# Finally a real photoshoot with the girlfriend and my car :) C&C please



## shortpballer (Sep 7, 2009)

So we finally got out today and did some real shooting with my lights.  Let me know what you guys think.  And what I can do to improve.  This pictures were supposed to be more on the glamour side then on the portrait side.  

#1





#2




#3




#4




#5


----------



## camz (Sep 7, 2009)

#1: I think the background is distracting and doesn't really do much for the shot. Her feet are cut off as well.

#2: You're getting barrel distortion and it's making her head look bigger then normal. I would've had her lean back more.

#3: This one is my favorite alghouth there's a lens flare across her face and her foot is cut off. This shot reminds me of a up and coming bay area photographer - probably one of the best strobists guys I know off. Check him out Ed Pingol. I would personally just clone out the stands too.

#4: Light stand sticking out her head and also down on the buttom right. You can clone this out easy but pretty good shot.

#5: This is a very sensual pose. This will catch alot of attention if your trying to sell something(very revealing). Try working with her hands a bit more. Try having her turn her hand to the side. Her left hand on this one seems a bit unatural b/c her pinky and pointer are folded. On her right hand I would've personally had her put it down her right knee sideways to the camera.

Pretty good for your first real shoot. Glad to hear that you have a girlfriend that's willing to pose for you while earn those stripes :thumbup:


----------



## thenikonguy (Sep 7, 2009)

nice car!


----------



## Tee_bird (Sep 7, 2009)

Your girlfriend is gorgeous, and if that's your car... WOW!

To me, the white balance looks a little cool in them all.


----------



## ANDS! (Sep 7, 2009)

Gotta work on that composition mate.  Also, you want to work on light placement.  Just firing the lights off barebulbed is fine and dandy - but its not the best way to incoprate lens flaring into your shots, and as you can see its a quick and easy way to get unwanted hot spots.

Have a gander at some of those DVD's I mentioned in your other thread.  This DVD by Joe McNally and Bob Krist is a steal at 30 bucks.


----------



## JIP (Sep 7, 2009)

Overall they are not bad but you have to put that 17 away for the portraits.  If you stick that lens in someones face it is going to distort her features and look weird.  I would back off and use that 70-200 you have you can get the same effect with it but with less distortion.


----------



## manaheim (Sep 7, 2009)

Nice... um... car.

*cough*


----------



## shortpballer (Sep 7, 2009)

Tee_bird said:


> Your girlfriend is gorgeous, and if that's your car... WOW!
> 
> To me, the white balance looks a little cool in them all.



Thank you  Yes its my car.  I actually messed up the front lip on the way to do the photoshoot.  I was really upset.  Damn San Diego roads....


----------



## DScience (Sep 7, 2009)

this is funny.


Out of curiosity, if you have the money, obviously, why are you using a 20D?


----------



## Derrel (Sep 7, 2009)

Well, No. 1 and 2. are almost but no cigar. On 1 you cut off her feet, on 2 her head is foreshortening and looks as big as her entire hips and pelvis area. #3 is a good pose, but you cut off her foot,and I'm not sure how I like the strobes being visible in the shot. I'd have to say no cigar on 3 as well.

#4,with her seated in the car gets a small,domestic cigar; the light stand foot at LRC and her hand cropped off at URC earn you the domestic cigar,not the Cuban.

#5. Probably the best shot. If her hand were to be positioned a little bit better, it'd be almost a pro-quality shot. Her makeup and expression look good,and she is shown large.

On #1 and #2, the background is really distracting from the main subject; if you would have shot those two from farther away,with a longer focal length setting, and using even a tiny bit of on-camera or on-axis flash, it would have made the background focus drop off more, and would have eliminated the foreshortening, which exaggerates the size of her head,and a bit of flash would have added some sparkle to her eyes. I mention the foreshortening because in #4, it WORKS FOR YOU, by making her legs appear longer. Short focal length settings used in-close can cause apparent perspective distortion, and on 1 and 2 it doesn't look good, but on 4 it works okay.

Numbers 4 and 5 have the best lighting. Nice car, even nicer girl.


----------



## camz (Sep 8, 2009)

DScience said:


> this is funny.
> 
> 
> Out of curiosity, if you have the money, obviously, why are you using a 20D?


 
Hey I use a 20D, what's wrong with that?


----------



## shortpballer (Sep 8, 2009)

DScience said:


> this is funny.
> 
> 
> Out of curiosity, if you have the money, obviously, why are you using a 20D?



Why not? it does what I need for now.  And I am in mad debt to that car.  Which surprisingly costs FAR less than all you think.  I'm just a smart shopper.  I paid 300 for my 20d.  You can expect just the same for my car.


----------



## Tee_bird (Sep 8, 2009)

shortpballer said:


> DScience said:
> 
> 
> > this is funny.
> ...


Kudos to you for that.  I know far too many people who blow all their money instantly and don't take the time to shop around.

I am curious where you find such deals.  I suck at it. XD


----------



## manaheim (Sep 8, 2009)

That car is way cheaper than most people expect.  Problem is it's NOT something you can drive in inclimate weather... not even CLOSE.  So it winds up being EFFECTIVELY a pricey toy, but only because it is only a toy.


----------



## fiveoboy01 (Sep 8, 2009)

Yeah I was looking at used Elises, they are suprisingly affordable.  Maybe in a couple years...

I can't add to what anyone else said...  BUT, I would ditch the nose ring.  JMO.

Your subject is damn good looking(and I ain't talkin about the car).


----------



## kundalini (Sep 8, 2009)

I can't offer anymore suggestions than Derrel has over the past few threads you've started on technique.  I guess the only thing is for you to soak in the information.

Just wanted to point out a few things on my mind.  

First, next time you go out for a shoot, leave the 17-55mm lens at home - don't even think about bringing it.  The wide end is making your GF cartooninsh and very unflattering.  The 50mm & 70-200mm is all you need.  

Second, until you really get a handle on lighting, forget the lens flares.  That techinque of controlling them will come once you understand how to properly light the scene.  

Third, get a tripod.  Why?  It will slow you down and make you concentrate on the shot, look through the viewfinder and make an assesment of the entire scene BEFORE you trip the shutter.  This goes along with some of the things I see with this set that (I don't think) have been mentioned.  Is that some paper in the forward center console on #4?  If it is, it should've been removed, if not it looks like it and should be cloned out because it looks like it.  The hand brake, OMG, is very disconcerting, PARTICULARLY in #4, but also annoying in #5.

You have made some good improvements, but more is to be had.  Good luck.


----------



## inTempus (Sep 8, 2009)

The lights in the background are distracting and I'm not sure why you always do that.  You can get hair lighting and rim lighting without sticking unsightly lights/stands in the frame.  You also have light stands appearing in the frame even on your tighter shots (#4).


----------



## dl4449 (Sep 8, 2009)

Also you might want to clone out the light stand in #4
troy


----------



## KmH (Sep 8, 2009)

Racoon eyes.


----------



## shortpballer (Sep 8, 2009)

I have tried cloning out the lightstand in #4.  However it never comes out.  THe gradient on the ground makes it hard for me.  Am I doing something wrong? is there a better way to do it?  I have only been doing photoshop for about a month now. so... any help would be great


----------



## manaheim (Sep 8, 2009)

I get the impression the way they are telling you to "do it" is not to have the lightstands there at all.  The lights are distracting and the stands, of course, look like light stands.


----------



## Restomage (Sep 8, 2009)

Nice Lotus.


----------



## Misfitlimp (Sep 8, 2009)




----------



## Misfitlimp (Sep 8, 2009)

That was about 10 minutes. Its not the best but its possible.


----------



## kundalini (Sep 8, 2009)

Well, I spent a little longer than Mrsfitlimp. I also removed the stand's reflection on the lower panel, the rubbish in the center console, the hand brake that looked like a penis and the green flare on the wall. I started to roll down the passenger side window, but then just could be bothered. That's something you should have noticed before taking the shot.


..........................................Original...................................................................................................Edit..................................








Although I got sloppy at the stipe on the ground, any difference, any better?


----------



## RussJasper (Sep 8, 2009)

4 and 5 are great. love the composition and lighting. 

beautiful girl and super fun car. well done to you, sir! :thumbup:


----------



## annamel (Sep 8, 2009)

I think they look great. I am no expert . Like the car. Did some work on Elans and eroupa elites many years back.


----------



## Stormin (Sep 8, 2009)

Next time just have the car in gear and leave the handbrake off. 

The pics do look good though.


----------



## manaheim (Sep 8, 2009)

lol Kundalini.  Nice work!


----------



## Goontz (Sep 8, 2009)

kundalini said:


> ...the hand brake that looked like a penis...



Quoted for hilarity.


----------



## kundalini (Sep 8, 2009)

^^ :lmao: 

Once I noticed it, I couldn't get it out of my head. It was the proverbial 800lb gorilla.


----------



## jsoeung (Sep 9, 2009)

sick sick car man
I'm really diggin the last photo too ! Great photo shoot! 
I gotta take one soon


----------



## shortpballer (Sep 10, 2009)

Thanks everyone for the comments and all the help.  I feel that the learning process is going by 10 times faster with all you guys and gals helping out.

Just want to say thanks again everyone 

Eric


----------



## pharmakon (Sep 10, 2009)

I think anything I could see to critique has already been said, so I'll just chime in with the favs. I like #4 best (as the consensus seems to be), also #1 is good, but I would like to see that one with some other background (say the beach or a distant cityscape <-- if that's a real word) and also the (hot) subject looks a bit dark, but then again I'm at work on what might be the first Dell ever to roll off the production line, so it might just be my monitor.


----------



## SherryJ23 (Sep 11, 2009)

The best modeling photos are the ones where you get angles with legs and arms.  For example, Photo 4, the arm that is holding the steering wheel is much more powerful and engaging because it creates angles.

Photo 5 is probably the best, but it would have worked better if the legs were to the side somehow, so you can see some length on the legs.  The hand, like others said, could be positioned to have more grace to the fingers. 

Good work!


----------



## manaheim (Sep 11, 2009)

Ok, this donatello guy has gone from like 19 posts to 130 in a couple hours, and all his posts are just utterly meaningless or causing issues.  I'm going to complain about it to the mods.


----------



## shed301 (Sep 11, 2009)

donatello said:


> sex



use your hand


----------



## chammer (Sep 11, 2009)

lol


----------



## BKMOOD (Sep 12, 2009)

This may sound like an odd comment but I&#8217;m really not sure what you&#8217;re taking a picture of here. I don&#8217;t get a sense of visual priority. The background (which is kinda busy) is just as clear as the foreground. As a result, my eyes are jumping all over the place. End result: I just kinda shrug and wonder what&#8217;s the point. Why am I looking at this?  Yeah, the girl looks nice. Yeah, the car looks nice. But I just kinda shrug.


----------



## camz (Sep 12, 2009)

BKMOOD said:


> I just kinda shrug and wonder whats the point...


 
I think the OP mentioned the objective in the beginning of the thread.


----------



## itsanaddiction (Sep 12, 2009)

please watch your poses and composition! your girlfriend is gorgeous but looks so awkward in some of them!


----------



## obey (Sep 13, 2009)

2zz-ge! Awesome. I know that cant be your DD though.


----------



## shortpballer (Sep 13, 2009)

obey said:


> 2zz-ge! Awesome. I know that cant be your DD though.



OH its definitely my daily driver   How could it not be.  Its way too fun


----------



## obey (Sep 13, 2009)

I know Lotus's interior's are just so minimal because of course there not built for comfort or luxury, but to **** all over other cars at the track.


----------



## DennyCrane (Sep 13, 2009)

shortpballer said:


>


The light here kind of bothered me. It might be my monitor, but her hair seems to just fuse into the back of the seat area. I think (and I'm by no means any kind of editing expert), there's a little too much contrast here. While, a detailed shot, sometimes you want a little softer appearance with skin tones.
Maybe this?


----------



## NateWagner (Sep 13, 2009)

hmm, is your monitor calibrated? cause that last edit looks quite cloudy and overly brightened, as though you got rid of all the contrast in the image and just flattened it out. I personally like the original version quite a bit better.


----------



## Error (Sep 13, 2009)

I think you need to fix your monitor Denny  it looks like foggy in my side while I'm using my Samsung 26" 720p as a monitor.


----------



## DennyCrane (Sep 13, 2009)

I have no doubts that 
a) my monitor is horrible and
b) I'm completely inept at any kind of post-processing

But, the point I was trying to suggest was the skin (what I noticed first was the left leg) could really be smoothed. I see veins, even bandaid adhesive. I'm sure someone with a clue could really make that shot look better... and I'm just not that guy.


----------



## UUilliam (Sep 14, 2009)

camz said:


> #1: I think the background is distracting and doesn't really do much for the shot. Her feet are cut off as well.
> 
> #2: You're getting barrel distortion and it's making her head look bigger then normal. I would've had her lean back more.
> 
> ...




wtf you mean?

nothing is distracting... just her 
honestly tho... nice car n girl... wth do you do for a living?

as much as we like it... try ask your gf to close her legs and cover that area with her hand 
also, her eyes are quite blurry, were you even using your flash?


----------



## shortpballer (Sep 14, 2009)

UUilliam said:


> camz said:
> 
> 
> > #1: I think the background is distracting and doesn't really do much for the shot. Her feet are cut off as well.
> ...



I was using two off camera strobes... I used to run a company.  Now I am a civil engineering student with A LOT of debt lol.


----------



## Tanady (Sep 15, 2009)

The Third One is cool, 
Nice Lighting, and the car


----------



## Canosonic (Sep 15, 2009)

Hey this is a photo forum, not a car forum!
Ok, just kidding, there is not much left to say, but I (if I'd be lucky in a couple of years to have a car and a girlfriend like that ) would stay out of the shade if I were you.
#5 is ,i agree, great, but its spoiled by the damn "don't put kids in the driver seat!" sticker . Stamp it away. 
And I don't think the dress, silver car and surrounding fit each other. You won't respray your car , but a more elegant dress would have given it a move. Or f.e. go to the beach ( you got beaches there right?) ! #4'd be great if there was a cliff, sea or anything but a concrete wall! There no reason for you to be shy.
Don't take my critic to seriously. I never had any experience with cars, nor lightning, nor girls.


.......


----------

