| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/04/2013 08:54:05 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by Aperture_Ready:
Originally posted by JulietNN:
Why not, only think I did with this was , resize, I thought it was pretty good
 |
But your the BOMB when it comes to portraits ;) |
Aw3 thanks hon, but this was done mid day sun, with a reflector pretending to be an umbrella over her head. Totally nothing special about it at all
|
|
|
|
03/04/2013 08:58:35 PM · #27 |
| I'm in. I have the perfect model for this one. |
|
|
|
03/04/2013 09:02:56 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Another example, from my own portfolio.
This was basic editing - which equates to "Could have happened in camera with the right settings".
Now, I do think this would have been much harder in minimal, but I think I could do it. (this time without the facial burns I hope) |
Spirit Gum Cory - Spirit Gum:-)
The idea sounds intriguing...and a challenge to get it right. But there are so many tools in camera and ways of lighting that it can be done. I'd be up to try.
Oh, and Cory, the earlier post with examples you can tell that a vignette was used. However one can easily get that same effect by putting some sheer black pantyhose around the lens with the center cut out. |
|
|
|
03/04/2013 09:25:04 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by CNovack:
Originally posted by Cory:
Another example, from my own portfolio.
This was basic editing - which equates to "Could have happened in camera with the right settings".
Now, I do think this would have been much harder in minimal, but I think I could do it. (this time without the facial burns I hope) |
Spirit Gum Cory - Spirit Gum:-)
The idea sounds intriguing...and a challenge to get it right. But there are so many tools in camera and ways of lighting that it can be done. I'd be up to try.
Oh, and Cory, the earlier post with examples you can tell that a vignette was used. However one can easily get that same effect by putting some sheer black pantyhose around the lens with the center cut out. |
Yep! or even a black bit of paper wrapped around the lens
or even a cardboard tube.. :)
Message edited by author 2013-03-04 21:26:25. |
|
|
|
03/05/2013 04:50:31 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
have fun making mediocre images. I'll be looking for somewhere else to play. |
I'm always a bit bemused by your insistence that it is post-processing that makes an image Mike. I mean, let's take a recent example from your portfolio...
This was your entry in the Best of 2012 so it's safe to assume you find it far from mediocre but i'm at a loss to see how your post-processing has raised it out of mediocrity. It's not like you are particularly heavy handed with processing anyway. I guess you might have softened the skin a touch or removed blemishes but overall i really can't see anything there that can't be done in minimal. Some nice light and suitable DOF and you're there. (oh, and i'm not saying i think your image is mediocre-just can't see why it can't be done in minimal)
Anyway, i'm all for a minimal portrait and think the ruleset is a very good fit. Unlike Mike i often go all out on processing a lot of the time but just as often a portrait is just right straight out of camera for me. Bring it on i say!
E.T.A - I thought i'd have a quick look and randomly pluck a portrait from one of the weddings i did last year that i was pretty much happy with straight out of camera...
So, this is the RAW image and whilst it is not the best of shots and is probably quite mediocre due to it being a bit uninteresting i'm pretty much happy with it straight out of camera technically. I think i only very slightly tweaked it before i sent the images to the couple. Others i played with a lot more. This being RAW it is a bit flat but in Minimal jpeg i can slightly improve on that in camera. I don't think a lot of post-processing would improve it that much.
Message edited by author 2013-03-05 05:14:23. |
|
|
|
03/05/2013 07:48:54 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by rooum:
Originally posted by mike_311:
have fun making mediocre images. I'll be looking for somewhere else to play. |
I'm always a bit bemused by your insistence that it is post-processing that makes an image Mike. I mean, let's take a recent example from your portfolio...
|
maybe I'll show you how flat and uninspiring the original is, oh and that image got panned.
this version is so much better, but since expert editing isn't allowed, i had to go with the dumbed down version.
//i1232.photobucket.com/albums/ff365/mike_311/Proofs/Matt%20and%20Kacy/IMG_4249-Edit.jpg
i just happen to have a few images in my workshop:
original:
processed:
original:
processed:
can you make a good image in minimal, sure, i just don't see the point in why one would try? with portraits you always want to get the best capture possible, post processing a portrait session is very tedious, especially as the models get older.
and Cory, yes there are some great examples you showed, but how many were minimal edited because the processing is very apparent and enhances the image. its not heavy handed but it is there.
good portrait photography requires some sort of processing because they get boring quick unless you can make the model look phenomenal or give the image a flair it wouldn't otherwise have. we see people, mundane ones, all the time. i particularly don't care to see them in my pictures as well. [/quote]
Message edited by author 2013-03-05 08:09:56. |
|
|
|
03/05/2013 07:58:47 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
i just happen to have two images in my workshop:
original:
processed:
|
Hum. You removed some skin 'blemishes' and umpa-lumpafied her. A lot more than i would have although it is a look and style i'm sure some couples are after. I generally would only remove spots and such not beauty spots and permanent features but that's just me. I really prefer your original here to be honest. |
|
|
|
03/05/2013 08:03:56 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
can yo make a good image in nominal, sure, i against just do see the point in why one would try? with portraits you always want to get the best capture possible, post processing a portrait session is very tedious, especially as the models get older.
any Cory, yes there are some great examples you showed, but how many were minimal edited, because the processing is very apparent and enhances the image. its not heavy handed but it is there.
good portrait photography requires some sort of processing, because they get boring quick unless you can make the model look phenomenal or give the image a flair it wouldn't otherwise have. we see people, mundane. i particularly don't care to see them in my pictures as well. |
Wow, have you been drinking bleach this morning? ;) Some impressive typos.
Jager shows us the mundane all the time - but in his hands it's wabi sabi.
The entire point of this is to encourage you to really stretch yourself in other ways, the restriction is actually beneficial, as it will make you work to overcome the limitation, and there really are ways to do this without post-processing the image beyond what the camera can do. You may not be able to do it, hell I may not be able to do it, but it IS possible. The entire point of this challenge would be to reward the players who really manage to achieve that level of raw technical skill that translates into amazing photos - directly from the camera. |
|
|
|
03/05/2013 08:04:36 AM · #34 |
I do prefer that version though. The flare does add to the image a lot.
Message edited by author 2013-03-05 08:05:37. |
|
|
|
03/05/2013 08:07:17 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by rooum:
umpa-lumpafied |
ROFL. It's funny because it's such a spot on description of the color.
Message edited by author 2013-03-05 08:08:38. |
|
|
|
03/05/2013 08:08:50 AM · #36 |
deleted
Message edited by author 2013-03-05 08:09:31. |
|
|
|
03/05/2013 08:09:39 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by rooum:
I do prefer that version though. The flare does add to the image a lot. |
I think I'm stealing that sometime. :) It looks awesome. |
|
|
|
03/05/2013 08:11:13 AM · #38 |
sorry about the typos, i fixed it.
i'll blame it on cold medicine.
|
|
|
|
03/05/2013 08:13:50 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
sorry about the typos, i fixed it.
i'll blame it on cold medicine. |
:) As long as you're not drinking bleach I'm satisfied. ;)
|
|
|
|
03/05/2013 08:15:56 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by rooum:
I do prefer that version though. The flare does add to the image a lot. |
I think I'm stealing that sometime. :) It looks awesome. |
the point, at least for me, is to make the image possible, even if ts not real. |
|
|
|
03/05/2013 08:17:03 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by mike_311:
sorry about the typos, i fixed it.
i'll blame it on cold medicine. |
:) As long as you're not drinking bleach I'm satisfied. ;) |
no bleach. but i swear if i get sick one more time this winter, i may give it a go. |
|
|
|
03/05/2013 08:17:35 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by rooum:
I do prefer that version though. The flare does add to the image a lot. |
I think I'm stealing that sometime. :) It looks awesome. |
the point, at least for me, is to make the image possible, even if ts not real. |
I'm sure you realize that this is easy enough to do with a flash behind the subject. |
|
|
|
03/05/2013 08:17:37 AM · #43 |
    
All straight out of the camera, only shot in raw so I couldn't use them. But a flip from RAW to JPEG makes them all legal. |
|
|
|
03/05/2013 08:26:45 AM · #44 |
Matt those are great, gorgeous lighting, but i think they would get panned in voting. there is nothing to make them stand out.
there are always a few images that rise above the other for some reason or another, a minimal edited portrait will require the photographer to exploit the lighting in a way to differentiate themselves.
|
|
|
|
03/05/2013 08:29:48 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by Cory:
I'm sure you realize that this is easy enough to do with a flash behind the subject. |
its much, much easier to do it in post. |
|
|
|
03/05/2013 08:32:22 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
a minimal edited portrait will require the photographer to exploit the lighting in a way to differentiate themselves. |
that's why it's called dp"challenge".com
if you don't want to challenge yourself in this way, don't. but don't complain multiple times "i'm not playing" "have fun creating mediocre images". why buzzkill repeatedly?
i suck minimal or processed, but it's fun to TRY the challenge even if i get nothing suitable for submission.
|
|
|
|
03/05/2013 08:34:10 AM · #47 |
Sometime it seems challenges like this come down to who ever has the best lights wins.
Any tips for a guy without lights or a studio? |
|
|
|
03/05/2013 08:38:29 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by nygold:
Sometime it seems challenges like this come down to who ever has the best lights wins.
Any tips for a guy without lights or a studio? |
Head out during the golden hour to a nice park. |
|
|
|
03/05/2013 08:43:16 AM · #49 |
|
|
|
03/05/2013 08:52:49 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by nygold:
Sometime it seems challenges like this come down to who ever has the best lights wins.
Any tips for a guy without lights or a studio? |
that would be your worst approach, IMO.
for this type of challenge, dynamic compelling lighting will be key. Mike's suggestion would be good. Don't shoot too close, as skin imperfections will likely detract from the image.
either shoot children or old people or blow out the face with flare :) or find someone with impeccable skin ( great makeup) and memorizing eyes since you wont be able to create that illusion yourself.
Message edited by author 2013-03-05 08:55:33. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/20/2024 04:39:48 AM EDT.
