Light feedbackgreenspun.com : LUSENET : PFRH digital-photo-art : One Thread
As if there were any doubt in my mind, the site(s) were perfect in everyway. Your simplistic style is so comforting and alluring it almost makes me want to dive head first into my monitor! I am going to show the site to a friend of mine that does web design. I will send you his comments if he ever gets around to looking at it or responding. He is always so busy....
I don't know that I approve of the Jarno pics. The lighting isn't all that bad, neither are some of the backgrounds... Jarno just looks like he is trying for something that isn't there for him. He looks like he is more playful than photogenic. Carlos is my new fantasy, thanks! His pics were all gorgeous and he has the body I wish I had. Not to mention he looks like he is VERY VERY well hung. But maybe that was just your magic.
Did you soften the Jarno and Carlos pics?
-- Nolan (firstname.lastname@example.org), September 05, 1999
Re: the softening, check the previous question on Light techniques.
Thanks for all the encouragement. I won't comment on the models, or the contents of their pants.
As to the site design, I guess this could open up a general discussion, if some of you other visitors would like to contribute. What do you want from this site, or gallery sites generally?
Do you download pictures you like to your hard drive, as I do, to view at leisure, or bookmark and come back every time you want to see them again?
My gallery designs are always built on the former assumption, influenced by the fact that here in the UK we have to pay for online phone time, also by the constraints of Web browsers as a means of looking at pictures.
Anyone have thoughts or comments on this topic? Or about Light specifically?
-- PFRH (email@example.com), September 05, 1999.
About framing - no, I've almost never had to crop or reframe any images for Light, and the two or three images I did slightly crop were just by a matter of ten pixels or so. The relatively low resolution of my digital camera (1024x800-ish) means heavy cropping is out of the question.
When I'm looking thru the viewfinder, composition - the basic broad shapes of light, dark & colour - is uppermost in my mind. If I don't hit it just right first time, I'll retake the same shot ten times with only tiny changes in framing, or adjusting a model's hands (which I find critically important in figurative images, far more so than faces). Sometimes turning a hand over, or clenching or opening fingers, makes all the difference between crap and a perfect image.
My one frustration with my current digital camera (Kodak DC200) is that the pictures it takes are shifted slightly to the right compared to what I see thru the viewfinder, so I have to correct for that while composing. I have to compose, then shift the camera horizontally to compensate by guesswork.
So I guess basically I must get very lucky a lot of the time. :P
-- Paul Hamilton (firstname.lastname@example.org), September 11, 1999.
I'm straight, but it doesn't mean I can't appreciate the fine figures of blokes that you found, and your cool photography - good light effects in that one with the chequered floor (dcp01695_.jpg). Did you often have to reframe them on Photoshop? Most of them are composed really well - that guy (Leon?) at a station, and down at the riverside - neat framing.
-- Robin Gillett (email@example.com), September 11, 1999.