https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...156497ed_k.jpgIMG_4797 by James Cason, on Flickr
"Follow me!"
Printable View
-
10th August 2019, 05:35 AMEvertking"Follow me!"
-
10th August 2019, 01:55 PMUrbanflyerRe: "Follow me!"
Interesting concept--who is following whom?
-
10th August 2019, 03:37 PMManfred MRe: "Follow me!"
Another nicely thought out portrait Mike.
I find that your flash is a bit hot for the scene and wonder if burning it the people down a bit might not give you a better blend into the scene. I might also look at toning down the reds in the skin tones just a tad as well. Directionally I'm thinking along these lines.
https://i68.tinypic.com/2gvm3di.jpg -
10th August 2019, 04:16 PMlovelife65Re: "Follow me!"
I like Manfred's edit... but who is James Cason? Is this his photo or Mike Long's or are they the same person under different names?
-
11th August 2019, 06:15 PMShadowmanRe: "Follow me!"
Nicely captured.
-
12th August 2019, 01:39 AMCantabRe: "Follow me!"A good question!Quote:
Originally Posted by lovelife65
-
12th August 2019, 02:47 AMlovelife65Re: "Follow me!"Looking at the gallery of James Cason, seems some of the same photos "Mike" has posted here, so one must be an alias :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Cantab
-
12th August 2019, 11:15 PMEvertkingRe: "Follow me!"Its a name I came up with so I can blame the crappy photos I have taken on this poor fella. Lol... J/kQuote:
Originally Posted by lovelife65
I was not comfortable with giving real info to the internet years ago when I made this email. -
12th August 2019, 11:18 PMEvertkingRe: "Follow me!"Thanks and yes, I see what you mean. It does make positive difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manfred M
-
13th August 2019, 12:25 AMWilliam WRe: "Follow me!"
I'm always intrigued by the use of Wide Angle Lenses for Portraiture.
I reckon you’ve used the wide lens creatively and well done here for impact, too.
The Framing is very good.
A few questions:
> What lens?
> What camera?
> If a zoom, what FL was used?
I ask in reference to questioning the validity of the scene - top left corner along the horizon to back of Subject’s Head.
It looks to my eye that there is something happening in that area: a distortion, perhaps caused by the camera tilting down and slightly skewed to Camera Right – or it could be touch of Moustache Distortion – I can’t figure out which.
***
BTW I agree with Manfred’s comment about the Lighting / Flash - in the original the Flash is too hot on the face, begs another two questions - What Flash? and Any Modifiers?
WW -
13th August 2019, 06:08 PMEvertkingRe: "Follow me!"Hello William, how are you? You may not remember me but I came here looking for help with photography and you gave me some advice that was helpful and I use about everyday, Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by William W
It was shot with a
Canon 6D
17-40 f4 @20mm f4
A 600 watt strobe was set up camera right in a 32 in beauty dish. -
14th August 2019, 03:03 AMWilliam WRe: "Follow me!"
Hello,
I am very well, thank you for asking. I don't remember my advice specifically, but I did remember the fact that you use a different name on Flickr. Thanks for the kind comment, I’ll have to investigate what was my advice.
***
Thanks for the technical information.
Distortions, which are deleterious:
Obviously using a Wide Lens at a close Subject Distance, we will expect both Foreshortening and Elongation, which are apparent in your image and both are used effectively.
I perceive a slightly odd shape ('pointiness') at the back of her head and also a slight curvature of the horizon.
Understood that it might be a curved line at the end of that pasture – but IMO it looks odd and is distracting to the image which not an image for the purposes of historic archival representation.
Given the lens that you used was an EF 17 to 40, I think that there is a combination of (expected) Barrel / Pincushion Distortion from that lens when it is set at 20mm and used on a 135 Format camera AND there is some exacerbation caused by Camera Viewpoint.
I think that the Camera Viewpoint was slightly tilted downward and skewed to the Camera Right, rather than being at 90 degrees to the Subject.
The (shape of the) Head and the horizon curvature is, IMO, off-putting and distracting and weakens the image's value.
As I mentioned, I am always intrigued and excited about UWA and WA Lenses for Portraiture. It’s a difficult discipline and one that I myself am encouraged to master – albeit slowly! Hence my ‘critique’, as such, will be nit-picking by nature especially more so by virtue of the fact that I am so very interested in this sub-genre of Portrait Photography.
***
For consideration -
I downloaded your ORIGINAL (on top)
Ran it through the PS add-on pre-program “Lens Correction” for the 17 to 40, set at about 20mm (Second Image)
Then I added my own lens corrections to address –
1. Slight Camera Down Tilt
2. Slight Camera Skew to Camera Right (Bottom Image)
https://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18554250-orig.jpg
***
Expanding on the topic of the Flash:
I do agree with Manfred that the Flash is a bit hot for her face, I already I mentioned that, and it easily addressed in Post Production as demonstrated.
For my taste Manfred has toned down the red too much.
Specifically, and describing in technical terms:
There’s a difference between how Flash Exposure (i.e. the amount of Flash Exposure vs. Ambient Exposure) - and how the Colour Temperature difference of the Flash CT and the Ambient CT affects an Outdoor Portrait.
Keeping the intensity the Colour Temperature of the Ambient to act as the background pallet is necessary to allow the pop of the MIDDLE-GROUND Portrait to be enhanced by the Flash as Key on the Subject. It seems obvious that you chose a specific time of day to get that Ambient Light.
Within that context of those LIGHTING CHOICES, I think that it is important to recognize how, when specifically using a W/A and UW/A lens for Portraiture, the (immediate) FOREGROUND is NOT the ‘dead air’ that we would necessarily have in the more traditional portraiture when we're using a Standard and Telephoto lenses – and the FOREGROUND, when using an UW/A lens is certainly NOT part of ‘The Portrait Proper'.
Considering these factors, and if we accept that the Key Element to The Portrait Proper, is the face of the woman, it is easy to argue that, that face, needs to ‘pop’ from the Background and (importantly) also ‘pop’ from the Foreground.
The Eyes and Lips typically make up the main two dominate features of the Face: Whilst I agree with toning down the intensity of the flash – I wouldn’t so aggressively change the Flash’s Colour Temperature.
I’d rather look down this avenue of Post Production as described and illustrated below:
> burn-in the face (tone down flash intensity on face)
> remove flash’s hot spots on R. Cheek and Nose
> enhances eye’s (whites and pupils) and lips’ TONE and VIBRANCE
> slightly reduce RED cast in skin
The original is on the top:
https://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18554251-orig.jpg
***
Additionally if you can tolerate more nit picking –
My advice is to be cautious of the selection of clothing for women’s Portraiture -especially that which shows on the neck and shoulder line.
Underneath the Subject’s flowing Blue and White Jumper (an ideal choice for this WA Portrait) is, or are, undergarments that have straps.
These straps cut down on the side of the neck and top of the shoulder and those indentations are in clear shot, and are distressing to the Viewer's Eye, especially the one closest to her neck.
Additionally, I think that care is always required for any Full Face Portrait from a body position of Full Profile.
Always beware of the nasty neck crease when the neck is turned to the camera - the NNC is evident in your image.
***
If you got through all that, then please read this, it is important:
Great shot! Bravo!
WW
Footnote: - I’ll keep the image files posted on the other server for a few weeks and I regularly delete stuff that isn’t mine, so if you want a copy, download them within the next couple of weeks.