Garry k wrote:
Its not bad

My eyes are drawn to 2 things though

The gap in the artwork above your subjects head - and the hair that has fallen into his eye

Both can be fixed

How would you suggest the gap be "fixed" ?
photoshop blank sky?
random artwork similar to the sculpture?

Camerosity wrote:
The eye is drawn to the lightest areas, the brightest colors and the contrastiest areas in a photo – all things being equal, in that order. That means they’re being led all over the image (except to the model)..

So what do you do when the model is in a dark suit?
"contrast", right? .. so, I had a light background (artwork anyway) to contrast the model.
But... it doesnt work...

Maybe if the backdrop BEHIND the back art were white or something?

Philip Brown wrote:
How would you suggest the gap be "fixed" ?
photoshop blank sky?
random artwork similar to the sculpture?

crop a bit lower and photoshop some of the artwork over the plants

Philip Brown wrote:
Thanks for the suggestion.
And now for something completely different...

Not bad as well

but pay attention to the details

That tuft of hair falling down into his eye , the jacket collar , and the way his shirt is buttoned

Personally I would crop the shot something like this though - to bring more attention to the face





Nice Natural Lighting Though - just a touch underesposed ( fixable though )

Garry k wrote:
Camerosity -If You are interested in a critique of said photo- I would love to give you one

Go right ahead. Obviously you have something to say.

Camerosity wrote:

Go right ahead. Obviously you have something to say.

Only because You had so much to say about it

Sorry though - It does not look real to me ( and the colors are not balanced )

Garry k wrote:
Only because You had so much to say about it

Sorry though - It does not look real to me ( and the colors are not balanced )

Thank you.

You should see MY list of 26 areas where I need to improve this year. (Well, maybe you shouldn't. lol)

Camerosity wrote:

Thank you.

You should see MY list of 26 areas where I need to improve this year. (Well, maybe you shouldn't. lol)

I got way more areas to improve on than that

Camerosity wrote:
If the background is “busy,” using a longer lens (like a 70-200mm lens) makes it possible to use a narrower “slice” of the background, which makes it easier to eliminate splotchy light (sunlight coming between tree limbs) and light-colored areas like sidewalks or white buildings.

I think this right here is the magic.

The first pic is a close crop of a much, much wider shot taken at 85mm.
If I ever got to shoot it again, I would probably frame it as viewed here, but with 200 or 300mm

Garry k wrote:
I got way more areas to improve on than that

That’s just my list for this year. Hopefully, we never stop learning and improving.

You’re doing okay, Garry. We all start at the same place, and we move forward as we can, as time permits, etc.

Photoshop is my nemesis, but I think I’m getting better.

I started shooting professionally with a paid internship at an afternoon newspaper the summer before high school (1962), and I worked part-time for the newspaper in high school. I got my first “real” camera three years before that. I’ve always shot since then, but not always professionally.

We shot on Royal Pan (Tri-X was available in 4x5 film packs but not sheet film) in 4x5 Crown Graphics. We developed the film in bulk in Kodak DK-50 in 3.5-gallon tanks. I was a whiz at dodge-and burn – and at making the dark areas of a print come up faster and darker by rubbing them with my fingers in the developer tray.

Because all of its packaging was yellow, Eastman Kodak was known as The Great Yellow Father. I was known as Yellow Fingers.

My best client in college (and several years beyond) was Neiman-Marcus.

Fwiw, I did my first digital shoot in late September 2011. (I think there are still four photos from that shoot in my portfolio. You can probably tell which ones they are.) I got Photoshop in early October. Retouching my first photo took seven weeks. I started over about once a week.

The photo you critiqued was shot on Sept. 29, 2012, and I was less than a year into Photoshop. Now that I’m between studios and looking for a new space to shoot in, I’m going back and retouching some of those older photos (including some that never got retouched), but I still spend an average of about 3 hours per photo.

And approaching 7.5 years of Photoshop, there’s still a lot more that I don’t know about Photoshop than what I know.

Philip Brown wrote:
I think this right here is the magic.

The first pic is a close crop of a much, much wider shot taken at 85mm.
If I ever got to shoot it again, I would probably frame it as viewed here, but with 200 or 300mm

If you want to see this principle in practice without leaving the comfort of your own home, put a person (doesn’t have to be a model) about six feet in front of a 4-foot-wide V-flat, sheet of plywood or drywall or even a 4-foot wide window), back off and frame the person for a waist-up shot through your camera with a 35mm or 50mm lens.

In studio I almost always place the model 6-10 feet from the background, because I want to see the shadows on the floor, not on the wall. I also like to use 10- or 12-foot wide backdrops.

If the model’s arms area extended at all (like bent at the elbows with hands on hips), chances are the elbows will stick out beyond the 4-foot width.

Then try a longer lens like an 85mm (or a 70-200mm zoom) with the person in the same pose of position. Keep increasing the focal length, moving back and framing the model (who should still be in the same position the whole time) the same way each time.

Unless the model’s arms are extended to the sides as far as they will reach, you should have background width to spare before you get to 200mm.

Same thing. You’re making a narrower slice of background take up more space in the image.

Philip Brown wrote:
Thanks for the suggestion.
And now for something completely different...

First, I think the browns (skin) and blues (sky) are way too saturated. If that’s the look you want, that’s fine. If you are going for a realistic looking photo, I would lighten them up a bit.

Not too much, though. I like to have people’s skin tones look the way they actually look in person, rather than making everyone look Caucasian.

Second, look at the model’s face. See how the nose protrudes beyond the far edge (farthest from the camera) of the face? That’s called a split profile. Yeah, I know you see split profiles in magazines a lot these days, but they are usually unflattering.

Generally, the more symmetrical someone’s face is, the more attractive the person is considered to be.

Things that are closer to the camera seem larger, and things that are farther from the face seem smaller, so the side of the face that is slightly smaller should generally be closer to the camera.

However, with a split profile, the side of the face that’s farther from the camera seems MUCH smaller than the side that’s closer, making the face seem more asymmetrical. When a model is in a pose that creates a split profile, I either have him/her turn the head toward me (less than a 45-degree angle to the camera) or turn to a full profile position (facing 90 degrees from the camera).

A good rule-of-thumb is that, if any thing that’s on the far side of the face show in a profiole, it should only be eyelashes. (Men don’t have eyelashes that are long enough to see in a full profile, of course.)

As you can see, getting a bit lower gave you clear sky as a background, rather than a cluttered background.

One thing to be careful of, though, is that as you tilt the camera up or down (I,e., if the camera is not perpendicular to the floor or level ground – or parallel to the horizon), distortion begins to creep into the face and sometimes the body, as well as any buildings in the photo (where horizontal and/or vertical lines converge rather than being parallel).

Generally, I almost always have the lens below the model’s eye level. This makes the model seem taller. (Even if the model is 5’ 1” tall, and the person viewing the photo is 6’ 8”, the viewer subconsciously realizes that he is looking up into the model’s eyes.)

However, I almost never shoot below the model’s chest level, especially if the model is female, unless I am shooting with at least a 200mm lens and am at least 15-20 feet from the model. At that level, I can sit on the ground and shoot full-lengths. Distance minimizes distortion.

Otherwise, once you get below chest level, the waist, hips and thighs look larger than they actually are. I’ve had female models ask me to emphasize the boobs (which appear larger from slightly above them), but I’ve never had one ask me to make her waist, hips or thighs look larger.

So you don’t want to shoot from too high or too low.

Using a longer lens (from a longer distance) would have made the structure in the background appear larger, possibly dwarfing the model. You can always try shooting from different distances and vantage points with different lenses to see what looks best.

I would like to see just a little more space above the model’s head. Also, I like the version above, with the structure at camera left cropped out.

That leaves the brightness of the other structure near the right edge of the photo, pulling the eye to the edge, as an issue. Instead of cropping from the right, you could have burned it in to make it darker at the edge.

Using a gradient filter to make that structure uniformly dark (masking out the sky to keep it from growing darker at the edge) probably would be easier and look more natural than burning in the light areas.

Then a slight, SUBTLE vignette at the upper corners would have directed the viewer’s attention back to the subject. However, a vignette (without a little more space above the model’s head) might have drawn attention to how close the top of the subject is to the top of the photo.

Camerosity wrote:
That’s just my list for this year. Hopefully, we never stop learning and improving.

You’re doing okay, Garry. We all start at the same place, and we move forward as we can, as time permits, etc.

Photoshop is my nemesis, but I think I’m getting better.

I started shooting professionally with a paid internship at an afternoon newspaper the summer before high school (1962), and I worked part-time for the newspaper in high school. I got my first “real” camera three years before that. I’ve always shot since then, but not always professionally.

We shot on Royal Pan (Tri-X was available in 4x5 film packs but not sheet film) in 4x5 Crown Graphics. We developed the film in bulk in Kodak DK-50 in 3.5-gallon tanks. I was a whiz at dodge-and burn – and at making the dark areas of a print come up faster and darker by rubbing them with my fingers in the developer tray.

Because all of its packaging was yellow, Eastman Kodak was known as The Great Yellow Father. I was known as Yellow Fingers.

My best client in college (and several years beyond) was Neiman-Marcus.

Fwiw, I did my first digital shoot in late September 2011. (I think there are still four photos from that shoot in my portfolio. You can probably tell which ones they are.) I got Photoshop in early October. Retouching my first photo took seven weeks. I started over about once a week.

The photo you critiqued was shot on Sept. 29, 2012, and I was less than a year into Photoshop. Now that I’m between studios and looking for a new space to shoot in, I’m going back and retouching some of those older photos (including some that never got retouched), but I still spend an average of about 3 hours per photo.

And approaching 7.5 years of Photoshop, there’s still a lot more that I don’t know about Photoshop than what I know.

Thank You and You appear to be doing all right as well


For Me - Professional Photography was the road not taken

My Father was a Photographer and his small circle of friends were as well . I picked up a camera in highschool ( shot some pretty girls and a vacation to Hawaii ) and thought I might pursue it as a possible career ...But after working a summer job in a camera store - decided on a different path for my life ...Something very different than photography

I have a great love of world music - especially concerts .And in the late 90s I was photographing some concerts for my own interest but i started sharing them with a local radio station that was playing the same sort of music that i loved ( African . Latin . Reggae etc )  In the summer of 2000 that radio stataion hired me to shoot a series of concerts they were hosting as part of our Jazz Fest

So I was walking around our downtown with my camera the night before our  Jazz Fest started . I popped into a local record store that was hosting a in store performance by a singer by the name of Ivana Santilli . Got to meet her after her performance - we chatted and i snapped a few pix of her - and I felt pretty amazing because of that ( cus i liked her music , her style and her look )

Afterwards I am walking down the street after that experience and this African Canadian Gentleman walks up to me and says something like  -" I see you have a camera - do you want to shoot a fashion show for me ?

I was skeptical but i agreed .

Basically what happened from that point is that this fellow later developed our Citys Fashion Week , I became his principle photographer and was thus became very involved in the world of Fashion and Fashion Models ( all while maintaining my non photograpy career )

After Shooting Runway for a few years and getting to know some of the Models - I started doing my own creatives . One of my Model Friends told me about Model Mayhem and once i got started with this site I was hooked

I consider myself an average photographer who has had the opportunity to work with better than average Models

My own photoshop skills are very rudimentary . And my aim is to get it right " in camera " so that minimal photoshopping is needed

My Photography has improved but my Photoshop hasnt kept pace . I am starting to look at outsourcing my work to skilled Retouchers as a result

Camerosity wrote:
First, I think the browns (skin) and blues (sky) are way too saturated. If that’s the look you want, that’s fine. If you are going for a realistic looking photo, I would lighten them up a bit.

Thanks for the in-depth review. I appreciate it.

A bit of trivia though:
Those colors are almost exactly real life, in the second one.
(If you're comparing skintone to the first one, I think I tweaked that one :-} Plus the light was different then)

so I'm not sure oversaturated is the right adjective there.
All I did was bump up the exposure from the raw. No color tweaking done.  So, pretty realistic colors as is!

Philip Brown wrote:
Decided to revisit the original. I just love the meshwork.
Came up with this.

Composition is still overly busy, yet static. If the model were painted to match the background you might have something.
I also notice that there is no catchlight in the eyes. Is that how it came from the camera? It seems off somehow, there should be catchlights in that environment.

I would advise that you  learn from this and move on.

Philip Brown wrote:
But maybe the plants behind THAT, make it too busy...?

No. While the plants don't help, it's not the plants that make the background too busy. It's the sea of bright strong lines of the metal sculpture that pale the model by comparison.

Shadow Dancer wrote:
Composition is still overly busy, yet static. If the model were painted to match the background you might have something.
I also notice that there is no catchlight in the eyes. Is that how it came from the camera? It seems off somehow, there should be catchlights in that environment.

For what it's worth: thats how it was in camera.
which I suppose is kinda surprising, since sun was behind me, and relatively low.

Eh.

Philip Brown wrote:
Decided to revisit the original. I just love the meshwork.
Came up with this.

I like the shapes you've created with the steel structure behind the model. Personally, I would have placed a black background behind the steel structure to simplify and add contrast. It would be a very dramatic shot then. But that's probably my personal style. The foliage is a bit distracting to me. Cool location though. You've put some thought into scene.

Philip Brown wrote:
I'm kinda torn on this shot.
I love the artwork framing the backdrop.
But maybe the plants behind THAT, make it too busy...?

What's the intent of the shot? If I have a model in business casual or suit, I personally wouldn't be shooting with that as a backdrop. But, if it's a one time opportunity at that location then, I probably would've experimented with a lot "distance" between the main subject and the background with variations in depth of field. For the shot you posted, if the image is hi-res enough, crop it so it's a quarter length body shot and the male model IS the main subject. Meaning to say, you cropped out enough of the background so that it doesn't "compete" with the model.

Philip Brown wrote:

For what it's worth: thats how it was in camera.
which I suppose is kinda surprising, since sun was behind me, and relatively low.

Eh.

As a fun experiment you can perform in a few minutes, select a few images with nice catchlights, "save as" so you have a copy to compare and then clone out the catchlights and see the difference.

There is a reason I noticed it. Catchlights can really liven up a face.

It's a simple thing to take care of in the field as well, I just made a white foam core circle that velcros onto the end of my speed light. Aim the light up and bounce a catchlight off the foam core. Just turn the flash power way down and it won't affect the overall lighting much if at all.