# Out for opinions!



## PhotoBrody (Jul 1, 2012)

Few shots from yesterday's shoot, c&c with respect please! 

Uploaded from my iPhone, hopefully it keeps the quality.


----------



## michael9000000 (Jul 1, 2012)

I'm sure you'll get lots of detailed technical advice from a lot of people here, so I'll just say that I love the photos, I like the processing, I would make a few minor composition changes, and I hate the placement and size of the watermark.

Great work overall!


----------



## PhotoBrody (Jul 1, 2012)

michael9000000 said:
			
		

> I'm sure you'll get lots of detailed technical advice from a lot of people here, so I'll just say that I love the photos, I like the processing, I would make a few minor composition changes, and I hate the placement and size of the watermark.
> 
> Great work overall!



Thank you! Haha and not many people like my watermark, I think that's what is making me keep it - muahaha. It's more of a "point" I keep it I guess.. Once I find something I like, I may change it


----------



## michael9000000 (Jul 1, 2012)

PhotoBrody said:
			
		

> Thank you! Haha and not many people like my watermark, I think that's what is making me keep it - muahaha. It's more of a "point" I keep it I guess.. Once I find something I like, I may change it



I'm not bothered by the fact that you use a watermark...  I just think it's an awful idea to ram your watermark through the skull of your lovely model.


----------



## michael9000000 (Jul 1, 2012)

michael9000000 said:
			
		

> I'm not bothered by the fact that you use a watermark...  I just think it's an awful idea to ram your watermark through the skull of your lovely model.



On second look, the watermark is actually more like a news ticker above your model's head...


----------



## manaheim (Jul 1, 2012)

I suspect folks are going to say you chopped her legs off at an odd point.  Right above the foot.  Not sure, though... I'll be interested to see.  Can't comment too much overall as I'm more an observer of this kind of thing than a doer.


----------



## ewick (Jul 1, 2012)

I like the second one best. I personally am not a big fan of chopped limbs. IMO if you would have included or cropped higher it would have worked better for me.


----------



## PhotoBrody (Jul 1, 2012)

manaheim said:
			
		

> I suspect folks are going to say you chopped her legs off at an odd point.  Right above the foot.  Not sure, though... I'll be interested to see.  Can't comment too much overall as I'm more an observer of this kind of thing than a doer.



Some people it may bother, some it might not. I have other raw shots of her full body, this was just an edit I sent myself. I'll add more on here soon. This particular shot I was zooming in -> out at high speed shutter since she kept moving and doing poses.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 2, 2012)

meh. beyond the obvious chopped limbs, these aren't doing much for me. There's no risk here, nothing novel or interesting. Sure the exposure is good, but the pose is flat and uninspired, and I am more interested in her and what she is wearing than the photograph itself. Perhaps this is exactly what you had in mind, but it is done in a way that doesn't leave an impact or impression.

Also, the top section of the first is really distracting, too much headroom, not enough leg room.




> Some people it may bother, some it might not.



When doing commercial work, it's best to appeal to the widest audience. If some people don't mind chopped limbs, but others mind considerably, then don't do it. You're not going to offend anyone by not chopping limbs, however, you will offend some people if you do.


----------



## PhotoBrody (Jul 2, 2012)

unpopular said:
			
		

> I am more interested in her and what she is wearing than the photograph itself. Perhaps this is exactly what you had in mind, but it is done in a way that doesn't leave an impact or impression.



Then my work is done. That was the purpose, these are glam/portraits. Models ask me to do exactly this. The exposure, lighting, tones, quality are what is important. If I wanted different/risk/unordinary I would have done that. I have several other girls who pose in these exact same spots. 

I will post some "different/creative" stuff just for you next time


----------



## Jaemie (Jul 2, 2012)

The model seems to be anxiously gripping the steps in #1. The watermark distracts. I'd like to see her feet (unless she's wearing "I think I'm sexy" high heels). The chopped limbs in #2, and that "look at my chest" pose kind of ruin it for me. FWIW, she's very pretty.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 2, 2012)

PhotoBrody said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I only reply to what is visually, not the assumed mindset of the client. 



> I have several other girls who pose in these exact same spots.



Wow. Really? Do you charge them?


----------



## Jaemie (Jul 2, 2012)

PhotoBrody said:


> Models ask me to do exactly this.



I think it's a professional photographer's obligation to help the client understand the artistic vision and to explain what works best, rather than simply comply with the desires of the client. It should be a collaborative process, to a certain extent.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 2, 2012)

^ in practice I think it may be a bit more restrictive.

I'd imagine though that model agencies are inundated with these kinds of images. A good model is an actress/actor, who can has the ability to carry out the art director's or photographer's ambition and not just a pretty face.

Of course, most model wannabes (and there are millions of them out there) likely don't realize this.


----------



## fjrabon (Jul 2, 2012)

The lighting is really flat and boring in both.  If they're glam shots, you should have certainly photoshopped the couple of skin blemishes off her legs in photo #1.  Also in 1, her pose is stiff and uncomfortable looking and the black spots on the staircase below her leg are really ugly and distracting.  Also, I don't know if it was intentional, but you can see her underwear, in an unflattering way.  Her pose also kind of makes her stomach look like she has fat rolls.  

Also, given her skin tone, the background really blends in with her, taking a away a _lot_ of visual 'pop'.  

2 is a lot better, but again, better lighting, a better background, and more contrast are needed to make it stand out at all.


----------



## fjrabon (Jul 3, 2012)

do you care if I do an edit to show you what I'm talking about with the flatness of the lighting and background causing the image to fall flat?

Figure if it was that big of a deal, you'd have marked 'not ok to edit'

I'll gladly remove if you want.

Here is what I thought would make the shot better:




image-3234946396 by franklinrabon, on Flickr



Basically I used 2 curves adjustments.  First a really extreme one to kick the background out of the model's tonal range.  Also, to just generally add some contrast to the otherwise flat background.  Second, I gave the model a mild curves adjustment that basically just added a bit of depth and contrast to her skin tones.  

I added a tiny bit of vibrancy to her skin tones as well, and her lips a little bit more.  

Just a simple 5 minute edit with a jpeg as a source, but I think you get the idea of what I'm talking about a little better now.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 3, 2012)

No. That's not an improvement at all. Way over saturated, almost to the point of jaundice. Her top is way too dark, makeup went from totally appropriate to completely "hooker wrong". You've also managed to make the separation of an already distracting background even less.

One thing I really liked about these images was the clearness and subtly in saturation.


----------



## fjrabon (Jul 3, 2012)

unpopular said:


> No. That's not an improvement at all. Way over saturated, almost to the point of jaundice. Her top is way too dark, makeup went from totally appropriate to completely "hooker wrong". You've also managed to make the separation of an already distracting background even less.
> 
> One thing I really liked about these images was the clearness and subtly in saturation.



well, I thought he was going for 'hooker' since her bra is showing.  And I didn't increase the saturation at all on her.  There was some increase in the background's saturation.  Perhaps you're seeing the increase in contrast as an increase in saturation on her?

If you measure the original, the background is almost the exact same tone as she is, which is a big no-no for glam.  You either have to darken it considerably or blow it out.  The considerably darker background is usually the more conventional choice for glam shots.  Though usually it's achieved with better lighting (ie strobes and a huge softbox on the model, which relatively darkens the ambient light, and thus darkens the background), that wasn't an option here.  

Look at glamour photos, they're not exactly about 'subtlety'.  Check out Guiness man's glam thread.  THere isn't a whole lot of flat, desaturated subtle lighting going on there.


----------



## fjrabon (Jul 3, 2012)

If you see them side by side, you can see that there were no color manipulations made to her skin, other than on her lips.  Her skin just has a bit more contrast (more to emulate a strobe light with a soft box than anything, since the point wasn't to show what I'd do in post, but more how I'd light the thing in the first place)




Screen Shot 2012-07-03 at 2.43.36 PM by franklinrabon, on Flickr


----------



## unpopular (Jul 3, 2012)

Her cheek bone increases in saturation from 44% to 75%. If you adjusted tone in RGB without making the adjustment in luminance mode, then you've adjusted saturation.

I wouldn't consider Guinessman's stuff "glam" more pinups.

Fashion Photography - Google Search

There are lots of examples of subtlety in fashion photography.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 3, 2012)

fjrabon said:


> If you see them side by side, you can see that there were no color manipulations made to her skin, other than on her lips.  Her skin just has a bit more contrast (more to emulate a strobe light with a soft box than anything, since the point wasn't to show what I'd do in post, but more how I'd light the thing in the first place)



Are we even looking at the same image?




ETA: review samples "1" and "2", not the first two unlabeled samples at left of dialog.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 3, 2012)

Fair enough. The edit still sucks.


----------



## fjrabon (Jul 3, 2012)

unpopular said:


> Her cheek bone increases in saturation from 44% to 75%. If you adjusted tone in RGB without making the adjustment in luminance mode, then you've adjusted saturation.
> 
> I wouldn't consider Guinessman's stuff "glam" more pinups.
> 
> ...



The photos you linked are high fashion, which is totally, wildly different than glam.  High fashion does all kinds of crazy things, since the whole point is to be edgy.  The OP specifically stated he wasn't going for anything edgy.

and yes, there in some ways ends up being a bit more saturation in certain points because I changed the contrast, which will obviously bring out more color in the middle/low tones that were originally a bit washed out, because that's how contrast works.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 3, 2012)

fjrabon said:


> and yes, there in some ways ends up being a bit more saturation in certain points because I changed the contrast, which will obviously bring out more color in the middle/low tones that were originally a bit washed out, because that's how contrast works.



Over saturation is over saturation, regardless how you got there. And no, it doesn't have to work that way.

Here is the exact same edit, in fact using your version, but without the wonky colors:



Lower shadows are still too dark, IMO.


----------



## fjrabon (Jul 3, 2012)

unpopular said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> > and yes, there in some ways ends up being a bit more saturation in certain points because I changed the contrast, which will obviously bring out more color in the middle/low tones that were originally a bit washed out, because that's how contrast works.
> ...



If I had a RAW file to work with, instead of a highly compressed JPEG, yes, I could have done those things.  My only point is to sort of demonstrate how it should be lit, using strobes and a sotbox, to alleviate the flat lighting of the original.  

And it seems sort of pointless to argue this when you're talking about fashion photography, and high fashion at that, and not glam.

Do your same google search for glam photography, and you'll see a bunch of high contrast images, highly saturated.  You may or may not like that style, but thats what the style is, it's what OP said he was going for.  It's not subtle deaturation.  It's not flat lighting.  It's dramatic lighting from softboxes, a lot of contrast, and probably even more saturation than is in my edit.  

It's almost like you're criticizing grass for being green, saying you prefer a much more orange-ish hue.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 3, 2012)

Clearly though these fauxtographic qualities of so-called "glam photography" is not what the OP had in mind, else he would have done so. While I am not a fan of these images, it's clear to me that he knows what he's doing beyond some contrived convention of garish color and unnatural skin tone!


----------



## fjrabon (Jul 3, 2012)

unpopular said:


> Clearly though these fauxtographic qualities of so-called "glam photography" is not what the OP had in mind, else he would have done so. While I am not a fan of these images, it's clear to me that he knows what he's doing beyond some contrived convention of garish color and unnatural skin tone!



glam isn't fauxtographic, it's selling sex and bold, it is what it is.  And the 'wild differences in skin tone' are less of a difference than you'd get from a yellow gel or a gold reflector.

edit: and it's kind of weird of you to say that, since your first post was you telling the OP he should have done these wildly differently?  And to not do glam style?


----------



## unpopular (Jul 3, 2012)

Glam perhaps not, but your description and edit is. That's not sexy, it's almost sickly and is clearly artificial.


----------



## jowensphoto (Jul 3, 2012)

^perhaps, but most "glam" photographers = fauxtographer/GWAC, thus the pictures are fauxteuxs.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 3, 2012)

fjrabon said:


> If I had a RAW file to work with, instead of a highly compressed JPEG, yes, I could have done those things.



And what _things_ do you speak of exactly?


----------



## fjrabon (Jul 3, 2012)

unpopular said:


> Glam perhaps not, but your description and edit is. That's not sexy, it's almost sickly and is clearly artificial.


can you get that I don't care about my edit?  As I've said like 4 times the whole point was to show how the LIGHTING should have been.  I disagree with you about the level of saturation, but that wasn't even my point.  The only point my edit was to show was that the tone of the background was too smilar to the model's skin originally and that the lighting was flat?  What don't you get about that?  

I'd hope my edit sucked.  It took five minutes.  The point wasn't to teach him how to use photoshop.  The point was to illustrate lighting as best as possible.


----------



## jowensphoto (Jul 3, 2012)

Hey unpopular, how did you manage to make a raw file from that jpeg anyway?!


----------



## fjrabon (Jul 3, 2012)

unpopular said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> > If I had a RAW file to work with, instead of a highly compressed JPEG, yes, I could have done those things.
> ...



I usually don't bother with making many color edits with JPEGs, especially if it's not the point.  Sure, it can be done.  Sure, if this were my photo, and I was going to put as much time as, unfortunately, I've spent arguing with you about skin tones, into it, I would have done a lot more.  

I didn't see the point.

I wanted to show more dramatic, higher contrast light.  

I didn't think that warranted much else, just to show that singular point.

Edit: and to the OP if you come back to the this thread, I really apologize for this derailment.  Feel free to take my edit or ignore it, it was must my thought, either way I won't be offended.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 3, 2012)

these pictures say something to me.

what they say is:'I'm beautiful but the photographer wants you to look at my boobs and I'm not happy about it.'


----------



## unpopular (Jul 3, 2012)

Every now and again, there is something that is said that makes the "like" button feel inadequate.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 3, 2012)

PhotoBrody said:


> Then my work is done. That was the purpose, these are glam/portraits. Models ask me to do exactly this. The exposure, lighting, tones, quality are what is important. If I wanted different/risk/unordinary I would have done that. I have several other girls who pose in these exact same spots.
> 
> I will post some "different/creative" stuff just for you next time



It is clear that you are so skilled and creative that any comments and critiques will either agree with what you have done or will break themselves on the unyielding rock of your talent.


----------



## PhotoBrody (Jul 3, 2012)

The_Traveler said:
			
		

> It is clear that you are so skilled and creative that any comments and critiques will either agree with what you have done or will break themselves on the unyielding rock of your talent.



... Ok whatever that meant.


----------



## PhotoBrody (Jul 3, 2012)

Boys, boys..settle..ha I appreciate - whatever his name was for attempting to edit my pictures to what he thinks they should be. However, this particular spot in my city is so commonly photographed not only by me but by many other photogs, the building manager chases us away. So, to bring my lighting rig with me along with assistants and power supplies is just not possible. Only thing I walk around with is my cam and a tripod with my flash on it and a softbox covering it. I shot about 75 raws at high speed in maybe 2 minutes before we got chased off the stairs. If I had the time, yes I would definitely bring my lighting rig..but I have to work with what is possible at this location.

As for the person commenting on her wardrobe, she's a pretty girl and has a body to show it. None of my pics are untasteful, they are meant to be somewhat classy, quality and with a touch of sexiness. If you don't like it, move on. I prefer more comments towards image quality, color, tone, noise, etc.. Any model can pose a thousand ways, there's always going to be politics discussing what they like/dislike. I don't care about that. This is a "photo" forum, not a "comment on my models pose" forum.


----------



## slackercruster (Jul 3, 2012)

OP   V. Nice. 

Yes put your name on bottom. Don't deface the purdy gal. Just post low res pix that can't be blown up over 5 x 7 or 8 x 10. No one is going to make big bucks from your 5 x 7.


----------



## slackercruster (Jul 3, 2012)

PhotoBrody said:


> Boys, boys..settle..ha I appreciate - whatever his name was for attempting to edit my pictures to what he thinks they should be. However, this particular spot in my city is so commonly photographed not only by me but by many other photogs, the building manager chases us away. So, to bring my lighting rig with me along with assistants and power supplies is just not possible. Only thing I walk around with is my cam and a tripod with my flash on it and a softbox covering it. I shot about 75 raws at high speed in maybe 2 minutes before we got chased off the stairs. If I had the time, yes I would definitely bring my lighting rig..but I have to work with what is possible at this location.
> 
> As for the genius commenting on her wardrobe, she's a pretty girl and has a body to show it. None of my pics are untasteful, they are meant to be somewhat classy, quality and with a touch of sexiness. If you don't like it, move on. I prefer more comments towards image quality, color, tone, noise, etc.. Any model can pose a thousand ways, there's always going to be politics discussing what they like/dislike. I don't care about that. This is a "photo" forum, not a "comment on my models pose" forum.




Hey, I like your pix as-is. I like the gals to show all they got. We live in an ugly world. Without pretty gals to brighten it up it would be a real hell hole. 

You will find critics all over the place. Just ask yourself 2 questions. 

1) Do you like it? 
2) Does your client like it? 

If both answers are yes...you hit a home run!

Next time send in more!!


----------



## PhotoBrody (Jul 3, 2012)

slackercruster said:
			
		

> Hey, I like em as is. i like the gals to show all they got. We live in an ugly world. Without pretty gals to brighten it up it would be a real hell hole.
> 
> You will find critics all over the place. Just ask yourself 2 questions.
> 
> ...



Thanks, she loved them. I will post more, these were just on my iPhone, I use the app more than the website.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 3, 2012)

PhotoBrody said:


> As for the person commenting on her wardrobe, she's a pretty girl and has a body to show it. None of my pics are untasteful, they are meant to be somewhat classy, quality and with a touch of sexiness. If you don't like it, move on.



I actually agree with him, though not politically speaking, the image is tasteful - or at least as tasteful as these kinds of images can be - but I think there is a nervousness which can be interpreted as hostile.


----------



## PhotoBrody (Jul 3, 2012)

unpopular said:
			
		

> I actually agree with him, though not politically speaking, the image is tasteful - or at least as tasteful as these kinds of images can be - but I think there is a nervousness which can be interpreted as hostile.



She wasn't nervous..at least that's not the word I would use, more so "fresh to the game." I think It was just the speed we had to move at, it was early in the morning, she had never done location stuff, only studio work. I'm breaking her in though. Next shoot I'll have more gear with me and we will have more time.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 3, 2012)

okey donkey then. it's perfect!


----------



## PhotoBrody (Jul 3, 2012)

unpopular said:
			
		

> okey donkey then. it's perfect!



Lol. That's not what I was going for at all. I know that's not true, zoomed in I can see noise - which I hate. But that comes with location stuff and natural lighting. I just to snag me a mkiii to take care of that noise issue


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 4, 2012)

PhotoBrody said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What that means is that you deflect any criticism because all you seem to want is praise and attaboys.
Your pictures are both original and good; what is original is not good and what is good is not original.
It is possible to show attractive females with respect and beauty and glamor; perhaps work towards that.


----------



## PhotoBrody (Jul 4, 2012)

The_Traveler said:
			
		

> What that means is that you deflect any criticism because all you seem to want is praise and attaboys.
> It is possible to show attractive females with respect and beauty and glamor; perhaps work towards that.


 
Um, no not quite. I didn't ask for opinions on the model or her wardrobe, simply opinions on the image, quality and technical aspects of it. Go "travel" to a modeling forum if you want to critique models. Kapeesh? I'm guessing you're really not in any position in your life or career to do so anyways.


----------



## fjrabon (Jul 4, 2012)

PhotoBrody said:


> However, this particular spot in my city is so commonly photographed not only by me but by many other photogs, the building manager chases us away. So, to bring my lighting rig with me along with assistants and power supplies is just not possible. Only thing I walk around with is my cam and a tripod with my flash on it and a softbox covering it. I shot about 75 raws at high speed in maybe 2 minutes before we got chased off the stairs. If I had the time, yes I would definitely bring my lighting rig..but I have to work with what is possible at this location.



I don't really get this.  While the spot is okay, I guess, it's nowhere near a good enough backdrop to make these sorts of compromises.  A 2 minute setup/shoot?  Did I read that correctly?  While I'm all for efficient setups and sessions, this just seems crazy to me.  I mean it's a marble staircase, not the taj mahal.  you'd have done 19283729847X better if you had a different background, where you could adequately consider lighting to make the photos pop the way you're after.


----------



## PhotoBrody (Jul 4, 2012)

fjrabon said:


> PhotoBrody said:
> 
> 
> > However, this particular spot in my city is so commonly photographed not only by me but by many other photogs, the building manager chases us away. So, to bring my lighting rig with me along with assistants and power supplies is just not possible. Only thing I walk around with is my cam and a tripod with my flash on it and a softbox covering it. I shot about 75 raws at high speed in maybe 2 minutes before we got chased off the stairs. If I had the time, yes I would definitely bring my lighting rig..but I have to work with what is possible at this location.
> ...




Yes, the spot on the staircase took me about 2 minutes. Sorry that my camera may shoot a little quicker than your 3100. The shoot for the day took about 2 hours - to reiterate. Clearly you're a little foggy on what I'm talking about. I shoot pictures for a living, you may or may not. So acting like this is a shoot for the Queen of England is a little unnecessary. I don't care that you do not like the background, nor do other people..I assure you more people will like it than dislike the stairway.


----------



## PhotoBrody (Jul 4, 2012)

Since the file was too large here is a link. http://flickr.com/gp/photobrody/8iz2vw


----------



## fjrabon (Jul 4, 2012)

PhotoBrody said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> > PhotoBrody said:
> ...



I don't understand why you're asking for opinions, but you get offended by all of them.  It's a forum.  You asked people to give their opinions.  They did.  You then felt the need to disparage literally every single person who gave you opinions.  Well, except the ones that didn't say anything other than "good job bud!"

If that's all you're after, and all you're going to do is disparage those that took the time to offer their opinions, which you solicited, there is a "Just For Fun" gallery that you can post your pictures on, where C+C is generally not given, and "oohs and ahs" are encouraged.


----------



## Beaner96 (Jul 4, 2012)

I like the last one much better than the first two it's much more interesting IMHO.


----------



## PhotoBrody (Jul 4, 2012)

fjrabon said:


> PhotoBrody said:
> 
> 
> > fjrabon said:
> ...


----------



## PhotoBrody (Jul 4, 2012)

Beaner96 said:


> I like the last one much better than the first two it's much more interesting IMHO.




Thank you, I appreciate your input.


----------



## fjrabon (Jul 4, 2012)

PhotoBrody said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> > PhotoBrody said:
> ...


----------



## PhotoBrody (Jul 4, 2012)

While I'm on my laptop I'm just going to post a guest pass link to the ones I've edited so far.. I'll keep working on the edits to post more from this day.. http://flickr.com/gp/photobrody/PX7DB2/


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 4, 2012)

You were right.
Your work is done.
You showed up here a week ago and, in only this short time, have demonstrated convincingly what kind of person and photographer you are.


----------



## KmH (Jul 4, 2012)

PhotoBrody said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


When you post in a public forum, who have to take whatever you get as far as C&C as long as that C&C is not insulting or inflammatory.


----------

