# Today's Impromptu Portraits!



## dpolston (Dec 21, 2007)

Okay... I get this phone call from one on my closest friends and she starts off by the "How you doing... blah, blah, blah." and chit-chat begins. 3 minutes into the conversation she said that she was at the local park looking for a place to set up a tripod for family portraits and then she's headed to Wal-Mart with the flash card.

OMG! I stop her, grab my bag and head out to the park for a 3:30 pm, extremely overcast, windy and cold, kids shivering session. I shot the family, then the 3 kids together and started individuals and when each is done, I shuffle them to the car. 3:45... we're outta there.

Here are some of the shots. I have already edited one set of these at her house on my "super slow" laptop and they look good. These are my empty house all alone edits. Before the discussion begins (and C&C are always welcome), I have aged the photos like this on purpose because I like the underexposed yet blown blacks look in this, my ever growing style.

Knock yourselves out!


----------



## Allsmiles7282 (Dec 21, 2007)

I cant see them.


----------



## dpolston (Dec 21, 2007)

I freakin hate this thing. Everytime I post from the photoforum! I'm going to link them to my blog... hang a sec.


----------



## dpolston (Dec 21, 2007)

<humphhh>

Okay, follow this link please. 

http://davidpolston.blogspot.com/2007/12/impromptu-photo-session.html

I do not understand why as a subscriber, I can not upload a photo to my attachments folder, open the file, copy the link, post the photo and I can see them but no one else can freakin' photos without attaching the little files like I have to do on my other posts!

freakin' irritating!


----------



## Allsmiles7282 (Dec 21, 2007)

Yea, I don't know what to tell you about the posting issue, write and admin and ask them, I can see why you are frustrated.

I like the idea and the locations of the photos.  The highlights in the skin look a little blown to me, but that treatment you gave them kinda makes that okay.  They almost have a vintage feel to them. The shots look very natural and fun, which is always a plus.

I'm not really into that much vignetting but I think that is a matter of style and I know you dig it, so cool.  

Overall, I really like them! Good Job.


----------



## dpolston (Dec 21, 2007)

Thanks! I know that our styles are almost polar opposites but to be honest, yours is an opinion that I cherish. I have done some homework on quite a few of the photographers here and even though you get some heat for it sometime [your opinion, business practices, critiques etc.], you have the portfolio, reputation and income that backs up your work. I take your opinions to heart.

Thanks.


----------



## Garbz (Dec 21, 2007)

I'm normally into the vignetting but it is waaaaay overdone to the point where it started distracting from the subject as well. Selective darkening of the background with the vignetting would have been my personal choice. No idea what happened on the second one in post you look like you got antivignetting (not a real word) in the middle of the image and that's just weird. 

The photos and poses are great, I like the reduced saturation but the vignetting kills them IMHO.


----------



## JimmyJaceyMom (Dec 21, 2007)

On my monitor the second one down of the girl, her face is sort of shaded over or something.  I don't know at first I thought I had a spot on my monitor so i scrolled up and down but the spot remained on her face, it's sort of small to see though.
These are very nice.


----------



## dpolston (Dec 21, 2007)

Garbz said:


> antivignetting



I'm gonna have to look that up!   =o)

Thanks for the opinion. I do appreciate it. I think the vignyetting is heavier than I usually do but I did this for 2 reasons (BTW: I have read countless posts as of late for people defending their work to the point of getting aggravated to the one giving the c&c. This is _NOT _one of those replies! I'm not trying to change anyones opinion of my work... this is simply a "what I was thinking" editorial):

First, the sky was _very _overcast and looked blank against the portraits, so I wanted to kill as much sky as I could. And because I pumped the blacks so much to get that vintage color appearance, I needed to jack up my vignette too.

Second: The first shot has the round ring in it that holds my ring light flash and I didn't want to loose the composition because of the black ring. I thought I'd disguise the lens ring with a vignette, which is something I do anyway. I think that sort-of frames the photo which in this case is round. 

Because of these black halo's I've been getting lately (the ring light thing), I am definitely buying myself a wide angle asap! I feel like a kid that's learning to ride a bike!


----------



## dpolston (Dec 21, 2007)

JimmyJaceyMom said:


> On my monitor the second one down of the girl, her face is sort of shaded over or something.



I know why. I over dodged the face which was really blown! (I have to do that tonight!


----------



## chrisb2794 (Dec 22, 2007)

This doesn't have anything to do with your post, but I read through your "about me" on your website and found a few spelling errors and some basic grammatical errors. I just thought I would let you know because I would want someone to do the same to me. I love the layout of your website. Who designed it?


----------



## dpolston (Dec 22, 2007)

chrisb2794 said:


> This doesn't have anything to do with your post, but I read through your "about me" on your website and found a few spelling errors and some basic grammatical errors. I just thought I would let you know because I would want someone to do the same to me. I love the layout of your website. Who designed it?



Thanks... I am aware of the errors. I bought the template from a company online. I think it was flashtemplates.com (or something like that) for $55.00. I gave the file to my guru and he worked his magic on it and used a combination of flash and old school code. I am a flash/web building idiot. We have just sent that site live and frankly, I haven't even finished paying him to build it. We are getting together after the holidays to go over all of the little bugs. 

Thanks again for the heads up. I'm embarrassed to say that I know... <sigh>.

baby steps


----------



## emogirl (Dec 23, 2007)

i'm not of fan of strong vignette or vintage..however, i think these work together wonderfully on these shots!  particularly like the 3rd shot!  they all have a nice artistic quality to them and they would have been boring in plain colour or b&w, given the weather and overall dreariness of the day....this works really well.


----------



## dpolston (Dec 23, 2007)

Thanks Kim.... and everyone else. I'm glad you liked the shots (posing and composition wise). I know opinions vary in the post processing, but I still appreciate all of the input. 

Art is subjective... but it still feels good when people don't think it sucks!  =o)


----------



## Alpha (Dec 23, 2007)

The exposure and composition appear to be good at first glance, but the processing has sucked all the detail out of the highlights and overly flattened the images. The histograms confirm that there is little to no detail in the mid-tone to highlight range. This is particularly problematic because your meter is placing the exposure of Caucasian skin in the 15-18% gray range, precisely where you need detail. Further, the heavy vignetting creates the illusion of your highlights being even brighter than they actually are, which doesn't help when they're already too bright to begin with.


----------



## sirsteezo (Dec 23, 2007)

I like the pictures.

where in our area did you take these pictures?


----------



## dpolston (Dec 23, 2007)

MaxBloom said:


> The exposure and composition appear to be good at first glance, but the processing has sucked all the detail out of the highlights and overly flattened the images. The histograms confirm that there is little to no detail in the mid-tone to highlight range. This is particularly problematic because your meter is placing the exposure of Caucasian skin in the 15-18% gray range, precisely where you need detail. Further, the heavy vignetting creates the illusion of your highlights being even brighter than they actually are, which doesn't help when they're already too bright to begin with.



Hi Max... So, you didn't like them? (that was a joke, BTW). I'm not surprised in the histogram at all. Pretty much everything about this photo session was doomed to start with. I didn't WB the camera and I used 2 flashes, one ring light on camera and a SB-800 off to the right. This was a rushed photo session if there ever was one. But, for what it was (and is) they were at least viewable without people running to the restroom to vomit. 

I am going to reshoot them in the spring. Thanks for the comments! Love ya bud.

Sirsteezo: They are at Portsmouth City Park by the small craft boat ramp. (I grew up in P-Town, which is where my friend lives.)


----------



## Alpha (Dec 24, 2007)

I don't know what they're "doomed." Are the highlights really that blown in RAW?


----------



## dpolston (Dec 25, 2007)

These are the original files... no processing at all (other than resizing them to 4x6's 120 dpi) I didn't shoot RAW. I shot around 6 megapix. (It was on medium resolution because I know I wasn't going larger than an 11x14). The 200 maxes out around 10 megpxl.


----------



## Alpha (Dec 25, 2007)

I don't mean any offense, but you really ought to re-think parts of your processing workflow. There is more than enough detail to work with there, and thus no reason that they should be so blown out in the final images. I think it's definitely possible for you to achieve the sort of look you're going for without adversely affecting the tone range/contrast.


----------



## dpolston (Dec 25, 2007)

I don't take offense at all. I was going for that particular look for my personal reasons. The processing I did for the mom (my friend) was over the top conservative. If you put up the 2 images side by side, you (Max) would have picked the other one. I did this to the extreme on purpose for my own taste. I would never go that far to sell the thing [prints].


----------



## jsmharley (Dec 25, 2007)

Shots are cool, was looking at them and was like wow, I know that place. We live just a few blocks from it ( in Simonsdale area) and kids play there all the time. Small world.


----------



## Alpha (Dec 25, 2007)

dpolston said:


> I don't take offense at all. I was going for that particular look for my personal reasons. The processing I did for the mom (my friend) was over the top conservative. If you put up the 2 images side by side, you (Max) would have picked the other one. I did this to the extreme on purpose for my own taste. I would never go that far to sell the thing [prints].



I understand you've got your "personal reasons." More power to ya. I am curious, though, as to what you feel the aesthetic appeal of pulling out all the skin detail is.


----------



## elsaspet (Dec 26, 2007)

Too much vignette for me, but I love everything else.
Sweet!


----------



## dpolston (Dec 26, 2007)

MaxBloom said:


> I understand you've got your "personal reasons." More power to ya. I am curious, though, as to what you feel the aesthetic appeal of pulling out all the skin detail is.



Well it's pretty easy here... I like the look on this set for what it is. I would love to use this technique on a model that is older and perhaps could feel comfortable being way more seductive. To me, it's a look that I'd see in a pictorial if shot of a freak show or it's very "rock star".

Images are Kat Von D and Marylin Manson





I am using a trial version of Lightroom and one of the custom settings is aged photo which fades a photo to a degree. I would think that the first thing to go is the lighter areas in this case is the face. This is more exaggerated in the shot of the girl because of her skin tone and the heavy makeup she had on. The exception to the blown out look was the boy sitting on the rail by himself. I think that one looks the most even in the tones. 

I'll get the shots I did for the mom posted later today (they are still on my laptop). I really what you to see that the detail isn't where I would like it to be (because of the dismal day) but my personal taste and what I produce for my clients are sometimes different.

By the way, I see where you are coming form in these critiques. I really do agree with you on the technical things. I have just adapted "art" over "technique" on this set. 

Have a good day at work!


----------



## dpolston (Dec 26, 2007)

jsmharley said:


> Shots are cool, was looking at them and was like wow, I know that place. We live just a few blocks from it (in Simonsdale area) and kids play there all the time. Small world.



It is a small world!

Cindy... Thanks. New avatar I see. Cool.  =o)


----------



## elsaspet (Dec 26, 2007)

Hey David, who took that photo of Kat?  I've seen it around the web a few times.
Both are Killer!
Thanks on the new avatar.  I felt like being funky.


----------



## dpolston (Dec 26, 2007)

elsaspet said:


> Hey David, who took that photo of Kat?



It's funny that you mentioned that because I don't know either. I google searched it (Kat Von D image) and lifted this one from some guys blog. I can't find it either. If you find out, let me know too! (It's probably a production shot taken during the video promo's for LA Ink)


----------



## elsaspet (Dec 26, 2007)

Sergio maybe?  I know it's someone I know.  I'll see if I can't find out.
I love it though.


----------



## pm63 (Dec 27, 2007)

They are great photos, but IMO you have overkilled the black corners effect, the whole photo is too bogged down with darkness. Maybe lighten that effect a bit?


----------



## dpolston (Dec 27, 2007)

Thanks everybody for the input. The consensus is that I have overdone the vignetting... I can live with that. I am very, _very _happy that the core of the photo (the composition - which I think is the most important) was accepted as shot well.


----------



## wildmaven (Dec 27, 2007)

dpolston said:


> Thanks everybody for the input. The consensus is that I have overdone the vignetting... I can live with that. I am very, _very _happy that the core of the photo (the composition - which I think is the most important) was accepted as shot well.


 
Plus, we got to see a picture of Kat, which is always welcome in my book! :thumbup:


----------



## dpolston (Dec 27, 2007)

wildmaven said:


> Plus, we got to see a picture of Kat, which is always welcome in my book! :thumbup:



Me too... omg! There are sooo many opposites of livestyles from me and Kat... but omg! She does it for me. 

<hummm> new thread idea!  "People you'd like to photograph if given a chance."


----------

