| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/07/2004 10:13:27 PM · #1 |
Here's the latest set. My engagement session fell through until the middle of next week.
Thanks for you comments.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Kev
|
|
|
|
05/07/2004 10:18:17 PM · #2 |
The'yre very nice Kevin. Poses and composition in each case are very good.
The one thing that strikes me is that most have stronger backlight than light on the model, and I think the ones where she has some direct light look best. The bottom one, for example, is very nice, except in that case the light is so strong she is squinting (though the exposure is good).
The fifth one down also has nice light.
I think an assistant with a reflector would have helped, or even some well-tempered fill flash.
|
|
|
|
05/07/2004 10:22:23 PM · #3 |
man, where do you guys get models from? I'm looking for models and cant find any lol. Probably cause I cant pay them :-X
|
|
|
|
05/07/2004 10:23:23 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by jmlelii:
man, where do you guys get models from? I'm looking for models and cant find any lol. Probably cause I cant pay them :-X |
LOL callmenette works for free!
|
|
|
|
05/07/2004 10:24:21 PM · #5 |
yeah too bad its on the other side of the country!
|
|
|
|
05/07/2004 10:24:58 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by jmlelii:
man, where do you guys get models from? I'm looking for models and cant find any lol. Probably cause I cant pay them :-X |
One Model Place
|
|
|
|
05/07/2004 10:25:12 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by KevinRiggs:
Here's the latest set. My engagement session fell through until the middle of next week.
Thanks for you comments.
|
Kevin, great pics, great shoot, greater model! But are you using fill flash or reflectors? These might help especially when the models are backlit.
I like #6 best, the light is well balanced, there is a catch light in the eyes. #7- I'd remove the sand on her thigh. In #9 the model needs to be moved out of the sun, she's squinting.
Message edited by author 2004-05-07 22:29:40.
|
|
|
|
05/07/2004 10:37:57 PM · #8 |
I don't think the poses are as natural and good as the one's I've seen you do, but the only one I really don't care for is #3.
I like #9 the best as far as the look of the model, but I would crop it at about half way up the bust line....sorry, but the breasts just look like they're ready to fall out there (which may be the idea?) I like the face in that one and would emphasize it a little more by cutting down on "distractions." I also liked 1, 6 and 7. |
|
|
|
05/07/2004 10:43:22 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by cbeller:
Originally posted by jmlelii:
man, where do you guys get models from? I'm looking for models and cant find any lol. Probably cause I cant pay them :-X |
One Model Place |
THanks for the link.
|
|
|
|
05/07/2004 10:43:33 PM · #10 |
| Classic swimsuit shots. Thanks! I needed that. The lighting is ok for the most part, but #5 it's really distracting. 7 & 9 are my favorites. 7 has even lighting, nice pose, and killer smile. 9, she looks more natural and less posed. good shots. |
|
|
|
05/07/2004 11:30:16 PM · #11 |
one word: 
Sweet shots. Nice work. Keep it up.
|
|
|
|
05/08/2004 12:34:42 PM · #12 |
Wow Kevin... great shots!
4, 6, 8 and 9 are my faves, but I love #4.
Keep up the great work!
P.S. What lens(es) were you using? Would it be too much trouble to include the lens, shutter speed, aperture, focal length and flash info when you post shots like this? I find that kind of detail very helpful as a "learn by example" type exercise...
Message edited by author 2004-05-08 12:35:39. |
|
|
|
05/08/2004 12:38:47 PM · #13 |
not to be disrespectful, but dayum nice rack.
|
|
|
|
05/08/2004 12:40:35 PM · #14 |
P.S. I like no. 1 and 4 the best. Thanks for sharing.
Originally posted by Jacko:
not to be disrespectful, but dayum nice rack. |
|
|
|
|
05/08/2004 12:55:56 PM · #15 |
| I really like 2 and 4, but they are all scrumptious. |
|
|
|
05/08/2004 01:01:05 PM · #16 |
You know you are a total photo-geek when you try to figure out the lighting by looking at female curves, instead of just looking. :)
Could you give a total beginner in model shooting some tips? Are you using flash and light reflectors?
|
|
|
|
05/08/2004 01:08:34 PM · #17 |
What lighting :P
Originally posted by jonr:
You know you are a total photo-geek when you try to figure out the lighting by looking at female curves, instead of just looking. :)
Could you give a total beginner in model shooting some tips? Are you using flash and light reflectors? |
|
|
|
|
05/08/2004 01:14:00 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Jacko:
What lighting :P
Originally posted by jonr:
You know you are a total photo-geek when you try to figure out the lighting by looking at female curves, instead of just looking. :)
Could you give a total beginner in model shooting some tips? Are you using flash and light reflectors? |
|
Headlights on highbeam. ;)
All great shots Kev. Like the poses on 1. and 4. through 9. the best though.
Message edited by author 2004-05-08 13:19:09.
|
|
|
|
05/08/2004 02:07:19 PM · #19 |
Thanks for the feedback folks.
Eddy, I updated all the photos except one with the data (tho I think its similar to the one right after it).
Obviously a beautiful subject can help a photo to be more pleasing to the eye but I am starting to think that I'm getting a little better handle on composition (although the background we had for a beach shoot totally blew). This model on an oceanfront beach would be spectacular IMO.
Jon, I am a total beginner. Well, OK, I've shot with models for a little less than a year now. The first thing I can say is be calm and relaxed. That's A+ number 1 priority. Don't just act slick; be calm; enjoy the process of learning. Maybe this is just a hangup I have but I always want to produce high quality work the instant I put my mind to something and as with most things this just isn't reality. If it gives you any idea about what I'm talking about, we shot 771 photos and I posted 9 (I think). Maybe she'll like the other 762 of them but I selected the ones I thought were worthy of your alls' time, edited them a little and posted them. When I first started this, I got antsy because every shot wasn't "a keeper" and I felt like I'd let the model down. Now I know that I have a niche or at least I'm developing my own style and it isn't going to happen overnight.
'Nuff of the personal approach. What do I use? Canon 10D with either EF 17-40 f/4 L, EF 50 f/1.8 or EF 70-200 f/2.8 L IS. I have a Newton flash bracket Di-400CR with a Canon 550EX flash mounted on it. I have a 48" reflector but I don't have a stand to help hold it and I seldom use it since I have no assistant. I'm rapidly starting to feel that I could produce truly better shots if I took the plunge and paid someone to come along on the shoot just to help me by holding the reflector. Honestly I was embarrassed to ask anyone for the longest time because I felt like what I produced wasn't worth their time to come along. Now I feel like I'm starting to develop some visual style to my shots and I think that someone to help put the right light on the subject would really raise the quality of my work. Obviously the guys I work around comment about going with me to be the "lighting guy" when I come back with a set of shots. While its fun to make Monty Python jokes ("Nudge, nudge. A nods as good as a wink to a blind bat, eh?") this isn't where I'm trying to take my photography. I really want to get into engagement and family portraits to make a little more money on the side for my hobby and I'm worried that the atmosphere that might be produced by some people who want to be assistants might not be conducive to getting a professional type shoot.
I shoot everything out-of-doors and I'm just now trying to get my skintones consistent and you can see the problems I have with lighting models. Anyway, my wife and I have been talking about converting my library into a studio so I can pickup some lights and start dabbling in indoor portraiture; if that happens I'll hopefully post more often.
Don't know what of any of this rambling might be helpful but thanks for asking and I'd say you'll get all kinds of advice. I've shot tens of thousands of photos of 20-30 different models over the last year and I'm really now just starting to branch out into edgier types of photography (see below)
Kev
|
|
|
|
05/08/2004 02:34:43 PM · #20 |
Okay, looking at them and looking at your other model shots before I said anything, these are great shots but number 5 and number 6 the posing looks very odd to me for some reason. Number 6, I think it's the angle of the shot, there is something about it that makes her shoulders almost look like they are disjointed, just off.
Number 5 is the placement of the right arm, the way her hand disappears behind her head is also a bit off to me for some reason, can't quite explain why.
Just my opinion mind you, hope it helps, she's a lovely model and you did a great job!
Deannda |
|
|
|
05/08/2004 02:51:17 PM · #21 |
Kevin: thanks for posting the technical details! No surprise that some of my faves were shot with the 70-200/2.8L IS!  You're lucky that your wife supports you photographing beautiful scantily-clad models... by yourself. I'm not sure how my wife would react if I said I was heading off to the beach to do that. 
I was a little surprised to see the 17-40 in there. I just got the Canon 16-35 a month or so ago so I'd have something "wide". Although I can definitely see it being useful for landscapes, I tried it at a wedding reception last night and pretty much didn't like it at all. I wanted to try getting some "photojournalistic" style shots (I had visions in my head of a bunch of candid B&W's), and a lot of photogs recommended the wider focal length for this situation. Maybe I just need to use it more, but I did not like at all how close I had to get to the subject! I switched back to the 70-200 "drain pipe" so I could "snipe" candids from further away, and later, the 50/1.4 to try some "available light" shots wide-open at ISO 1600...
Message edited by author 2004-05-08 14:57:11. |
|
|
|
05/08/2004 03:34:37 PM · #22 |
Eddy,
Yeah, I got the 17-40 in hopes of shooting some outdoor wedding shots. Still think it'll be useful for that but until I put that plan into effect I have been trying to warm up to this lens. I'm very partial to the 70-200. I love how it renders people in its range. I love the bokeh. Heck, I just love how my work looks better when I shoot with it. The 17-40 . . . uhhh, well, its nice. I am finding more of a niche for it. The alley shot I posted as a thumb earlier and then some others from that photoshoot turned out to be a great lesson in how to utilize the wide angle lens in outdoor lighting. The contrast and sharpness that the lens provides were enough for me to finally be glad that I sunk the money into it. I am pining for the 24-70 f/2.8 L lens, tho. Of course, I'm also looking to either get the 1DmII or the successor to the 1Ds (as I don't shoot too much sports). I'm hoping for a sub-$10K 16+mp with the DigicII processor, 45 AF zones and eye control.
I think that for the wide end, I may end up going with primes instead of zooms. I like the quality of the output from the 17-40 but its just too slow; the 16-35 just doesn't seem to impress me enough to get the extra cash I'd need to make the move from the 17-40 up to the 16-35. What's a boy to do?
Kev
|
|
|
|
05/08/2004 04:01:15 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by KevinRiggs:
I think that for the wide end, I may end up going with primes instead of zooms. |
Well if you do get the 1Ds successor, you'll be smart to go with primes to get the best image quality. Already, I've read that the 1Ds can reveal resolution limitations of even Canon's best lenses. To compensate, a number of photogs use Zeiss Distagon T* lenses with a special lens-mount adapter on their 1Ds for wide-angle stuff (see this link for some references). Everything is absolutely full manual in that situation, and you have to use stop-down metering because of that, but the folks swear by the quality of the Zeiss optics that the 1Ds seems to "demand". Just something to keep in mind in the "megapixel wars"... =]
Message edited by author 2004-05-08 16:01:55. |
|
|
|
05/08/2004 07:44:32 PM · #24 |
1 and 9 are clearly the best, as they have been viewed the most :-)
Myself included!!! |
|
|
|
05/08/2004 07:58:09 PM · #25 |
No offense here (doint this to be constructive) but I look at the shots and, to be honest, feel that they're pretty dull as far as composition and lighting go. All of them are taken at a fairly straight-on, head height perspective. You won't notice it if you're not studying it, but typically fashion stuff is shot either above or below head height. It's also shot on an angle a lot of times, in that the horizon won't be level. You've done this on one shot so I'm sure you're aware. If you take a look at advertisement and glamour photography these days, they all have punch in one way or another - saturated colour or black and white, or nice off-camera fill flash with darker backgrounds, or a combination. You have a pretty model but I think need to get a bit more creative with your positioning and lighting. I'd start by getting some sort of a system of firing your flash off-camera and getting more dramatic with the lighting and your perspective. I'd also play with levels and saturation for a bit more punch.
Message edited by author 2004-05-08 20:00:03. |
|
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: 09/09/2025 06:56:52 PM EDT.
You're lucky that your wife supports you photographing beautiful scantily-clad models... by yourself. I'm not sure how my wife would react if I said I was heading off to the beach to do that. 
