MobiusFoto wrote:

I meant mostly my style in general....but I really thought this one would at least get a little attention:
https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pic … id=8336889

I noticed that image the day of the competition.  It was a nice idea, the classiness of the earrings and the undergarment, but I admit there was a lot of problems with it that steered me away from it.

Part of the problem is I know Carly, and I know exactly how she's built.  The position you have her in really flattens her out and minimizes her incredible body.  There should have been a strong back arch that brought out her abdomen and breasts in a more aesthetically pleasing manner.  I've shot with her, and I bet if you go through your frames she did exactly that in other shots.

The position of your light also cast a thin shadow all the way around her body, in almost a ghosting effect.  It almost makes the focus on the image appear soft in an unpleasing manner.

Unfortunately, there's no way to sugarcoat it.  You took a good idea with one of the best nude models in the world and didn't execute.

MobiusFoto wrote:

I meant mostly my style in general....but I really thought this one would at least get a little attention:
https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pic … id=8336889

As far as an overall style in general.....I think you're fine.  I like your higher key image lighting much better than your darker indoor images.  I think you're underexposing on those, and then the huge vignette you're putting on the already underexposed images are making it worse.

The higher key images are spot on though.  Skin tones are nice and they have a real good feel to them.  The models skin is exposed perfectly.

Same with your location shots.  I really like some of them.  You are really using directional natural light well.  So many people don't do that, but it seems you've got it figured out. 

MobiusFoto wrote:
Thanks.  I think the only problem I had with that one was what the position did to her ribs, but there's been a nagging feeling that there's something else wrong.....I think you nailed it.  It would be good if it was anyone but her.


I just took it down.

Yeah, she's pretty spectacular isn't she!   Her body is a freak of nature and her posing ability is second to none.  I've worked with some awfully skilled models who could take me through some really nice sets, but she could just keep going and going and every single frame will be unique.

Chris Keeling wrote:
I think you're underexposing on those, and then the huge vignette you're putting on the already underexposed images are making it worse.

That was actually something I was playing around with.  It's a honeycomb on a ring light, causing the light to fall off sharply.

MobiusFoto wrote:

That was actually something I was playing around with.  It's a honeycomb on a ring light, causing the light to fall off sharply.

That's fine, but it looks like your shooting a full stop to dark.  Expose for the subject right, and the fall off will still be there.

Chris Keeling wrote:
Yeah, she's pretty spectacular isn't she!   Her body is a freak of nature and her posing ability is second to none.  I've worked with some awfully skilled models who could take me through some really nice sets, but she could just keep going and going and every single frame will be unique.

Yes, she is.  I've got a ton more images from that shoot to pull through, the 3 from that shoot on my port were just the first ones I pulled out.

Chris Keeling wrote:

That's fine, but it looks like your shooting a full stop to dark.  Expose for the subject right, and the fall off will still be there.

I think I've got it figured out a little better now.  My current avatar was shot using the same setup.

MobiusFoto wrote:

I think I've got it figured out a little better now.  My current avatar was shot using the same setup.

It's closer, but it's still a little underexposed.  Look at your high key images and ignore the background.  Just look at the skin of the model.  Some part of the skin in your avatar should be that bright also, and then the darkness can fall off from there.  But some part needs to be exposed correctly.  That's a glamour shot, and glamour has to be lit right with good contrast to be effective as a general rule.  There's not much room for dark and moody in Glamour.  I'm not saying your falloff isn't okay, I'm just saying that the brightness starting point for that falloff isn't right.

MobiusFoto wrote:
Chris,

Thanks for taking the time to look through those.  I really appreciate it.

Thanks
Jerry

You're welcome. 

Chris Keeling wrote:

That's fine, but it looks like your shooting a full stop to dark.  Expose for the subject right, and the fall off will still be there.

Can you expand on this. I feel like there must something that could be objectively considered proper exposure, yet I keep coming back to proper exposure as an objective thing. I find my taste is usually 1-2/3rds of a stop under, and I also like to shoot certain images significantly over.

I think if this image could have been spot metered there are certain spots that are dead on. Also, I was hanging with an ex who loves to trash my lighting who's considered an image on the from of a MOMA catalog underexposed.

If you can point to specifics that lead you to say it's under, and also what made you say specific a full stop as opposed to more or less, I'd probably learn a lot.

If you can argue with you assessment too, and that the position that it is properly exposed, that would be even better, although not everyone can Hamlet things that easily.


This image got my vote: 

http://www.lebeckerotica.com/tianahunte … nter_m.jpg

It has a certon tonay quality that I'm always draw to. I like the exposure as well, which makes me think you'd call it under - probably in the 1/3 to 1/2 stop range.

IF I were to argue that it's under it would be because the face is a little dark, but I see that as part of the 5D vignetting combined with a little fall off, with the center of the image is right and that that's all part of the composition.

But I am curious about you take on the exposure.

MC 2 wrote:
Can you expand on this. I feel like there must something that could be objectively considered proper exposure, yet I keep coming back to proper exposure as an objective thing. I find my taste is usually 1-2/3rds of a stop under, and I also like to shoot certain images significantly over.

I think if this image could have been spot metered there are certain spots that are dead on. Also, I was hanging with an ex who loves to trash my lighting who's considered an image on the from of a MOMA catalog underexposed.

If you can point to specifics that lead you to say it's under, and also what made you say specific a full stop as opposed to more or less, I'd probably learn a lot.

If you can argue with you assessment too, and that the position that it is properly exposed, that would be even better, although not everyone can Hamlet things that easily.


This image got my vote: 

http://www.lebeckerotica.com/tianahunte … nter_m.jpg

It has a certon tonay quality that I'm always draw to. I like the exposure as well, which makes me think you'd call it under - probably in the 1/3 to 1/2 stop range.

IF I were to argue that it's under it would be because the face is a little dark, but I see that as part of the 5D vignetting combined with a little fall off, with the center of the image is right and that that's all part of the composition.

But I am curious about you take on the exposure.

It depends on your style of shooting as to how you apply the rules.  The image of Tiana her legs and most of her body are properly exposed.  The falloff is around her head, but that's okay because her body and form is the point of interest in the image.  It's an Art piece as opposed to Mobius' glamour shot.

The image I was speaking of was his avatar and a few others in his port.  When I go back over the only thing that is exposed normally is a spot on her upper arm.  Her face falls off from that.  This is a Glamour shot, and her face is the point of interest.  It's okay for other things in the image to be underexposed to set mood, but in a shot like that her beautifull face should pop off the page.  Your eyes should be drawn to her face and eyes.

The image from a couple of days ago that Mobius linked of Carly laying on her back in bed is actually exposed correctly, and it wasn't one of my beefs with the image.  If you look at her hair and face they do bring your eyes there.
https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pic … id=8336889
18+

MobiusFoto wrote:
Chris, is this a little closer to what you were expecting to see?

http://mobiusfoto.com/images/AmandaExp5.jpg

Thanks again,
Jerry

That's closer.

As far as exposure goes, take that image in this post and in Photoshop go into levels.  On the RGB channel make your input values 19, 1.00, 205

The result is how I'd like it exposure wise.

MobiusFoto wrote:
Trying this again
http://mobiusfoto.com/images/AmandaCK.jpg

I think it's better, but more importantly....what do you think?

MC 2 wrote:
It's weird, when I first saw the new one, I thought no way. When I switch between the two, the old on looks a little dark, but I don't like the skin tone in the new one or the processing distortion.

Also, I'd lighten the whole image. Are you working in photoshop or something else?


I was going to ask Chris a follow up on the exposure question, but thought it might just be semantics, but now it relevant.

The question was going to be if the choice of calling it under exposed was meant to specify that the problem happened during the shooting or during post processing. The point being in post the fix would be to add one stop with the exposure slider if it's shot under exposed, or it could be to add brightness or fill light or lower contrast.

I prefer the mindset of getting it right inside the camera, but I've come to accept that there are two stages like with music - recording and mixing.

So by underexposed does that mean captured wrong or captured right, but with incomplete post as there are otherways to lighten an image beyond cranking the exposure.

The only reason I told him to use those settings in Levels was to show him how I thought the image should have been exposed.  In no way am I trying to say the image is now fixed.  That shot has already been taken, it's to late to get it right in camera.  But I do agree with you, in camera is the proper way to do it.

The decisions in the end are Mobius', but he's asking and I cranked up the levels to show him how he should expose it next time he shoots. 

The skin tone problem you are seeing is also in the first and second versions he posted.  You can just see it better now.  There is no cyan in the skin at all in any of them, and it's throwing the color off.  I'm leaning toward thinking that happened in his Post Process, probably in his skin smoothing method, because the wood grain and blue slats in the background look very good.

Chris Keeling wrote:
The only reason I told him to use those settings in Levels was to show him how I thought the image should have been exposed.  In no way am I trying to say the image is now fixed.  That shot has already been taken, it's to late to get it right in camera.  But I do agree with you, in camera is the proper way to do it.

The decisions in the end are Mobius', but he's asking and I cranked up the levels to show him how he should expose it next time he shoots. 

The skin tone problem you are seeing is also in the first and second versions he posted.  You can just see it better now.  There is no cyan in the skin at all in any of them, and it's throwing the color off.  I'm leaning toward thinking that happened in his Post Process, probably in his skin smoothing method, because the wood grain and blue slats in the background look very good.

Ugh!  I was liking this image.....I agree that it was underexposed when I shot it, but honestly, it looked good when I was shooting.  I think I've made some bad choices when I was editing, as well.  I might have to go back to the raw file and start over, see if I can fix it.

Chris, your points are well taken.  The original intent was a darker look coming out of the camera, but it looks like I have some more work to do with that light.

Thanks again,
Jerry

MC 2 wrote:
It's weird, when I first saw the new one, I thought no way. When I switch between the two, the old on looks a little dark, but I don't like the skin tone in the new one or the processing distortion.

Also, I'd lighten the whole image. Are you working in photoshop or something else?

I was actually liking the original image before I started looking at what Chris has brought up.  Now it really does look too dark.  And yes, I'm using Photoshop.

MC 2 wrote:
I prefer the mindset of getting it right inside the camera, but I've come to accept that there are two stages like with music - recording and mixing.

I prefer to get it right in the camera as well.  Unfortunately, I don't always, especially when I'm trying something new.  I've still got a lot to learn.

MC 2 wrote:
I kind of don't believe that it's possible to get "right" in camera. Half the images in my port are straight from the camera, but in a way, getting it "right" in camera negates a whole stage of the image making process.

I pretty much agree with everything you said so I deleted it from this post, but this part kinda confuses me.  I'm not sure if I understand what you are saying. 

When I say get it right in camera, I'm talking about starting with a good clean image when you go to post processing.  When I shoot, I make sure nothing I don't want to be in the background is in it, I make sure I compose and frame the image right in the viewfinder and I make sure the highlights are where I want them and not overexposed and that the shadows and lowlights are where I want them and not underexposed.

When I take a picture it should come out of the camera as is good enough to show people.  Then I take it into post processing and take it to the next level, whatever that level happens to be for that particular image.

If I'm shooting in studio, these things are all easier to control, but on location I still try to get these things the way I want.  I look for directional light that gives me the effect I want and if I don't have it, I don't shoot.  I look for dark things behind the model that will make her standout from the background. 

I can go to the most incredible waterfall in the world with a nude model, but if it's noon and the sun is casting unwelcome shadows on the face or body, then I'm going either not shoot or I'm going to come back when the sun is right, or find a way to modify the light to my taste.

All of that is what I consider getting it right in camera.

Good discussion, I think this is partly what DT is for, to learn from each other. 

Z_Photo wrote:
i somewhat read the phrase "get it right in the camera" to also include some things that are normally done in post processing.  adjustments of curves, maybe levels, saturation, etc.  i must have read more in than intended.

but i certainly am with you on the rest of "get it right in the camera"

Just because I get it right in camera doesn't mean I don't still use levels and other processes in PS to enhance what I've already done.  The camera doesn't necessarily record what your eye sees, and that's where Post Processing comes in.

But the idea is to get the shadows and highlights right when you take the shot, then make them pop in post.

LeDeux Art wrote:
a little clarification, i have no internet and can be online only when i find a hot spot, sometimes i walk miles for this. i was voting early and folks complained, i understand this and make an effort to vote later in the day. i will try to be on time in voting but sometimes it takes alot of time to find a open connection. i do hope everyone understands this. walk a mile in another's shoes should not always be necessary for people to have an idea of whats going on
thank you

Jon, you do what ever it takes buddy.  No one here questions your integrity, and if they do they've got you AND me and quite a few others to deal with. 

Vote whenever you can, there's no rule against it.

Mike Caffrey wrote:
When I say "get it right in camera" I mean shoot it so that it's done, end of story, no other work to do.

I'm starting to see post as more of  a second half of the shot rather than post if that makes any sense.

I agree, but I also understand just because it looks real good coming out of the camera doesn't mean it can't look even better with proper post processing.

It sounds like you are saying the same thing.

Chris Keeling wrote:

I agree, but I also understand just because it looks real good coming out of the camera doesn't mean it can't look even better with proper post processing.

It sounds like you are saying the same thing.

We're on parallel roads.

I see it as you can call the image done when the shutter closes or you can treat post as part of the process - sort of an expanded potential, like shooting with more than one light source.

Clearly post can be for fixing, but I think, especially with DLSRs as opposed to medium format, the "maximum potential" of camera + post is greater that camera alone. I think with medium format digital, with a 12 stop latitude, the difference is smaller.

I'm still not articulating it quite the way I mean it.

Chris Keeling wrote:
Question........

How do these 2 images get a total of 1 vote between them yesterday?  (and that vote was mine)

https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pic … id=2992009

and

https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pic … id=8280254
both 18+


I just don't get this one guys.  I'm not trying to be snarky, but I look at those 2 images and my only question is which one do I choose to vote for.  Is the tastes of the 18+ PotD membership so different from mine that I'm just out of touch? 

Were they disregarded because of their respective genre's.....glamour and blood?  There has to be a reason for them to be so blatantly ignored.  They are too good for there not to be an explainable reason for them to not get any votes at all.

I know there's no conspiracy going on or anything, but I'd love to hear individual explanations why they didn't get a single vote.

It took me a second to fiure out why the second one was 18+, and personally, I wouldn't have labeled as such.

I find all the added noise and the big GW on the first one very annoying. I see what's great about it underneath, but I wouldn't have were it not for trying to figure out what you like  about it.

For me, all the added stuff is like one of those "no" signs - the big red circle with the slash through it. It's a layer on top, not part of it.

MC 2 wrote:

It took me a second to fiure out why the second one was 18+, and personally, I wouldn't have labeled as such.

I find all the added noise and the big GW on the first one very annoying. I see what's great about it underneath, but I wouldn't have were it not for trying to figure out what you like  about it.

For me, all the added stuff is like one of those "no" signs - the big red circle with the slash through it. It's a layer on top, not part of it.

Huh?

This kind of answers my question I guess.  You guys are applying rules from one genre to another, and you just can't do that and still be subjective.  It's one of the reasons why I keep saying we need to do everything we can to attract more players so it will be a level playing field for everyone.

Both on the images I listed are so much better than everything else in yesterday's competition that it's like they are in different leagues.  But because the players are so genre specific and can't look outside of their comfort zone they aren't even being recognized.

The first image is by GW Burns, one of the best Glamour photographers in the world, and like I said, it didn't get a single vote because of the style it was shot in.  That's crazy talk, LoL.

I'm not picking on you or any of the other voters here, I'm merely pointing out that we need more diversity.  You are certainly entitled to your opinion and to vote for who you see fit....but do you see the problem with having a Competition full of voters who discount an image because it wasn't the way it came out of the camera?

I understand there is nothing I can do about it.  I'm just very dissapointed with what's happened to the Competition.  I play regularly in the PotD thread and was very excited when the 18+ version was started, but now it's just a place to showcase work.  All but a select few who only shoot a certain way have a chance at winning.