# Redneck modeling part 2 lol CC



## luvmyfamily (Jul 11, 2012)

I only call this redneck modeling due the clothing, location. Now. *Can we get to the issue at hand here?* Got some great advice yesterday, I already know I needed flashfill, sharpness...maybe some ideas on posing? Your critique will help me for more modeling sessions I have coming up. *THANK YOU! *I am also busy today, so will be on and off checking, more than likely checking back this evening. Thank you for your help to improve these!

#1




#2, was almost dark, used speedlite...someone asked me if I photoshopped the sky?? What???




#3




#4 Was trying to go for that "jeans ad look" which explains the wife beaters....




#5




#6 Still going for that jeans ad, know I needed flashfill....


----------



## luvmyfamily (Jul 11, 2012)

Also, since I started shooting RAW, I don't seem to be getting the sharpness as jpeg??  I use DPP to convert RAW files.


----------



## 53cent (Jul 11, 2012)

Imo only nr. 1 has some potential. With some editing it could be a pretty cool shot.


----------



## MTVision (Jul 11, 2012)

luvmyfamily said:
			
		

> Also, since I started shooting RAW, I don't seem to be getting the sharpness as jpeg??  I use DPP to convert RAW files.



Are you sharpening them?? Do you do all your editing in DPP??


----------



## luvmyfamily (Jul 11, 2012)

MTVision said:


> luvmyfamily said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I do sharpen them, but when i go to reduce luminace noise, it's like it takes it back to not being as sharp. I them upload then to PS for final touches.  Like, you can't get rid of blemishes on DPP.


----------



## Trever1t (Jul 11, 2012)

why are you using NR?


----------



## fjrabon (Jul 11, 2012)

luvmyfamily said:


> MTVision said:
> 
> 
> > luvmyfamily said:
> ...



Noise reduction and sharpening tend to be two sides of the same coin.  Only sharpen what you want sharp and only reduce noise on what you want to reduce noise.  If you want to do both to a portion at the same time, you probably need a really expensive program like Topaz or noise ninja, because really the same thing that sharpens increases noise and the same thing that decreases noise decreases sharpness.


----------



## fjrabon (Jul 11, 2012)

also, somebody thought this girl was 12-14?! lol  I mean I _might_&#8203; have guessed 18.


----------



## luvmyfamily (Jul 11, 2012)

Trever1t said:


> why are you using NR?



I use NR becuse it seems to cause noise, like I notice white spots in the hair. I took this one RAW of hubby and my son....it turned out sharper.


----------



## luvmyfamily (Jul 11, 2012)

Ok, you all critique away, thanks for the help.  FLASH FILL my new best friend....check back later....


----------



## fjrabon (Jul 11, 2012)

luvmyfamily said:


> Trever1t said:
> 
> 
> > why are you using NR?
> ...



You typically don't want to sharpen hair anyway.  I almost never do anything more than _very_&#8203; light sharpening to the whole picture, and then I'll go in and selectively sharpen certain parts, like eyes.  You definitely never want to sharpen the sky, as all it does is bring out noise.


----------



## luvmyfamily (Jul 11, 2012)

fjrabon said:


> luvmyfamily said:
> 
> 
> > Trever1t said:
> ...



I just learned something new....I didn't know you had a choice of sharpening part of the image on DPP...


----------



## fjrabon (Jul 11, 2012)

luvmyfamily said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> > luvmyfamily said:
> ...



Exactly how you do it depends on the program.  If you're using photoshop and use layer masks, you can literally make ANY adjustment selectively.  I mostly use aperture for 'normal' type edits, and you can do most things with a brush in there.  Basically everything but exposure and white balance can be applied selectively (and even those can be 'accomplished' with other tools)


----------



## fjrabon (Jul 11, 2012)

Here's an edit I did of #1

I selectively sharpened the eyes, but then used skin smoothing on the rest of her face.  (skin smoothing is sort of similar to blur and de-noise, except for it's tuned for skin tones, but it definitely reduces sharpness)

I also added a couple of curves adjustments as well.




7550458036_9a1c4caf28 by franklinrabon, on Flickr

here it is side by side with the original




Screen Shot 2012-07-11 at 1.15.08 PM by franklinrabon, on Flickr


----------



## MTVision (Jul 11, 2012)

luvmyfamily said:
			
		

> I just learned something new....I didn't know you had a choice of sharpening part of the image on DPP...



I've never used DPP but the software that comes with Nikon cameras doesn't allow you to selectively sharpen. But you can do it in photoshop with layers and masks


----------



## fjrabon (Jul 11, 2012)

MTVision said:


> luvmyfamily said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, a good editing program is definitely worth it.  The default programs aren't bad, and for certain things are even better than anything you can buy, but for generalized editing photoshop/photoshop elements/lightroom/aperture give you more bang for your buck than any new lens or camera body will.


----------



## charlie76 (Jul 11, 2012)

um....


----------



## o hey tyler (Jul 11, 2012)

charlie76 said:
			
		

> um....



Yes?


----------



## fjrabon (Jul 11, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> charlie76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm guessing he was thinking "_these were the photos that caused such a kerfuffle?"_

I expected a 12 year old covering her self with band-aids straddling some guy's crotch from what people were saying in the other post, haha.


----------



## charlie76 (Jul 11, 2012)

fjrabon said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > charlie76 said:
> ...



Ya...that's about it.  These aren't as bad as some people were insinuating.  But if they are 20 I am ron jeremy


----------



## HughGuessWho (Jul 11, 2012)

Here we go again.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Jul 11, 2012)




----------



## e.rose (Jul 11, 2012)

charlie76 said:
			
		

> Ya...that's about it.  These aren't as bad as some people were insinuating.  But if they are 20 I am ron jeremy



And everyone I meet thinks I'm 19.  I'm 26.

Some people just look young.


----------



## mishele (Jul 11, 2012)

Bah hahaha!!


----------



## Netskimmer (Jul 11, 2012)

fjrabon said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > charlie76 said:
> ...




Hey, in Japan they would look at these and say "they're alright, if your into older women."  But seriously, we should try to not hijack the poor woman's thread again.


----------



## jowensphoto (Jul 11, 2012)

The edit posted on page 1 looks great! That's the kind of light I was referring to in the previous thread. It softens "the sexy" for a more visually appealing image.

I still think 3 is the best. Almost like a still from a movie (or country music video, as mentioned yesterday!).

The last 3 are the weakest of the set, IMO. Aside from the tilted horizon in the last (and that little piece of green popping in from the bottom), they are technically sound. It might help to bring along some sample images to show the model, especially those new to modeling.


----------



## sm4him (Jul 11, 2012)

charlie76 said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> > o hey tyler said:
> ...



Nice to meet you, Ron. 
Seriously, the OP says the girl is 20 and married. With a kid. And she is very clearly NOT 12. 

I do think "adults" look younger and younger the older I get. I went to a doctor the other day that looked like Doogie Howser's younger brother. 
And I have definitely seen 12 year olds (who turn out to be 20-somethings) driving a vehicle!


OP--I have absolutely no expertise on portrait photography, so I really  have no useful C&C for you. But I do applaud your efforts to think  beyond the norm and do something a little edgy and different, without  going overboard.


----------



## charlie76 (Jul 11, 2012)

sorry...I couldn't resist....


----------



## gopal (Jul 11, 2012)

JPG gives me satisfaction....do slight sharpening though not in all pix.....1st is fine in warmer tone...second looks slight artificial...Off-camera flash shd be used at 45 degree....One more thing I noted...all your backgrounds are sharp....You shd have used wide aperture and kept distance from the bg to go it diffused....the couple shots are hotties...single her knee down is good.
Liked your hubby and son's pic. tfs.


----------



## charlie76 (Jul 11, 2012)

...by the way....



jowensphoto said:


> ... especially those new to modeling...



tee hee hee..

ok..im done


----------



## jowensphoto (Jul 11, 2012)

I think you took what I said out of context... I wasn't insinuating that the model was bad, just obviously new. She doesn't have the comfort or poise that an experienced model has/should have.


----------



## kundalini (Jul 11, 2012)

sm4him said:


> I do think "adults" look younger and younger the older I get. I went to a doctor the other day that looked like Doogie Howser's younger brother.


I wonder how many Google searches have the keywords _*Doogie Howser *_in it today?


----------



## charlie76 (Jul 11, 2012)

jowensphoto said:


> I think you took what I said out of context... I wasn't insinuating that the model was bad, just obviously new. She doesn't have the comfort or poise that an experienced model has/should have.



I know what you meant...was only kidding...sorry to use your thing for my own amusement!!


----------



## PapaMatt (Jul 11, 2012)

So what was all the chatter about? I think the photos are just fine now that I get to see them.  Nice Job, keep thinking out of the box, don't follow crowd. Good Luck


----------



## pgriz (Jul 11, 2012)

Whew!  Glad we figured out the age thing.  As for the pics, I like the fact that luvmyfamily is working hard at broadening her skill set and is not very afraid of trying edgy stuff.  

As for the age thing, I was still being carded when I was 28 (this in a province where the legal age for purchase of alcohol is 18), so the fact that the model looks younger than she is is not that unusual.


----------



## tirediron (Jul 11, 2012)

C&C per req:

1.  First and foremost, the hair bothers me.  I would prefer to see it either swept back on her shouldes, or covering her bra/swimsuit- top completely.  As-is, it just looks messy.  The lighting isn't bad, though looking at the brightness of the sky, I can't help thinking that a silver reflector would have brought some real sparkle into her eyes.

2.  Right idea, but just a tad too much power.  To do this properly, you really need a flash meter.  Meter the ambient with your camera, then meter your flash and set it for 2/3 - 1 stop below (also consider an SB - it would definitely reduce some of the 'sharpness').  

I'm NOT a fan of the angle or pose; I would much prefer to see something done using the fence; say the classic 'one foot on the bottom board' sort of look.

3.  Pose idea is good here, but some fill light was needed as they're faces are slightly dark and should be turned slightly toward the camera.  Watch the little things like her cropped fingers!

4.  The highlights seem about 1/3 stop too hot here.  When you're shooting a scene like this, you really need to do an incident metering or use a grey card to determine exposure.  The concept is good, but the plants sort of take away from the 'gritty urban' look.  As well, watch hand placement.  I don't really like this pose, but I'm afraid I don't have a good suggestion for an alternative.

5, 6.  Better, but remember to have them look slightly toward the camera.  I think a setting with a little more detail besides a blank, white wall would have helped.  Graffitti, some old, rusty junk, etc...  it's a little too boring.  Alternatively, dressing the models in bright clothes might have worked.

Overall, they're a good set, but there are some small details that are holding them back IMO; for instance, her bra/swimsuit top looks far too 'every day'.  Something more 'Daisy Duke' would have helped with the image and remember hair!!!!!  Models with long hair need to be checked FREQUENTLY - if it is going to be messy, ensure that it's planned mess!

Just my $00.02 worth - your mileage may vary.

~John


----------



## e.rose (Jul 11, 2012)

1.  I don't like the crop of the first one, or the fact that you're shooting up at her.  It's just an awkward angle for me as a veiwer.  I feel as though the coloring is a little yellow as well?  Maybe that's just me though.  If I were you, I would have brought my camera at least to eye-level and then cropped it vertically from at least the waist up for this one.

2.  Someone asked you if you photoshopped the sky because they apparently don't understand the relationship between flash and ambient light in a single exposure.    THAT being said... you have too much flash... not enough ambient light.    The first thing my eyes to go are her jeans because they're light up like Christmas due to the strong flash exposure.  You needed to drop the exposure on the flash a stop... maybe even almost two (I'm still learning to guesstimate  ) and then if your overall exposure was too dark, up your ISO or open your aperture a bit to make up for your flash exposure change.  And now that I look at it again... it also looks like your flash was aimed too low.  It's stronger on her legs and the grass and starts to fall off around her chest.  Did you have any sort of modifier on your flash?  The light also seems to harsh for this sort of thing.

As far as the posing goes, she seems unsure of what to do with her hands.  I would have directed her to do something more with them than just let them hang there.  I also would have turned her hips slightly more away from the camera, and turned her face slightly more towards the camera

3. Again... this shot calls for a more vertical crop.  It also looks like you had some camera shake going on so it's not sharp like it should be.  I'm assuming someone already told you that you needed fill flash here.

4. Her expression is unsure in this shot.  As far as the posing is concerned, I would have either had her standing or sitting completely... I'm not into having her on her knees like that.  Also, again, I think her face should have been turned more towards you.  I don't like that weed because it's running into her foot... but on the other hand... had she been standing, I don't think it would have bothered me as much.

Also... I'm not digging the shoes here.

That's not really a helpful comment... cause... I just sat here staring at this for like 3 minutes trying to figure out what the eff I'd have had her wear instead... but... I'm fashionably deficient.  S'why I call up my wardrobe stylist friend for stuff like that, haha.  But the shoes just don't look like they belong.

5. See... the weed doesn't bother me here   But the fact that you're shooting up at them does.  Get eye level... or even shoot down for this one.  I'm not into the pose either in this one.  If you HAD to have her leg attached to him somehow, I would have just had her wrap it around him on her own, where it was comfortable for her and not pulling her jeans too tight across her butt.  Having him hold up her leg is too... I dunno what word I'm looking for, but it's too something not desirable.  

6.  It looks a bit underexposed to me.  His eyes look closed, and I wouldn't have had her hand hiding her face.  The fact that they're looking at each other already cuts the connection from them to the viewer... having her block her face cuts it even *more*.  I'm also distracted by the slanted lines on the wall and that weed coming up by her butt, haha.

It's gonna take some practice, but you'll get there! :sillysmi:



AND...

Whoever got offended by this shoot is... kind of... ridiculous.

I've seen FAR worse with models who ARE younger (17... 18...)

There's nothing wrong with what was done here.

Sorry.  Just had to say it.  :lmao:


----------



## luvmyfamily (Jul 11, 2012)

Just had a chance to log back on. Busy week. I read ALL of your CC, and rather than reply to each one, Thank you!! I know these 2 people and borrowed them for practice. Flashfill, framing, angles, posing, and more practice with the speed lite. Already replied to the sharpening earlier, if sharpening needs to happen, I'm glad to know I can do it in PS and select areas. I love the edit side by side of the eyes and the idea of a silver reflector! Anyway, sorry I didnt respond to each of you individually for the great advice, but short on time all this week. P.s. I always print stuff like this out, and printed each page to have on reference and I'm reading it again on paper before heading to bed.  Thank ya!!!


----------



## luvmyfamily (Jul 11, 2012)

Oh, the only thing I find confusing is in previous portraits I have posted, I have been told not to take them straight on, was even told to put them up. Which one is it?


----------



## Ernicus (Jul 11, 2012)

I agree with the hair covering the swimsuit on that image that was edited.  To me, we are being teased with some cloth, not cleavage.  Since the model does not have cleavage to tease the viewer, we are left with cloth...and it's not rewarding.  Cover up the cloth with hair and we are left with mystery and wondering...which is not rewarding but leaves a better image in our head as we are forced to fill out the mystery with our imagination.  ;-)

and yeah, I'm a perv...oh well.


----------



## tirediron (Jul 11, 2012)

luvmyfamily said:


> Oh, the only thing I find confusing is in previous portraits I have posted, I have been told not to take them straight on, was even told to put them up. Which one is it?


Not take what straight on?


----------



## luvmyfamily (Jul 12, 2012)

You know what, never mind that. I guess it depends on what portrait, background, props you are using as to what angle you should choose. I personally think all portraits taken straight on would be boring, but we all have our opinions. Not these I have posted, but for future reference. Like someone on a couch might be more interesting taken "upward," photographer laying on the floor getting the couch and subject for example. Once again, busy week, hopefully next week I'll have more time to spend on here. Only able to pop on and off.....


----------

