# First attempt at Self-Portrait looky looky :)



## eravedesigns (Jan 15, 2008)

Here is my first self-portrait..some intial comments i have gotten is the feeling of it is dark and scary but thats what I was shooting for.


----------



## shorty6049 (Jan 15, 2008)

you may want to post a slightly smaller version... some of our screens arent quite big enough to see the whole thing at once. but as i already told you, it looks good!


----------



## eravedesigns (Jan 15, 2008)

I think thats better now (resized)


----------



## eravedesigns (Jan 16, 2008)

commetns plzz I hate how if you dont have a catchy thread names you dont get replies haha.


----------



## shorty6049 (Jan 16, 2008)

you're preaching to the choir my friend!


----------



## Peanuts (Jan 16, 2008)

Creating any new thread is a game of roulette on whether you get comments or not so don't take it personally.

My initial thought was "oh man, fungi!"  I love all of your processing EXCEPT the kind of greeny-blue hue between the deep shadows and the lit part of your face.  My eyes kind of get stuck there.  Otherwise looks good and very 'creepy'


----------



## jsmharley (Jan 16, 2008)

To get lots of comments and folks looking at you pic, you need to put something about porn in the title, seems to work for some here LOL


----------



## shorty6049 (Jan 16, 2008)

worked for me... but then theres the shame...


----------



## LaFoto (Jan 16, 2008)

I'm with Brittany on this one: I do like how you make your eyes shine, and I like the harsh shadows, but I am not fond of the colouring of your skin, least of all where light meets shadow. "Funghi" is a nice word ... "mildew/mould" springs to mind, too.


----------



## The Phototron (Jan 17, 2008)

Nice cross-processing. Reminds me of x-files, except where are the aliens?


----------



## JCleveland (Jan 17, 2008)

I really like where the light hits your face and neck, I don't mind the alternative colouring; what I'm not favouring is the white background.. I think it would be a little more intriguing with a black\darker background. Normally I like white but it's just not working for me?


----------



## Emerana (Jan 17, 2008)

You could be the official photographer to serial killers 
Its nice...scary but nice


----------



## eravedesigns (Jan 17, 2008)

haha your comments make me laugh because my self-portrait seems to scare most poeple I show it to.



JCleveland said:


> I really like where the light hits your face and neck, I don't mind the alternative colouring; what I'm not favouring is the white background.. I think it would be a little more intriguing with a black\darker background. Normally I like white but it's just not working for me?



Hey if I could afford another $50 roll of black or gray paper I would buy it ...I think for what I had it worked out well but thanks for the suggestion.


----------



## shorty6049 (Jan 17, 2008)

gray and black paper are just differently lit pieces of white paper....  for a shot like this, you dont really even need paper in my opinion, shoot in front of a dark room or something ... if you want. lol

now go by that a700!


----------



## eravedesigns (Jan 17, 2008)

It is extremely hard to make a white backdrop black in my opinion especially when you are using stobes. I can see that if your in your bathroom with the lights off and u shoot some light at you face you might get that effect. 

I was intially trying to do a business portrait of myself but it changed directions lol


----------



## shorty6049 (Jan 17, 2008)

it wasnt in the bathroom, it was a dark bedroom behind me, but yeah, white reflects all light, so dont use the backdrop if you want black. honestly i think black would be a  bad choice, but maybe somewhere in between. if you werent shooting a strobe straight at the backdrop, i'd think you could definately make that non-white. Just snoot your strobe or something


----------



## bapp (Jan 17, 2008)

Technically nice, good tonal range and lighting but your expression... where is it? Personally I like to see some emotion in a portrait, feels very human robotic almost!


----------



## eravedesigns (Jan 19, 2008)

shorty6049 said:


> it wasnt in the bathroom, it was a dark bedroom behind me, but yeah, white reflects all light, so dont use the backdrop if you want black. honestly i think black would be a  bad choice, but maybe somewhere in between. if you werent shooting a strobe straight at the backdrop, i'd think you could definately make that non-white. Just snoot your strobe or something



Using a snoot would not give me the same look as the lighitng setup I used. I used a lighting technique called Rembrandt Light that with a snoot would be much more difficult. If I really wanted an off white background I woudlnt half ass it but I would go out and spend the money. I used what I had at the time and wasnt extremely focused on my backdrop. A snoot would also give a more uneven lit backdrop. I also wasnt shooting a strobe straight at the backdrop...I used one light that was aimed at me.


----------



## Alpha (Jan 19, 2008)

Sorry to say I don't find it very creepy, just emotionless.


----------



## Trenton Romulox (Jan 19, 2008)

MaxBloom said:


> Sorry to say I don't find it very creepy, just emotionless.



At some level isn't emotionlessness creepy? 

But we're not gonna turn this thread into a discussion about emotions and emotionless and either or both of those things being creepy HAHA.

I like this shot a lot. It's a very serious pose, and I feel that it works well with the post-processing. It's well-lit in my opinion, I really like the deep shadows, because, it works well with the pose. Top-notch work.


----------



## eravedesigns (Jan 19, 2008)

Thanks ^ 

I am really loving the studio and it helps to have one in your basement hehe


----------



## Alpha (Jan 19, 2008)

Trenton Romulox said:


> At some level isn't emotionlessness creepy?
> 
> But we're not gonna turn this thread into a discussion about emotions and emotionless and either or both of those things being creepy HAHA.



Whoa there, cowboy. You can't just start a discussion like that and then proclaim that there's not going to be one. 

At some level, yes. In this case, no, I don't particularly think so. It doesn't appear emotionless in a sociopathic way, just generally emotionless, i.e. bland and unsubstantive.


----------



## eravedesigns (Jan 19, 2008)

Is emotionless bad in this photo? Welll what im asking maxbloom is do you think that its a bad photo because its emotionless or atleast my expression is?


----------



## Alpha (Jan 19, 2008)

eravedesigns said:


> Is emotionless bad in this photo? Welll what im asking maxbloom is do you think that its a bad photo because its emotionless or atleast my expression is?



Yes and No. I don't think it's a bad photo. But I don't think you really hit your mark.


----------



## eravedesigns (Jan 19, 2008)

k just trying to clear things up with your opinion. Thanks


----------



## Alpha (Jan 19, 2008)

Sorry if I was being vague.


----------



## shorty6049 (Jan 20, 2008)

eravedesigns said:


> Using a snoot would not give me the same look as the lighitng setup I used. I used a lighting technique called Rembrandt Light that with a snoot would be much more difficult. If I really wanted an off white background I woudlnt half ass it but I would go out and spend the money. I used what I had at the time and wasnt extremely focused on my backdrop. A snoot would also give a more uneven lit backdrop. I also wasnt shooting a strobe straight at the backdrop...I used one light that was aimed at me.


 

so you're telling me you would go spend 50 dollars on a roll of paper for a self portrait? We all make sacrifices... heck, I've used a desk lamp as a strobe, 8.5X11 paper for a backdrop and another piece as a reflector for a photo I did and it looks just as good as you'd get with professional equipment (at least i got exactly what i wanted out of the shot)  
you dont always need the biggest and best stuff . God knows I make do with what i have all the time. Think outside the box phil


----------



## Alpha (Jan 20, 2008)

shorty6049 said:


> so you're telling me you would go spend 50 dollars on a roll of paper for a self portrait? We all make sacrifices... heck, I've used a desk lamp as a strobe, 8.5X11 paper for a backdrop and another piece as a reflector for a photo I did and it looks just as good as you'd get with professional equipment (at least i got exactly what i wanted out of the shot)
> you dont always need the biggest and best stuff . God knows I make do with what i have all the time. Think outside the box phil



People invent. And they make do with what they've got. But don't forget that understanding the capabilities and limitations of your equipment are one in the same. Be a master of your domain but have no illusions about what you are and are not capable of producing.


----------



## eravedesigns (Jan 20, 2008)

MaxBloom said:


> People invent. And they make do with what they've got. But don't forget that understanding the capabilities and limitations of your equipment are one in the same. Be a master of your domain but have no illusions about what you are and are not capable of producing.



Pretty well put and I would love to see that photo unibomber that you claim is just like mine done with the equipment you said you used.

And btw I think outside of the box with what I have but I still prefer professional equipment over junk in my house that I dont have the same capabilites with. And just so you know I did in the past use halogens that I got at Home depot but have now upgraded and I never got the same quality photos or control of my lighting.

Professional equipment wouldnt exist if your homemade equipment did the job just as well.


----------



## shorty6049 (Jan 20, 2008)

i dont know who this "unibomber" fellow you speak of is... ;-) 
people like you are the REASON professional equipment exists though. People got sick of using what they had lying around so they invented specialized tools for each task that did them more efficiently and sometimes better than things they had around the house. I'm not saying what i do is BETTER, i'm saying its just a lot cheaper, and that you dont need to go drop 50 dollars every time you want your background to be a different color (although you can, nobody's stopping you) . I didnt say i did a picture LIKE yours with my stuff, i said it was as good as "you'd" (meaning everyone, not just you personally) get with pro equipment. the photo was from my fruitography project i did a while back-
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a296/shorty6049/tastyorange-1.jpg

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a296/shorty6049/DSCF0143.jpg

by the way. why arent you online anymore???


----------



## eravedesigns (Jan 20, 2008)

shorty6049 said:


> i dont know who this "unibomber" fellow you speak of is... ;-)
> people like you are the REASON professional equipment exists though. People got sick of using what they had lying around so they invented specialized tools for each task that did them more efficiently and sometimes better than things they had around the house. I'm not saying what i do is BETTER, i'm saying its just a lot cheaper, and that you dont need to go drop 50 dollars every time you want your background to be a different color (although you can, nobody's stopping you) . I didnt say i did a picture LIKE yours with my stuff, i said it was as good as "you'd" (meaning everyone, not just you personally) get with pro equipment. the photo was from my fruitography project i did a while back-
> http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a296/shorty6049/tastyorange-1.jpg
> 
> ...



You still dont have any control over the intensity of the light...well if you built some kind of variable resistor you could but Im pretty sure you dont have that. Professional equipment allows you to not only have the control you may need to adjust the intensity of light but also if you are using more than 1 light you can have control over ratios. Yes you may be able to pull off a studio like shot but in my opinion your orange has to harsh of a shadow which if you had more control over your light would have helped decrese that (or you could have been aiming for that harsh shadow).


----------



## eravedesigns (Jan 20, 2008)

It really depends on what type of shot you are tryign to get and the quality of shot you want. I have professional equipment because I want to eventually get the best shots I can and have them the most professional I can. I have no idea how we went from paper color to lights but besides all of that as long as your happy with your end result and peopels opinions of it agree that its a professional image it shouldnt matter.


----------



## shorty6049 (Jan 20, 2008)

thats what i'm sayin yo!


----------



## Alpha (Jan 21, 2008)

eravedesigns said:


> You still dont have any control over the intensity of the light...



Of course he does. Modifiers do exactly the same thing to continuous light that they do to strobe light. In this case, aiming the light through a scrim or some other diffusion modifier would work perfectly fine to soften the intensity. No, it's not as easily variable as adjusting the power output of the light, but in principle it accomplishes the same thing.


----------



## eravedesigns (Jan 21, 2008)

MaxBloom said:


> Of course he does. Modifiers do exactly the same thing to continuous light that they do to strobe light. In this case, aiming the light through a scrim or some other diffusion modifier would work perfectly fine to soften the intensity. No, it's not as easily variable as adjusting the power output of the light, but in principle it accomplishes the same thing.



Im talking percisly like variable...plus a diffuser would just soften the light and dim it instead of being able to just dim the light without softening it with more professional equipment.


----------

