PHOTOS PLEASE

[JB]

Back on point, since all I am really focusing on right now is doing portraits for people (aside from the landscapes that I've mentioned), question for people is do you think that the touch ups on the face that I've done are OK? I know Stu mentioned symmetry of the eyes, but is there anything else (other than the bad lighting) that stands out? Really doesn't matter who the model is or what they have done in the past, I just want to get a decent workflow down that I can do on autopilot.

The U shaped neck line is my only problem with it, as far as shading goes. Also, was there a light directly behind her?

[phantasmagoria]

Hmm something doesn't seem to sit right for me, I think I agree with the it looks like it's been photoshopped comment.

It also kinda look like her right eye is lower and slightly bonged: You wanna get ye olde liquidize tool on that shit.

edit: actually the more I look at it the more it looks like the right side of her face has been totally stalloned. It's probably just the scenario of looking at something for too long and it messing with your brain, the chin and nose are popping out at me now too.

edit2: oh I see it's already been mentioned. At what point does the model start getting offended that you change the shape of their face? I can understand blemishes and the like, but when it comes to modifying something like her chin, does that start being an issue? I think I'd be offended.

[JB]

At what point does the model start getting offended that you change the shape of their face? I can understand blemishes and the like, but when it comes to modifying something like her chin, does that start being an issue? I think I'd be offended.

It occurs to me that just by being a model, in quite a literal sense, shes expected to accept the fact that shes going to be changed and altered in post-processing. So if youre the type of person to be offended by that, youre not the type of person to be a model

[phantasmagoria]

Indeed, but if I were going to make the concious decision to become a model, I'd have to be pretty self confident and have a fairly high opinion of my own image, for that image to then be 'perfected' by a photographer time and time again would draw attention to the fact that in fact I have a chin like a flaitron rock pinacle and seriously demoralise me and lower my self esteem. Leading to a cocaine fuelled downward spiral in my life and career resulting in a premature, lonely and unhappy death.

I can understand removing temporary blemishes and even skin wrinkles etc, just wondered if there's a professional point at which to stop with the post processing of the model's features?

[tnf]

1) A lot of the shots I see have a softened look to them that does indicate processing has been done - I think there is definitely a situational thing involved there as to when a slightly processed look isn't a problem and when you don't want it to show.

2) Phant - I'm very new at this, but I've been doing a ton of reading and studying of images and I'm still finding that there doesn't seem to be an obvious answer as to what is too much processing, where to stop, etc. I'm sure that as I learn more that point will become clearer.
The book I am reading right now walks you through the processing the author did with a professional model and he went so far as to clone her eyes to get them more symmetrical.

3) I think we are staring at this one image for too long.

I think most of the things we are talking about here are a non-issue if I had used better lighting that didn't require as much work to smooth and balance harsh shadows on the face in the first place. Even having an assistant holding a reflector to fill the other side of her face with light would have helped.

But we can put a fork in this one, and I do appreciate the time everyone took to give me some good insights.

[Yeahso]

Only problem I see with the photo is that you should've shot her from the right. Her left side is her pretty side.

Nothing wrong with the processing, you did a decent job considering the imperfections on her skin in the first picture.

[Yeahso]

Landscape I took yesterday

[seremtan]

very ingmar bergman

[Zyte]

Can you pm me a higher resolution version of that? As close as 1920x1200 as you can get? Thanks.

[phantasmagoria]

I like the birds

[+JuggerNaut+]

Can you pm me a higher resolution version of that? As close as 1920x1200 as you can get? Thanks.

^^this

[Dr_Watson]

I like the birds

i wish they were on the other side to the image wasn't so heavy on the left side.
feels like it's going to tip over.

[Yeahso]

Can you pm me a higher resolution version of that? As close as 1920x1200 as you can get? Thanks.

Sorry my friend, any picture I take is for sale, so I can't have high resolution copies floating around the internet. I take your request as a great compliment, though, thank you very much.

[Doombrain]

Sorry my friend, any picture I take is for sale, so I can't have high resolution copies floating around the internet. I take your request as a great compliment, though, thank you very much.

Also, very nice. You should get up to Scotland with a medium format for some stormscapes.

[Don Carlos]

Wedding aye? GL!

[inolen]

I was pretty happy with how these came out this weekend

[inolen]

If you wanted to blow around $2-3k on a new full-frame Canon body, would you grab a new 5d mk II or a used 1Ds mk II?

I'm interested in the 1Ds mostly because of it's weather sealing (as I'd like to take it with me snowboarding this season and to use it in the rain/snow this Winter in NYC) and its AF system but I like the high ISO functionality and video recording of the 5D. Currently we use a HV30 to record footage, but it'd be nice to A. have less shit to carry, B. be able to use our nice optics we've already invested money in to record footage.

I guess the main question is.. how good is the 5d mk II's weather sealing?

[Doombrain]

both are A1 bodies.

IMO it's down to two things.

5D for quality
1D for robustness

I've heard the 5D mkII's sealing isn't as good as it should be.

[tnf]

DB - what do you think of the new 7D?

Looks nice as an update to the 50D, but if I were going to drop the money for that I'd just as well shell out another 1k or so and get the 5DmkII.

[Yeahso]

Yeah, I'm quite surprised the 5D2 isn't fully weather sealed like the 1Ds. I haven't really put it through it's paces in terms of extreme weather, but I did leave my 50d in a half-inch puddle of water once, and it worked fine.

I've also read a few people using their 5D2's in massive downpours, but I'm not that confident.

[phantasmagoria]

my wedding

gosh, congrats

[Doombrain]

DB - what do you think of the new 7D?

Looks nice as an update to the 50D, but if I were going to drop the money for that I'd just as well shell out another 1k or so and get the 5DmkII.

TBH mate i haven't looked at any new bodies but i wouldn't ever buy a none full frame again.

[Doombrain]

my wedding

gosh, congrats

cheers

[seremtan]

looks like the id of db's wedding photographer is a big secret

[tnf]

Not doing much HDR lately, but had a chance to go through this cathedral by myself this morning (maintenance let me in after seeing me outside doing sunrise shots). Been wanting to try an HDR of a place like this for awhile. Regarding HDR, I know many think HDR is a fad, and there is definitely a fad aspect to it, but it does have some really practical benefits and you can generate some very natural looking scenes that are simply exposed more evenly than you could otherwise.