Delete all board cookies • Reset blocks • All times are UTC + 10 hours [ DST ]
