| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/28/2005 03:38:28 PM · #1 |
just got done working my 2nd shoot for my model and i would LOVE to know all thoughts and opinions on these please. these photos will be sent to modeling agencys from ohio to NY. tell me like it is and please dont candy coat anything. I will be putting my name on these and if they look like crap and i need to reshoot I will. My model is patient as am I and we are both learning this modeling stuff together so help us out! give us a clue :o)
  
  
|
|
|
|
10/28/2005 04:10:29 PM · #2 |
commented on the photos..
common problems IMO
- model not comfortable
- harsh shadows
- Not enough detail in photos |
|
|
|
10/28/2005 04:21:54 PM · #3 |
I am, by far, not an expert on portraiture, but I would go with the following general rule:
Color = soft light
B&W tolerates more contrast.
As a comparison, I think the B&W pic and the first on the second row show this. I like the B&W much better, although I still don't like the rimmed shadow.
Sheets make for a background, but ironing is probably essential. This shows up most on the B&W shot. |
|
|
|
10/28/2005 04:37:37 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by gaurawa:
commented on the photos..
common problems IMO
- model not comfortable
- harsh shadows
- Not enough detail in photos |
I dont think its that the model is uncomfortable...I think its more ike model is untrained. I cant really give him any direction beause I have had a hard time finding poses for men and I have never worked a model before myself.
as for the harsh shadows i think that was caused by my on camera flash. I will try not to use it sunday for our retake shoot. My lighting set up was a 500W halogen work light placed directly infront of model head high(and 10 ft away). i also had 2 60W lightbulbs ( with aluminum foil behind it to act as a reflector) placed waist hight(and about 3ft away) on the right and left sides. I had my clip on 20W halogen desk light hung up to shine down on his head but wasnt enough light so i turned it off. It was like a small spotlight spot right behind his head shining on the BG. for the mauve BG i had intentions of turning that to a grey but when i tried it also changed the very edge of his skin.
1:what would be good poses(with photos please) for him to do? all the poses i can think of come across real girly looking for him.
2: how is the best way to set my lights up to get the most out of them? I dont have the money to run out and pick any up right now.
3: Is the 500W halogen work light too much to try to work with?
:if so what is the best wattage and how many should i be working with until i can afford a more professional setup?
Message edited by author 2005-10-28 16:40:05.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2005 04:38:02 PM · #5 |
You asked for no sugar coating so I wont :P I don't like these at all. The colors are strange, lighting is not good, model looks uncomfortable and his skin looks a little strange as if he has makeup on or you've done some srange ps work? that could just be me though hehehe!
From what I've seen in your portfolio you can do ALOT better and I would 100% do a reeshoot forgetting all about these. He's hot, you've got talent this just seems like a fluke...! I'd recomend taking these photos outside, in good lightin. A few headshots, some full body shot with no distracting things (like the big letters on the t-shirt and stuff). I've gotten some pretty good advice here on shooting models portfolios, and your photos can make or brake his career! I personally think you can do alot better :) :)
Good luck and I hope we get to see a reshoot, and I'm sorry if I was to harsh but in fairness you asked for it :):) I just think, judging from the pics in your portfolio, reshooting should be easy for you and you could get some awsome pics!:) |
|
|
|
10/28/2005 04:43:43 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by DogAngel:
You asked for no sugar coating so I wont :P I don't like these at all. The colors are strange, lighting is not good, model looks uncomfortable and his skin looks a little strange as if he has makeup on or you've done some srange ps work? that could just be me though hehehe!
From what I've seen in your portfolio you can do ALOT better and I would 100% do a reeshoot forgetting all about these. He's hot, you've got talent this just seems like a fluke...! I'd recomend taking these photos outside, in good lightin. A few headshots, some full body shot with no distracting things (like the big letters on the t-shirt and stuff). I've gotten some pretty good advice here on shooting models portfolios, and your photos can make or brake his career! I personally think you can do alot better :) :)
Good luck and I hope we get to see a reshoot, and I'm sorry if I was to harsh but in fairness you asked for it :):) I just think, judging from the pics in your portfolio, reshooting should be easy for you and you could get some awsome pics!:) |
not harsh at all...this is exactly what I need to hear..thank you!. Both of us want him to make it. It would get BOTH our names out there and I want us to show our best.
thanks to everyone for the comments so far. with me honesty will get you everywhere!
|
|
|
|
10/28/2005 04:46:20 PM · #7 |
| good, can't wait to see the pics from the reshoot :) creating a portfolio check this one out, and look at pics in online model agencys, pic out the once you like and show him, and you can pick out good poses to copy :) |
|
|
|
10/28/2005 04:49:18 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by smilebig4me1x:
3: Is the 500W halogen work light too much to try to work with?
|
As someone who uses those lamps as a poor man's lighting setup on lots of stuff, I can tell you that in reality they are actually quite weak light. Sure they are hot as hell and it's no fun staring into them, but compared to your flash, it's a drop in the bucket.
Do you have a flash that you can bounce? If so, I would really recommend bouncing off the ceiling as this gives pretty good light.
Also don't forget to WB those suckers, they are yellow yellow yellow. |
|
|
|
10/28/2005 04:55:43 PM · #9 |
nope...only flash i have right now is the pop up flash with my camera.
how many of these "work" lights do you use? and how do you set them up?
i set these up with him standing in place and this was the best i could get at minimizing the shadows but then(like the dork i am) i popped up the flash for a faster shutter.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2005 05:03:52 PM · #10 |
|
|
|
10/28/2005 05:33:44 PM · #11 |
Hi Cher,
1) Use natural light and reflector for fill until you get your studio lights.
2)My suggestion for you is to move your model out from your backdrop at least five feet.
3) Use a wide aperature - for short DOF in order to knock your background out of focus
4) Back away from your model and use your zoom - that will also help to blur the background.
5) Use a tripod - a) with natural light, you may need a longer exposure and b) helps you to study and compose the shot before taking the photo.
6) Important that the eyes are in focus.
I don't have many of my photos online to show you but this one was done with natural light.
 |
|
|
|
10/28/2005 05:35:14 PM · #12 |
thank you jaxed!
I will be doing an outside shoot monday. model is 5'9 and 138lbs(very thin in my book but hey...he wants to be a model) I have a state park complete with a large pond,playgrounds,stone walls, stone walkways,small wooden bridges, and a petrified tree named "log rock". I really need poses to study and memorize for monday.plese remember this is for a male model who is interested in showing various sides of himself and wants his portfolio to be remembered!
post away my friends! while i try to hunt down some of my own.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2005 09:15:36 PM · #13 |
bump for some links to MALE poses or even some MALE poses of interest here. I need to study these poses so monday i will know what i want my model to do exactly. time for me to start giving Him some direction!
|
|
|
|
10/28/2005 09:27:14 PM · #14 |
|
|
|
10/28/2005 09:53:39 PM · #15 |
Seriously, and you asked for no sugar coating, and of course, I am the self-proclaimed king of bluntness, don't even think about submitting those, or any shots with your camera to a modeling agency and expect any results.
Believe me, there's a place for your camera, but it is certainly not for the low-light shooting that you're doing or for submitting model photos to agencies and hoping for a response.
There is a reason pros aren't out shooting models with your 3.2 MP point and shoot camera. Like I said though, there is a place with it, have fun with it, but again, don't even think about this until you have the capability of producing at least somewhat decent photos.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2005 10:03:17 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by deapee:
There is a reason pros aren't out shooting models with your 3.2 MP point and shoot camera. Like I said though, there is a place with it, have fun with it, but again, don't even think about this until you have the capability of producing at least somewhat decent photos. |
From looking at the shots posted, the main issue appeared to be lighting. I can't see that the problems stemmed from the megapixel count or other limitation of the camera. |
|
|
|
10/28/2005 10:20:32 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by deapee:
There is a reason pros aren't out shooting models with your 3.2 MP point and shoot camera. Like I said though, there is a place with it, have fun with it, but again, don't even think about this until you have the capability of producing at least somewhat decent photos. |
Judging from the shots that this camera is proven to be capable of, there's nothing wrong with it for portraiture either. All you need is some good lighting gear for indoor shots.
Get a couple of 500w flood lights from Home Depot, maybe a large one of these or two with some hoders, and you're good until you can afford some more.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2005 10:26:39 PM · #18 |
OK, you guys are right...it's not entirely the camera, but the camera is playing a big part in the problem here.
These shots have no depth, the 'noise' they do have looks too digital like from that of a point and shoot camera. Not to mention, I was thinking more along the lines of the shot being printed 14x10 or 8x10 -- whatever they're going to be submitting...the camera just isn't up to that end.
Had you read further in my post where I said Believe me, there's a place for your camera, but it is certainly not for the low-light shooting that you're doing or for submitting model photos to agencies and hoping for a response. you would realize that I said there is a place for the camera, it isn't good for shooting low light, or live model subjects. Maybe the place resides on the internet in 640 pixel size...I dunno, but either way, if you drive a Chevy Cavalier, don't race a dodge viper no matter if you are using mobil 1 oil or not.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2005 10:33:57 PM · #19 |
My opinion, for what it is worth:
WAY too little light. Sears sells for about $20 a nice 1000w halogen light. Your other problem is using flash and the halogen lights - they are different colors and will create a color cast you cannot remove, even if you WB first - different colors falling on different parts of ht ebody or BG will look different. You need to use all halogen or all flash (or flash and daylight).
get your model 5 feet from the BG, light the BG and subject sepertately, and use a fairly open aperture with about 100mm of zoom. you move the camera to compose the shot, not via zooming.
With an inexperienced model and you being inexperienced your only optinon is to work together until you have expereince. Once you have a vision of what you want, you need to be able to direct him to do it.
Man, this is making my upcoming pet photos seem easy...but now i'm more nervous than before! |
|
|
|
10/28/2005 11:15:48 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by deapee:
These shots have no depth, the 'noise' they do have looks too digital like from that of a point and shoot camera. Not to mention, I was thinking more along the lines of the shot being printed 14x10 or 8x10 -- whatever they're going to be submitting...the camera just isn't up to that end. |
Just for the record, I understand your concerns.
Also for the record, I've printed 8x10's from a 3.2mp camera and they look just fine.
another one for the record, I can read, and did read, your post. Just because I disagree does not mean I'm ignoring the finer points of your argument.
We all work with what we have. Telling someone outright that they just can't do it with their camera is pretty silly in light of people like JoeyLawrence having roamed the earth with a 1mp camera taking great shots, and proving that MP matters not at all.
I will say that you won't get any good quality prints above 8x10 with a 3.2mp, that's sort of a given.
edit - at 3.2 mp you can create 204ppi 8x10's, that's perfectly good quality for a simple set of poses and headshots to be sent to agencies.
Message edited by author 2005-10-28 23:23:09.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2005 11:39:50 PM · #21 |
[quote]Also for the record, I've printed 8x10's from a 3.2mp camera and they look just fine.[/quote]
For the record, most agencies want 14x10's.
[quote]
Telling someone outright that they just can't do it with their camera is pretty silly in light of people like JoeyLawrence having roamed the earth with a 1mp camera taking great shots, and proving that MP matters not at all.[/quote]
You're right in a sense. You see, on the internet, at 640 pixels at its longest, 1 MP or 20 MP, there isn't much of a difference (except that the 20MP will lose a lot of its sharpness and actually be at a disadvantage in that case).
And anyway...you're arguing with me for no reason here. Her gear simply isn't up to the task of creating professional quality results good enough to spark interest at a modeling agency. It's just not going to happen.
Whether you disagree with me or not doesn't change the fact that it's just not up to par. I'm very sorry that is the case. We all choose what we spend our money on. If you want to play with the big dogs, you gotta buy the right toys...otherwise, you're just in it for a hobby -- and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, believe me...but she wanted the truth, I told her, you disagree with me, you are wrong, I am right, that is that, and that will be the way it always is ... so accept it.
|
|
|
|
10/29/2005 12:18:21 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Whether you disagree with me or not doesn't change the fact that it's just not up to par. I'm very sorry that is the case. We all choose what we spend our money on. If you want to play with the big dogs, you gotta buy the right toys...otherwise, you're just in it for a hobby -- and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, believe me...but she wanted the truth, I told her, you disagree with me, you are wrong, I am right, that is that, and that will be the way it always is ... so accept it. |
Well, lets do some math 2048x1536 can do ~200ppi at 8x10 at ~150ppi at 14x10, while that's not the greatest, I'm sure it can get the point across. If you still think that makes you "right" go right ahead. It's only when trying to upsample that you might get some JEPG artifacts, and then Genuine Fractals can usually cover that.
It shouldn't matter what the silly pixel count is, if he has the fact they want, they be able to see it in the less than perfect 300ppi prints I'm sure.
So, if pixels are everything, does that mean that my camera is better than yours? Oh wait, if forgot, if I don't have ISO 1600, I'm not a real photographer. I think I'll go cry myself to sleep.
Get at canon 5d, nikon D2x, or canon 1dsmk2 and then maybe get some frickin tact. Oh, wait, you're not a real photographer because you don't have a Hassleblad with a PhaseOne p25 digital back. You must just be a hack pretending to be a photographer. Get over yourself and your camera.
|
|
|
|
10/29/2005 01:43:06 AM · #23 |
"Blunt" as deapee may be, in this case he is right. While you can use a 3.2mp camera to take decent photos to display on a website, you will never approximate the professionalism of a 6+ mp SLR or better. There is no substitute for quality lenses and lighting setup for photos that are intended to make careers.
I suspect any photo printed from that camera at 8x10 or above will suffer quality. I had a 3.2mp camera and never ventured past 4x6 as even at that size the digital nature was evident. If you are serious about turning pro, you will need to invest in some more serious hardware. Otherwise you take the chance of embarassing clients and yourself in the process.
Like you requested - no sugar... |
|
|
|
10/29/2005 01:45:56 AM · #24 |
WOW! What a turn this thread took! ANYHOO! The model does look a bit uncomfortable. You, as the photographer need to get him to relax and smile and find his own pose and look. You can set him up in certain ones, lots of great links to great shots but let him relax and find out who he is. Do you play music or anything while you're shooting? Give him a drink or something, but both of you need to smile, relax and just have fun with it!
I left comments on a few of the photos, they are a bit harsh but you asked us to be blunt. Get rid of the pink sheet and get a white one. I like the rumbled look on some of the shots but get him away from the totally black background, the top of his head disappears.
Good luck hun!
Deannda |
|
|
|
10/29/2005 02:05:05 AM · #25 |
I have to say I do not agree with the MP debate here. With proper exposure and no cropping a 3.2MP camera can make a much better photo than 4x6 as someone suggested. I have an incredible 8x10 which I made from my old Nikon 950, which was 2.1MP! There are some basic truth to the fact that larger MP = larger acceptable prints, however all the MP bashing in this thread is uncalled for and for the most part, wrong. Did she say that she is making 16x20 or even 11x14 prints from these? I must have missed that. :)
I do agree that there is work needed, see my comments on the pictures themselves. I would like to add that mixing your on camera flash with the hot lights is not a good idea, as the colour temps are totally different and if both types of lighting (your hot lights and your flash) are having an effect (and if they were not, why use both?) it will be impossible to have the picture appear natural in colour. Either it is balanced for daylight (flash) or for the hot lights, not both. My 2 cents.
Ernie |
|
