# Girls and Guns



## Nwcid (Feb 4, 2020)

***Edit***  Sorry, I posted these and then had a long commute and have been extremely busy at work.  I have seen most of the posts now and I will respond to them individually as soon as I can.  I did not intend to get "political", this is just a basic way of life here.  I have had amazing positive feedback on these style of images whenever I share socially.  ***

I got some new lighting equipment over the holidays and had not had a chance to practice with any of it. 

Morgan was awesome enough to come out to the studio and help me practice.  After that we did some shots for here in exchange for her time.

These are 4 of my favorite shots from the session.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 4, 2020)

A little more shadow detail would be welcome. #3 is the brightest and, I think, the best.


----------



## JBPhotog (Feb 4, 2020)

^^Agreed^^

Skin tones look a bit muddy, unless of course that was the intention, #4 maybe a gridded head on her face could bring her up?

As for the firearm content, I have no issues with guns but do have a few observations:
Photo #2, she's gonna have a hard time getting a sight picture with the scope covers in place.
Photo #3, safety selector is set to Fire on the AR, that's a no no in my book.


----------



## Donde (Feb 4, 2020)

Looks like a killer for sure.


----------



## Original katomi (Feb 5, 2020)

B hell when you do a photo #shoot#.....


----------



## Soocom1 (Feb 5, 2020)

On the photos....
I am not sure to ask..
guns? there are guns?

or...

Girl? There was a girl?




Seriously.
The criticism I do have is that the shirt causes the guns to meld into the photo. The Galil for sure on that point. The AR and suppressors look ok, and would work if there was a lighter background.

The sunglasses are back lit and you can see here eyes witch is a bit distracting. But the nickle plated 1911 looks good and without scratches.

A bit of lighting on the right side (observer view) might have helped pump it up a bit.

I like what I see overall and the weapons are clean without scuffing.


----------



## tirediron (Feb 5, 2020)

Okay folks - you know if this applies to you!  This thread is for the discussion of the PHOTOGRAPHS posted in the OP.  Please keep your personal views regarding firearms to yourself.


----------



## terri (Feb 5, 2020)

A reminder, from the TPF rules on posting:

_* While images containing firearms depicted for the sake of art are permitted, discussion of firearms and related politics is not. Like politics and religion, it is another hot button topic that can lead to inflammatory discussion. Such discussion posts will be removed by the moderating team._


----------



## Donde (Feb 5, 2020)

I don't mind the darkness of 1, 2, and 4. I think it contributes to their "noire"quality. I know I'm outspoken on this but I've never liked images of people in sunglasses other than in fashion shots.


----------



## AlanKlein (Feb 5, 2020)

I know it';s a safety issue.  But they would be more dramatic if she had her finger on the trigger.  It would look like she's ready for business. She doesn;t have a natural stance in pictures 2 and 4.  They look staged like she was handed the gun and told to look like she's firing them.    Nice shots overall.


----------



## tirediron (Feb 5, 2020)

AlanKlein said:


> I know it';s a safety issue.  But they would be more dramatic if she had her finger on the trigger.  It would look like she's ready for business. She doesn;t have a natural stance in pictures 2 and 4.  They look staged like she was handed the gun and told to look like she's firing them.    Nice shots overall.


This!  I was trying to figure out what was niggling me about this set.


----------



## Soocom1 (Feb 5, 2020)

Tells me she was taught correctly! 
IMO from a certain standpoint I am actually relieved she has her finger on the housing.


----------



## Overread (Feb 5, 2020)

A few thoughts

1) Lint roller on the black top - Photo 3 for certain, but it likely shows in bigger sizes on all. You might also use "noise removal - dust and scratches" as that might help take out some of the white specks (and would be more time efficient than the spot heal and clone tools). It's not a huge thing, but the overall look from the photos is of very "clean" posing rather than, say, "in the heat of the moment/action". So I think that goes better with less dust showing on her top.

2) There's a passive air to her stance and dress and face. This is neither a positive nor a negative, simply my impression of her poses and facial features, her body language. If you were going for more "girl poses with guns" in a calm manner then you've nailed it. If you were after a hint of "realism" or energy etc.... then you've missed the mark. Again I'm not saying this is right nor wrong; good nor bad, just my impression. 

3) I think the last photo might have a touch too much work done on her face. She's looking a little "doll like". However that could be the size of the photo (internet can sometimes make a well done smoothing look a little too strong when the shot is resized to a much smaller web friendly size). It could also be nothing to do with work on the face in editing and could be a product of the way the light is falling on her face.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 5, 2020)

Upon closer inspection I did see the white pils and lint in her blouse...a styling detail to pay attention to,otherwise, just maybe .3 to .5 EV more in the way of fill for my taste would have been better.


----------



## Nwcid (Feb 5, 2020)

Derrel said:


> A little more shadow detail would be welcome. #3 is the brightest and, I think, the best.



In #2 and #4 the faces were defiantly darker then I would have liked.  In #4 I let the blue gel leak too much onto the left side of her face.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 5, 2020)

You might reconsider cropping number four to make it a vertical.


----------



## Nwcid (Feb 5, 2020)

JBPhotog said:


> ^^Agreed^^
> 
> Skin tones look a bit muddy, unless of course that was the intention, #4 maybe a gridded head on her face could bring her up?
> 
> ...



As I replied to Derrel, In #2 and #4 the faces were defiantly darker then I would have liked. In #4 I let the blue gel leak too much onto the left side of her face.  Things to work on next time. 

I caught the scope caps when I was processing. Funny thing is I was making fun of the same thing in a movie the night before.  With that said, I was spending a lot of time working with her to get into a proper stance.  Heavy firearm and a small girl, but after some practice she pulled it off. 

As to the safety selector I have to strongly disagree.  On an AR there are 2 appropriately safe conditions.  First (as pictured) is with the hammer down, or uncocked, or with the safety on.  There is no way to put an uncocked AR into the safe position.  I would argue the hammer down position is safer as there is absolutely no way for it to fire/AD/ND.  The same can be said for many firearms and the 1911 is another classic example of either hammer down/no safe, or cocked and safe.


----------



## Nwcid (Feb 5, 2020)

Original katomi said:


> B hell when you do a photo #shoot#.....



Once it warms up might be time for an outdoor shoot(s).  However if you follow my FB page, I did a recent post of the local high school trap team shooting in the snow a couple weeks ago.


----------



## Nwcid (Feb 5, 2020)

Soocom1 said:


> On the photos....
> I am not sure to ask..
> guns? there are guns?
> 
> ...




Well the initial response had the intended effect then.   

I was trying to find a happy balance between emphasis on the guns vs the girl.  I did not want to "over light" one or the other.  

Nice thought about the Galil, however it is not.  It is a Tromix 12ga shotgun with HK sights and Galil charging handle.  

Apparently you did not look well at the AR in pic #1 and #2 or the 1911 and silencer.  They are all very well used.  The silencer has tons of abrasions on it and the AR is caked with dirt.  I just used an air compressor to blow it off before the shoot, it spends a lot of time riding around on the front of the ATV.  While I do not "abuse" my stuff, it gets used.


----------



## Nwcid (Feb 5, 2020)

Donde said:


> I don't mind the darkness of 1, 2, and 4. I think it contributes to their "noire"quality. I know I'm outspoken on this but I've never liked images of people in sunglasses other than in fashion shots.



Thank you.

#3 was totally going the "Terminator" style.  I got a little too much light in behind the glasses though.


----------



## Nwcid (Feb 5, 2020)

AlanKlein said:


> I know it';s a safety issue.  But they would be more dramatic if she had her finger on the trigger.  It would look like she's ready for business. She doesn;t have a natural stance in pictures 2 and 4.  They look staged like she was handed the gun and told to look like she's firing them.    Nice shots overall.



I am going to have to totally disagree with you about the trigger finger.  Unless you are actually firing, you finger should be "indexed" as it is in the images.  In these poses she is preparing to shoot, taking a stance, aiming, and only when you are ready to fire does the finger go in the trigger guard.  Even for competition shooters when they are not actively shooting, they are indexed. 

On the flip side when actually shooting it should look like the image I am attaching to this.

In picture 2 we were still working on her stance a little.  It is a heavy rifle for a person of her strength and stature.  In #4 that shotgun is much lighter and she was able to hold it properly with a proper stance.  This is what it looks like just prior to firing.


----------



## JBPhotog (Feb 6, 2020)

Nwcid said:


> As to the safety selector I have to strongly disagree. On an AR there are 2 appropriately safe conditions. First (as pictured) is with the hammer down, or uncocked, or with the safety on. There is no way to put an uncocked AR into the safe position. I would argue the hammer down position is safer as there is absolutely no way for it to fire/AD/ND. The same can be said for many firearms and the 1911 is another classic example of either hammer down/no safe, or cocked and safe.



However, from the photograph how is the viewer to know;
a) if the hammer is down
b) the chamber is empty
c) the magazine is empty
Not knowing any of the above means the firearm is in an unsafe condition. An AR can not fire if the safety is on regardless of what state the chamber is in.


----------



## terri (Feb 6, 2020)

No more discussion about the guns, folks.  

The only thing that is permitted here are the technical aspects of the shoot, as it pertains to lighting, skin tones, etc.

There will be no debating this.   We're getting some pushback on this thread, so we're asking for full cooperation on this point. 

Thanks.


----------



## Nwcid (Feb 6, 2020)

terri said:


> No more discussion about the guns, folks.
> 
> The only thing that is permitted here are the technical aspects of the shoot, as it pertains to lighting, skin tones, etc.
> 
> ...



As the OP, if I get an opinion, I agree that some of the original comments were subjective and "politically" based and should not be allowed.  

If you are referring to some of the current conversations I believe they are important technical details about an image.  Getting things right such as scope caps, finger placements, safe handling, ect can easily make or break an image.  These same kind of details could be added to any other style of sport or action photography.  

Was there something out side of the current comments that happened?


----------



## terri (Feb 6, 2020)

You don't get a say by virtue of being the OP; I'm sorry.   It's not up for debate; it's the call of the moderating team.   

Stick to the technical discussions as laid out.   Any discussions outside of this may of course be done via PM.


----------

