OK I hadda try the preview feature--Nude-ish?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : People Photography : One Thread

Just had to try it...

35mm. TechPan with a couple of 60 watt bulbs in household lamps, cuz I was drinking that night and didn't give a damn. Contax S2 with 50mm Zeiss.

This was taken last summer. The model is an angel with grace, intelligence, warmth and more compassion than most people I've met. Hell she sat in the room with me for hours, so that's gotta say something about her patience, too...

-- Shawn Gibson (SeeInsideForever@yahoo.com), March 15, 2000

Answers

Close enough...but I got a blank icon thing in the preview? what'd I do wrong Allan?

-- shawn gibson (SeeInsideForever@yahoo.com), March 15, 2000.

I see it fine (with Netscape).

Interesting photo (though I'm curious why you tone everything), but her upper arm appears quite fleshy. If she had moved it away from her body, it would have diminished this. I'd also like to see it with the pattern on the fabric digitally defocused to help keep the emphasis on her. Also, on this scan at least, her forehead is an overpowering white spot. Even the strand of hair is almost burned out on it.

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), March 15, 2000.


I like it - it has a very natural look and a great mood, not least because of the lighting which may not be technically perfect but helps to convey a very intimate atmosphere. Her arm looks like a normal womans arm, if it were any less "fleshy" she4d look like an anorexic.

-- Christel Green (look.no@film.dk), March 15, 2000.

Shawn, fine photograph, nuff said. Bob

-- Bob Smith (desertfoto@amigo.net), March 16, 2000.

My only criticism would be that the fabric is too busy and distracting. Try a mono-toned damask or linen or solid velvet or burlap or anything that supports the ambiance (polywog a ding dong anyone?) but is not more prominent than your subject. Supportive but not distracting. I've got rolls and wads of various fabrics from the rements bin for just these occasions.

I like the light and the mood/attitude. And maybe place her face a bit further left in the frame (who cares about that damn pillow thing, lets see more human! People Photography, not Pillow Photography!) Maybe just a healthy burn on the pillow might help and while yer drinking, try some of thet Ilford SFX stuff with a fat red filter, you'll like the skin tones and it'll be a whole stop (50!) faster... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), March 16, 2000.



Neat photo. I agree, what's wrong with her arm? It looks normal to me.

-- stuart phillips (stuart.phillips@umb.edu), March 16, 2000.

I don't make the rules; I just follow them. If you are interested in fashion - or glamour - or just keeping your subjects happy, you'll shoot them in the most flattering way possible. This is an obviously and carefully posed portrait of a girl of above average looks - not a portrait verite. I've shot enough models to know that even a pretty girl can be made to look pretty bad; an interesting exercise, but I doubt it will sell. And, as someone who's 5'10" and under 125 pounds myself - I don't see anything wrong with skinny models - as long as they get and stay that way in a healthy manner - such as via the Zone diet.

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), March 16, 2000.

"I don't make the rules; I just follow them."

Give me a break! If you don't believe "the rules" are the way that things should be done, then don't criticize a photo based on its violation of those rules. And if you do make a critique on that basis, don't later claim "well, gee, I don't make the rules. . ."

Figure out what you believe. Make photos based on that. Make critiques based on that.

-- Mike Dixon (burmashave@compuserve.com), March 17, 2000.


Nice shot Shawn, John Kantor mentioned three points and they are excellent observations. 1)The highlight on her forehead is Hotish; however I don't find this objectional as I feel it adds to the mood. 2)The pillow is distracting and I believe an above poster gave you a remedy for that, the softer material non pattern would add to the mood you are going for. 3)The arm being fleshy or Broad or untoned IS very distracting. I don't think this is due to the 50mm lens being used for the picture, however a longer lens would have reduced its dominance due to subject to lens proximatity. The girls face is lean but I think A) she is pressing her upper arm against her body to cover herself tightly which is making the upper arm appear wider & the 50mm lens closness is intensinfying that. B)Her wrist and forearm is wide and very untoned making it appear overall that her arm is fat. Now I personally feel that overall you did a good job on rendering this subject, but after our few brief discussions through the net I think you desire to excel and I think you are capable. I honestly feel Mr. Kantor is only pointing out the obvious aspects that would stop this pic from being a seller or this model from being used in a commercial venue.

-- Artie (Artie@artiephotography.com), March 17, 2000.

I was just pointing out that every context has its own rules. Think of it this way: if you were trying to get this published, who would buy it and why or why not?

If you only make pictures for yourself, that's fine too. But then there's no reason to post them.

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), March 17, 2000.



I see (and did see) what John is talking about with her arm; it would cause a 'no sale'. I have a number of good shots from this sitting, some less covered-up than others, and some of them a very pretty. But nothing else printed which I haven't given away...

But even though I'm 'trying' to do fashion mainly now, last summer I was as much interested in simply expressing rather than trying to pigeonhole myself (sense the onset of Suffocating Box Syndrome?).

As for toning everything, I don't do that as much now, since I get my colour kicks with real colour film now, when I must (I need ten billion $ in gels, anybody?). I still tone occasionally, but it used to be I didn't consider a print finished until it took on a discernable hue or two.

The blown-out highlights are from the scan. I tried to flatten them a bit but I was flattening 'empty' information, and everything just looked, well, flat, and dull, and stupid...

Thanks everyone for responding... ps Artie I think I'll reprint with some of your suggestions. But not until I can get a real 67 neg carrier to fit my enlarger. I'm using cardboard cutouts now. It's horrible. shawn

-- shawn gibson (SeeInsideForever@yahoo.com), March 18, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ