Photographer
Garry k
Posts: 30130
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
From a recent photoshoot i did for local designer Anelia - featuring model Mildred R ( not on MM ) Love it when a Model has great skin and can do their own makeup so well that no retouching is required ![https://scontent.fyvr3-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/46153729_10161155503555080_4036981022984765440_n.jpg?_nc_cat=102&_nc_ht=scontent.fyvr3-1.fna&oh=a61b56356d087da397bb3d6ee9a88ab4&oe=5C83F5B1]()
Photographer
Shadow Dancer
Posts: 9781
Bellingham, Washington, US
She is lovely indeed.
I admit I had to google Frida Kahlo, I suppose one cannot know everything.
You've captured the style well, it would be interesting to see in black and white and with somewhat deeper shadows.
As far as improving the image, the area around the outer edge of the right eye and eyebrow is not sharp, it makes the much sharper lips and the eyelash of the left eye pop out at me. I think it is more a depth of field issue than a focus issue and certainly it is a nitpick.
I didn't parse the image data, perhaps stop down another stop and half or so and increase the depth of field a bit. Alternatively, one could back up a couple of feet and then crop the final image to the desired composition.
Photographer
Jorge Kreimer
Posts: 3716
San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas, Mexico
Hi Garry,
She has a Frida hairdo, but I wouldn't say the picture is Frida Kahlo style.
Photographer
Shadow Dancer
Posts: 9781
Bellingham, Washington, US
After a second look I've noted that Frida Kahlo engages the camera in most of the images and averts her gaze far less often.
With the model looking through the camera into the eyes of the viewer of the image, your image would be far more powerful and more "Frida Kahlo". As it is, she could almost be a manniquin, there is no real connection with the viewer, at least not with me. The image is much less memorable due to that difference, in fact it was the primary reason I re-visited.
Photographer
sospix
Posts: 23778
Orlando, Florida, US
Yep, FK seemed to dare the camera to capture her image . . . ![https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Frida_Kahlo%2C_by_Guillermo_Kahlo_3.jpg/220px-Frida_Kahlo%2C_by_Guillermo_Kahlo_3.jpg]() . . . even in mono or duotones . . . I'm not sure either myself or my camera would have survived . . .  Her paintings had the same type of energy . . . ![https://www.biography.com/.image/t_share/MTMxMjkwNzY4MTg1NzY0NDgz/frida_kahlo_promojpg.jpg]() . . . one of my favorite artists! SOS
Photographer
Garry k
Posts: 30130
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
I guess what i meant was that the Models Look/Style is Frida Kahlo inspired ( not that i took this photo in a manner that Kahlo would have or would have painted ) ![https://scontent.fyvr3-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/46226816_10161155493305080_4916905910812540928_n.jpg?_nc_cat=111&_nc_ht=scontent.fyvr3-1.fna&oh=2c1b317cba3da57bb4ad5ec75a67d59a&oe=5C82A847]()
Photographer
Jerry Nemeth
Posts: 33355
Dearborn, Michigan, US
We have a Mexican restaurant named Frida in town. It's named after her.
There is also a large mural by Diego Rivera, her husband, at the Detroit Institute of Arts.
Photographer
Shadow Dancer
Posts: 9781
Bellingham, Washington, US
Garry k wrote:
I guess what i meant was that the Models Look/Style is Frida Kahlo inspired ( not that i took this photo in a manner that Kahlo would have ) The technical observations in my first reply still apply to the OP.
Photographer
sospix
Posts: 23778
Orlando, Florida, US
Garry k wrote:
I guess what i meant was that the Models Look/Style is Frida Kahlo inspired ( not that i took this photo in a manner that Kahlo would have )
![https://scontent.fyvr3-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/46226816_10161155493305080_4916905910812540928_n.jpg?_nc_cat=111&_nc_ht=scontent.fyvr3-1.fna&oh=2c1b317cba3da57bb4ad5ec75a67d59a&oe=5C82A847]() This one is very nicely done . . . I can see FK's gaze clearly in it, although not quite as terse . . . great stuff!
SOS
Photographer
Shadow Dancer
Posts: 9781
Bellingham, Washington, US
Garry k wrote:
I guess what i meant was that the Models Look/Style is Frida Kahlo inspired ( not that i took this photo in a manner that Kahlo would have )
![https://scontent.fyvr3-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/46226816_10161155493305080_4916905910812540928_n.jpg?_nc_cat=111&_nc_ht=scontent.fyvr3-1.fna&oh=2c1b317cba3da57bb4ad5ec75a67d59a&oe=5C82A847]() This image is much better, much more engaging to my eye.
The following questions are intended to provide technical improvement and partly out of my own curiosity. I am (usually) not a pixel peeper but found something you may find useful and interesting.
Before I started writing this, I took a random sampling of images on MM, both in ports and re-posted in forums as yours are. I included some of my own images from both port and re-posted and a variety of other images. I won't post any of them, off topic and unsolicited (if unintended) critique. I did not find what I am about to describe in any of them, inclucing several of your own images posted in your port. So it may be that something has changed from your usual workflow, your other images seem to be unaffected.
When I download both of your images and zoom in a bit I see the infamous "jpeg blocks" that indicate a higher compression ratio (and lower quality). Even with the relatively low-resolution images we are allowed to post here and my far less than top of the line monitor, I noticed a quality difference in the images you posted on this thread, a sort of "fuzziness" if you will.
If these were not over-compressed in camera at the time of shooting it is something that could easily be corrected. If they are over-compressed in camera than changing your camera's capture settings would be advised. I have nothing against shooting .jpg but I always shoot the largest files possible and downsize them to fit my purpose later.
Try opening the original images in your editing program of choice, do a Save As with a different name so the originals remain intact and then Resize so the width is 1000 pixels. Save and set the .jpeg compression settings to the highest quality possible. Using excessive compression to try and get a "larger" image uploaded has a cost in image quality.
I am not sure if that is what you are doing, just sharing my observations. Hope any of this helps!!!
Photographer
Garry k
Posts: 30130
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Shadow Dancer wrote:
This image is much better, much more engaging to my eye.
The following questions are intended to provide technical improvement and partly out of my own curiosity. I am (usually) not a pixel peeper but found something you may find useful and interesting.
Before I started writing this, I took a random sampling of images on MM, both in ports and re-posted in forums as yours are. I included some of my own images from both port and re-posted and a variety of other images. I won't post any of them, off topic and unsolicited (if unintended) critique. I did not find what I am about to describe in any of them, inclucing several of your own images posted in your port. So it may be that something has changed from your usual workflow, your other images seem to be unaffected.
When I download both of your images and zoom in a bit I see the infamous "jpeg blocks" that indicate a higher compression ratio (and lower quality). Even with the relatively low-resolution images we are allowed to post here and my far less than top of the line monitor, I noticed a quality difference in the images you posted on this thread, a sort of "fuzziness" if you will.
If these were not over-compressed in camera at the time of shooting it is something that could easily be corrected. If they are over-compressed in camera than changing your camera's capture settings would be advised. I have nothing against shooting .jpg but I always shoot the largest files possible and downsize them to fit my purpose later.
Try opening the original images in your editing program of choice, do a Save As with a different name so the originals remain intact and then Resize so the width is 1000 pixels. Save and set the .jpeg compression settings to the highest quality possible. Using excessive compression to try and get a "larger" image uploaded has a cost in image quality.
I am not sure if that is what you are doing, just sharing my observations. Hope any of this helps!!! Excellent Feedback
I am going to look into compressing my images differently
To be honest though - Most photos that i take now are only for fun and headed for IG and maybe FB - but if I were suddenly to venture into shooting for a commercial client compression would be a more important issue for me
Photographer
Garry k
Posts: 30130
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Jerry Nemeth wrote:
We have a Mexican restaurant named Frida in town. It's named after her.
There is also a large mural by Diego Rivera, her husband, at the Detroit Institute of Arts. They are the two most iconic Mexican Artists
|
