| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/14/2006 02:56:00 AM · #26 |
I like the noise especially since it's b/w. Personally, what I'd like to see is the lighting more even. In other words take the original and adjust down the lighting on your hip which is the brightest part. In your alternative version that area looks better, IMO.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2006 07:04:26 AM · #27 |
Sorry, I tried but I wasn't able to even out the skin tones without either loosing detail by shadows darkening too much or by the larger problem of pixelation. I'm too sleepy to continue with any hope of progress, but I'll look at it again tomorrow if your still interested in it.
Truthfully though, the best that could be done with the image is to reshoot it. The pose is fine and the interplay of shadow and light is great, but it's just too underexposed. A large north-facing window would work great -- but anything to get another couple of stops of light (at least) would improve it. I realize you are wanting the image dark, but darkening the shadows to remove detail is far easier than trying to work around detail that just isn't there.
Hope that's not too harsh, it is a good image for web viewing (and might print well, I know nothing about that) -- your score and new personal best prove that. But the problems you ran into (and I as well) are the result of underexposure and I don't think anything but exposing it better is going to make it look like you want it to.
Like I said, I'll look at it again later -- it could just be the lack of sleep that isn't able to work with it. :P
David
|
|
|
|
06/14/2006 07:37:35 PM · #28 |
Thank you David, and no you couldn't be too harsh in critiquing my stuff; I really appreciate the input
as for retaking the photo, yeah I know, I am just too lazy though, ha! it would be so much easier if I had a model or a huge wall sized mirror (to get the pose and lighting right), and then another thing to get the focus where it needs to be and make sure I'm actually in the frame, I'm such an amateur at this stuff (for the time being of course)
I appreciate your time in trying to fix it, I'm not completely unsatisfied with what I've come up with, I'm still excited that the pics are coming out somewhat like what I thought in my head, (see my portfolio for examples of stuff I did when all I knew was aim and click)
I guess I will just have to have it printed and see what it looks like.
Thank you guys! you are all so helpful to me whenever I have questions, I'm throwing you a BBQ, now you just have to find your way here (on the same day that is) |
|
|
|
06/15/2006 12:49:58 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by DAWAR:
Send me the original one at bl_dawar@hotmail.com
I will correct it and send it to you at the earliest.The day has started here. |
hey thanx, I'm going to have to try to reproduce that, and see what I come up with. The only thing is that the shadows have a bit of splotchy stuff still that I could heal out... I like the brightness though, what was it that you did? |
|
|
|
06/15/2006 11:54:14 PM · #30 |
I'm no expert, but I was once thanked by sharing my opinion to Petter Hegre, a fine-art photographer hegre-art.com.
I agree with most, it is somewhat of a personal preference and taste.
The less brighter one has more smoother skin. Erotic-art photography seems to always work well if there is that hidden element, not revealing *everything*. But IMHO, only if it is done in a natural way. I personally don\'t like ones where the model is too overtly and *intentionally*, hiding areas, or is missing body parts, or un-natural un-relaxed poses.
One part important part is the eyes, the rest of the face can be partialy hidden by a veil, scarf, feathers, snake, artist\'s pallete, or even a folk guitar.
Compositionally, I would like to see all of the extra space in front of the person. That may be done in Photoshop. Maybe use some ice cubes on the right nipple to enlarge it. I would like the "highlight" to shine up to and including the right nipple. Just a slight counter-clockwise twist at the waist would do that. A spray of water and/or oil, brings about a whole new f/x.
If you'r the photographer and model, you may need the remote-controlled electronic tri-pod (just kidding). Or a live-preview via camcorder hooked up to a small TV. This can be like stop-motion video. A black fixed bar (tri-pod or clamped), touching a (washable marker) dot on the right-hip, to "mark" the position to hold. And maybe outline your "dance-steps" with duct-tape on the floor.
|
|
|
|
06/16/2006 12:12:31 AM · #31 |
hrmm...how you doin? No, I'm just kidding...sorry for my unhelpful reply though.
|
|
|
|
06/16/2006 01:49:54 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by deapee:
hrmm...how you doin? No, I'm just kidding...sorry for my unhelpful reply though. |
hahahaa... sorry for your unhelpful reply? made me giggle (the part where you said sorry) |
|
|
|
06/16/2006 01:55:54 AM · #33 |
| I am sure you have got the Final image after correction! |
|
|
|
06/16/2006 02:39:47 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by DAWAR:
I am sure you have got the Final image after correction! |
yes, thank you, I sent you a PM also... |
|
|
|
06/16/2006 03:21:24 AM · #35 |
| ...if I said you had a beautiful body, would you hold it against me.. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/03/2025 12:39:02 PM EDT.
