# Amateur Models CC Please



## alannahrose (Jul 14, 2010)

These are two of five models that came in to model for my photography class.  They are sisters and they were very outgoing and really great at posing for having NO prior experience.  I had two lights on the background to blow it out and one huge soft box in front of them.  I wanted it to be high key.  I shot these at 100 ISO, F9 and 1/250.


----------



## shmne (Jul 14, 2010)

Just curious why the dark eyes? It kinda looks... ummm.... 

Not really a fan of these, very sharpened looking, the dark eyes are throwing me for a loop, the posing is not that flattering. I know they are not models but it is up to the photographer to make sure they are at least near the mark. 

For instance, the last one the sister on the right looks like her neck is snapped.


----------



## sovietdoc (Jul 14, 2010)

3rd and 4th shots show too much distortion.  Way too much actually.

Also, as the previous poster mentioned, these dark eyes don't really go well with the white setting.


----------



## tirediron (Jul 14, 2010)

Were you directing these models or were they doing "their own thing"?  

These aren't what I would really think of as high key; I think given the make-up and poses the lighting should have been rather more dramatic.  As-is, it's rather flat and not very exciting.  Great for a business portrait, but I think here one strobe as a backlight and a second as keylight with a snoot about 30-40 degrees image right/left would have given you some really contrasty shadows that would have been more in keeping with the make-up and expressions.  Good job nonetheless!!


----------



## flyingember (Jul 14, 2010)

three lights?  one front front and two behind at roughly 20-30 degrees?

if so, technically they're fine.  maybe a bit too sharp but that may just be the style


----------



## Derrel (Jul 14, 2010)

The dark undereye makeup on the young woman with the peach-colored top is really distracting...still, cute gals...the photos aren't quite doing them justice...


----------



## AlexL (Jul 14, 2010)

i think 1 and  2, 3 and 4 just feels weird.


----------



## IceEateer (Jul 14, 2010)

On your end, the images are focused and the lighting is good.  

It's the models.  Their makeup and clothing is weird.  Black eyes on white background isn't too bad.  They do that sometimes in "high fashion".  Their clothing combined with posture creates too many rolls around the stomach.  These are not fat girls!

Their body lines, arm lines, and hands aren't very appealing to the eye.  

Maybe less woulda been more.  Just shoot their faces or from torso up.


----------



## alannahrose (Jul 14, 2010)

These were supposed to be like high fashion and edgy.  

What kind of distortion?

They were doing their own thing and thanks for the advice.

The tops were already had roll like ruffles, so that plus the posing..

And everyone is commenting on the bad posing;  they were going for high fashion poses and yes, they were doing their own thing.

Thank you everyone for the CC!


----------



## kundalini (Jul 14, 2010)

I'll comment on things that I have been researching and concentrating on lately.  The more I read, the more often these fundamentals are overlooked or not understood.  Hell, I didn't know until recently as I am trying to do more 'people' shots.

#1 - Nice example of a full face mask.  I think either your camera position is slightly high or your model was lookig at you rather than the lens.  This is causing too much wjites of her eyes to be showing and not enough iris.  Her shoulder being rolled forward has caused several issues I think.  1) an imbalance in her stance 2) slouching posture 3) her shoulder being more prominent than her face and 4) a little extra tummy roll.  Her left hand and knee are even more prominent in their positions.  Lastly, the jewelry doesn't play well.

#2 - Very nice example of a 2/3rds and a profile mask in the same shot.  This would have given a nice interplay between them if only one was looking at the other.  I think you're getting some wrap around reflection off the background.  Did you use a flag or any other modifier?

#3 - Sorry, but this one doesn't work for me.  Girl on right doesn't have the right stuff to pull that pose off.... at least not in those shorts.  She looks very uncomfortable.  Girl on left, not so bad.  However there is a flash running across her chest.

#4 - Girl on left needs a cell phone in her hand.  Girl on right needs to be removed.


The background on all of them look bad with (guessing) clean up in post.  There is an awful lot of swoops and swirls and some color shift.

Sorry if that sounds negative, but it isn't in the overall.  Still nice shots.  Thanks for sharing.


----------



## Laika (Jul 14, 2010)

You cant really help with where the modeling went wrong. In general, the shots where the models are together, they are totally working against eachother. Rather than each adding to the image and making it work as one piece. This is especially so in shot number three.

I feel that the makeup and outfits would have gone better with a black background, because of how dramatic and dark it really is.

I really don't think you are to fault with how the models were though. The lighting looks pretty good at my first look. Keep working at it!


----------



## alannahrose (Jul 14, 2010)

On the background in post, I think I need to calibrate my monitor because it looks perfectly white, but on a different monitor I could see some spots where you could see where I dodged the background slightly.  I don't have the money to get a good calibrator right now, does anyone know anything else I can do to fix this problem? 

In the first image I did remove the other girl because they were in completely different poses.


----------



## Alpha (Jul 14, 2010)

The lighting and editing would be more suitable for a pinup-style shoot.

And they look like raccoons.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 14, 2010)

I just visited your blog! I think your best shot is on the blog, but was not included in this post. I thought the models interacted the best,and looked the best, in the photo found at this URL:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_8JqEc4rDQmk/TDvXykm7YTI/AAAAAAAAAkE/jbWWO8ilq20/s1600/HannahLauren3.jpg


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 14, 2010)

High key has nothing to do with exposure or lighting. It has to do with light-colored subject matter. A white picket fence is a high-key subject.


----------



## IlSan (Jul 14, 2010)

Are we talking high-key photography or High-End Fashion photography?

Just asking...


----------



## redtippmann (Jul 14, 2010)

Yeah if that background is white then you should  really think about getting a calibrator. I personally recommend the Spyder 3 Pro. Its a little much for something that you only use for editing photos but I think its a great thing and now I wont edit if I don't have it with me.


----------



## Alpha (Jul 14, 2010)

redtippmann said:


> Yeah if that background is white then you should  really think about getting a calibrator. I personally recommend the Spyder 3 Pro. Its a little much for something that you only use for editing photos but I think its a great thing and now I wont edit if I don't have it with me.



I think what you're trying to suggest is that they shoot with a color target or grey card. Monitor calibration has nothing to do with the actual shoot...


----------



## redtippmann (Jul 14, 2010)

Alpha said:


> redtippmann said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah if that background is white then you should  really think about getting a calibrator. I personally recommend the Spyder 3 Pro. Its a little much for something that you only use for editing photos but I think its a great thing and now I wont edit if I don't have it with me.
> ...



Well yes they could do that... but really if you take the photo into post you probably are going to mess with the background and pretty much everything else. And one should get a monitor calibrator if they are going to do any serious digital work. 

And I dont think a color card will do much good if the monitor your looking at is out of whack. But I'm probably wrong


----------



## alannahrose (Jul 15, 2010)

No, I agree with you.  I know I need to get one.  I just can't afford one right now. =(


----------



## Derrel (Jul 15, 2010)

How about adjusting the levels in PS,and using the white eyedropper on the background where it's supposed to be white??


----------



## skywalker (Jul 15, 2010)

personally speaking...i think they can be in better clothes....and the smoky eyes is really a problem...


----------



## sovietdoc (Jul 15, 2010)

> What kind of distortion?


It looks like the distortion you'd get on the edge of a super wide angle lens.  What lens did you use to shoot this?  If you had your 18-250 on and it was at 18mm, that would make sense.  On the 4rth pic, gal on the right has her face extended upwards.  Maybe I am just seeing things and it's the hair style that's doing it wrong...  Or on the 3rd pic, the gal on the right, proportions of her head vs legs.  Just looks like it was shot with a wide angle lens too up close, so at the edges it's all stretched out.


----------



## shmne (Jul 15, 2010)

As far as the white background having some color distortion, you should  always use the info window and check your colors. A good white shouldn't  have too much blue, red, green if in rgb or cyan, magenta, yellow, and  black in cmyk. 

 I've never had color problems due to monitor calibration because I know  more or less the amount of each value that should be in the color. At  least ball park. 

 As far as the models being the reason the posing is bad, I'm sorry but  that is up to the photographer. You need to be watching things like the  neck wrinkling going on in image #4. It is you who is directing the  models, a good model can take that direction and make it better. A bad  model can at least understand what you are trying to tell them.

The problem I am having with the black eyes is that a good smoky eye is  not solid black. Even when the desired effect is black eyes, it will be  graduated from very dark center eye to dark gray outer eye. A quick  smudge removing some of the black on the eyes would have added texture.

I can't tell if the white background isn't being blown because the  settings on your lights are off, or if it is because of the processing  done but either way the white only really hits pure white in the third and fourth images. I have a feeling it is the processing being done.

I agree with Derrel, the best one was not posted. Here the image works much better however it still has the un-pure white background. 

Just keep a sharp eye the next time you do something like this, watch for unflattering poses, eyes not popping how they should be, a smudgy background, and most of all have fun. The more fun you have and the more you get your models into it the better shots you'll get.

Sorry if any of this was a bit harsh, I promise I don't mean any of it maliciously.


----------



## DerekSalem (Jul 15, 2010)

I don't mean to insult the girls or your photography in this comment...but they kind of look like hookers in the way they were shot. The photography itself is fantastic -- great composition and fantastic exposure...but the models (their makeup and stances) make them look like they're in a prostitution advertisement.

I'd suggest making up the poses in your head before giving them ideas on what to do. Most of the time when models decide to do their own thing it doesn't come out how you expect.


----------



## flyingember (Jul 15, 2010)

DerekSalem said:


> I don't mean to insult the girls or your photography in this comment...but they kind of look like hookers in the way they were shot. The photography itself is fantastic -- great composition and fantastic exposure...but the models (their makeup and stances) make them look like they're in a prostitution advertisement.
> 
> I'd suggest making up the poses in your head before giving them ideas on what to do. Most of the time when models decide to do their own thing it doesn't come out how you expect.



I could say the same thing about many formal clothes modeling sessions.  It's rather juvenile to say it, though.


----------



## Bryce (Jul 15, 2010)

I felt the girls did not go with the clothes. The eyes were more goth yet they were not in goth wear. The girl on the right is more muscular wide than the other and throws off the balance of the two. I think a more feminine look for these with a gentle makeup that almost looks like they have none on and bring out the soft blond features a little better. A softer look instead of an oversharp over contrast look. I don't know much about photography but this is what I think I am seeing.


----------



## the01artist (Aug 10, 2011)

I am aware that this might be a little late in posting this but I just wanted to know when you take photos, do you set up a shot? I take photos for my artwork and the type you use for photos are totaly different that print from time to time. The top model has a little potential but the zombie make up has to go. Also what is it saying in the photo? What is the model trying to convey when you look at her? She should want you to come to her or maybe she wants you to know she is coming after you. But she has no emotional content. Most models do not know how to look when in front of the camera. They do a fairly nice pose and all  but the face looks the same in all of the photos. They smile too much or not enough. Not all good looking women look good on film. Plus the first girl needs stiletto heels to bring out the shape of her legs. Now I am not a great photographer by any meens but I can take a photo good enough to do a great pinup drawing from. No offence with my comment. I get that from time to time with my artwork as well and I love the comments as it helps my work get better.


----------



## e.rose (Aug 10, 2011)

the01artist said:


> I am aware that this might be a little late in posting this but I just wanted to know ...



A LITTLE late?

Dude... this thread is *over* a year old...

I don't even think this person posts here anymore...


----------



## warakawa (Aug 11, 2011)

very nice pictures.


----------



## KmH (Aug 11, 2011)

Jeez! On page one I was thinking - This looks familiar.  :er:


----------



## MSnowy (Aug 11, 2011)

e.rose said:


> the01artist said:
> 
> 
> > I am aware that this might be a little late in posting this but I just wanted to know ...
> ...



Who cares what you think. 

This is new member who was searching the forum (which everyone here  should do before they ask a question) and found something that  interested them enough to comment on. 						

Welcome the01artist


----------



## e.rose (Aug 11, 2011)

MSnowy said:


> e.rose said:
> 
> 
> > the01artist said:
> ...



EXCEPT... he wasn't *asking* a question... he was giving critique on a thread that's over a year old to someone who isn't here anymore...

Are you on your man period today?

Actually never mind... cause I don't really give a sh*t either way. :greenpbl:


----------



## cameleon (Aug 11, 2011)

e.rose said:
			
		

> A LITTLE late?
> 
> Dude... this thread is *over* a year old...
> 
> I don't even think this person posts here anymore...



lol@e.rose. 

I was seriously going to comment too... but realized the date.. lol.


----------

