Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

(C&C) 2 more portraits

  • 04-07-2006 02:21PM
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭


    Here are 2 portraits for C & C.

    I tried to get a different affect through the setup/lighting and post processing of these.

    These were the last ones from the first studio set (did another set on sunday and still thinking about /working on those ones) and so these arent the strongest from the day but here they are anyway.

    Swastika Eyes
    http://www.deviantart.com/view/35772995/

    Some Velvet Morning:
    http://www.deviantart.com/view/35772878/


Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 433 ✭✭CONMIKE12


    I think they are both really good.I like the burnt out effect that contrasts with the shadows.Was this a bit of "spicy contrast " thrown into the post processing? Whtaever it was,they both appeal to me.Nice job.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    CONMIKE12 wrote:
    Was this a bit of "spicy contrast " thrown into the post processing?

    Good guess ! - that was used on the brighter one. Glad you liked them.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,966 ✭✭✭elven


    I like them both, but the one with the shades is excellent. It's soft, but dark too. Something a bit different.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,764 ✭✭✭Valentia


    I like them both,[SNAP!] the first especially. There is just a small blemish on the left (as we look at it) of her lower lip that's very distracting. Good stuff.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 36,634 ✭✭✭✭Ruu_Old


    They are both pretty good, something I havent seen done before. The first one is the best.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,624 ✭✭✭✭Fajitas!


    The spot Valentia pointed out was the first thing i noticed too! Nothing the healing brush can't handle though! Definitly prefer the first one.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    Thanks all for the comments - hadnt really noticed the blemish near her lip to be honest - so I might remove it later. I think the processing made the skin look less appealing than it actually was and it also may have exaggerated that mark a tad as I hadnt noticed it before.


    I remember a few weeks ago somone posted a link to a gallery with models with 'shiny ambre soliare' type skin - and it came out that it was a processing method (overdone massively as I remember). Can anyone remember how that affect was achieved ? Think it was either an action or a plugin filter of somekind - anyone have any links to that ? Wouldnt mind trying that at its lowest setting on the dark picture.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Morlar wrote:
    Here are 2 portraits for C & C.
    I tried to get a different affect through the setup/lighting and post processing of these.

    Honestly, not a big fan of the over-exposed/flooded light look that seems to be the rage in portraits these days.

    To me the point of the portrait is the detail in the face. If the face is so washed out with light to the point where you can't make out any of that detail then I kinda feel that is rather pointless, unless there is a very special purpose for doing this effect.

    I would recommend toning down the light that is falling directly on the face, use reflected light or something. It looks like you have a light shining directly on her face.

    But hey, thats just my opinion. Obviously some like the look.

    You focus is a bit off on the first portrait too, the sun glasses are in focus but the face is slightly out of focus, which is kinda distracting.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,154 ✭✭✭Oriel


    What's wrong with a normal exposure?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    Wicknight wrote:
    You focus is a bit off on the first portrait too, the sun glasses are in focus but the face is slightly out of focus, which is kinda distracting.

    The focus for that shot is supposed to be on the shades.

    The aim of that session was to try for as many different looks as possible (as a learning experience as much as anything else). I figured it would be easier to learn about lighting firsthand by not using the same standard setup each time- it is (for me) trial and error - and why the hell not ?

    That was why throughout that session I moved/selectively disabled the lights tried different gels filters etc also tried (among other things) having the model stand directly in front of the main light to see what it would look like.

    There is nothing wrong with normal exposure. I never said that there was. Just that it gets a bit limiting and boring sometimes and it can be more interesting especially while learning to try for different looks.

    PS I have since done another session with less 'out there' lighting. What I learned the first time round was useful and I would recommend anyone give it a shot.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 69 ✭✭antifuse


    Interesting shots. I like the second one, but the skin tone in the first one put me off it. She looks jaundiced.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    Yep - I think the skin on the first one could be better too (all down to the processing - not the lighting or the model of course !) - I may go back to that one later and try to get it a bit more evened out. Thanks for the comments.


Advertisement