MUA Final

[Loose Canon]

For now at least! I’m striking the set!

Well, once I wade through 2” of powder all over everything!

f/8.0
1/200th shutter
ISO 1000
Two shot composite
Two lights fired

[Shadowman]

Very nice.

[FrankMi]

Beautiful symmetry Terry!

[Mike Buckley]

Another really terrific image but my nod goes to the second shot by just a smidgeon. Though I prefer the dust in this one that is a little blurry, I don't like the change in color tone in that dust (more purple, less pink). The dust in this one also obscures the razor sharp ends of the brushes in this one that I like so much in the other one.

[Loose Canon]

Thank you guys. I appreciate the insights.

Mike to tell the truth, I haven’t even considered which I would consider a personal preference yet from the trio. They were shot with different goals/ideas in mind and my evaluation of them is, so far, based on those goals/ideas, the success/failure thereof, and what might be ideas to improve the shot. Or at least make it a bit different!

As (I hope) you know I have great appreciation and respect for your input. Now you have me thinking about a preference! Except I’m not quite done evaluating the differences I made for each shoot and what I might have done differently. Guess as a technical shooter that really never stops for me!

When creating the brush movement that triggers the dust “clouds”, those clouds appear to the naked eye as “smoke”! I purposely used another substance for the makeup, which I wanted to be a lot more powdery this time. You know, just to try other things to see what one might get.

I agree with you. The dust density does obscure. But I am also amazed that those “smoke” particles came out as clear as they did in the less dense areas. They just about have to be approaching the microscopic range! You can’t see it at the time but the camera picks it up! Apart from the density at the brush tips, the dust is moving at a much faster speed right at the moving bristle tips than it is further away from the brushes, where the density has also been dispersed more. This contributes to the clarity of the dust particles further away from the bristles and the more cloud-like appearance at the brush. The larger particles will travel farther away than the more dust-like stuff. One thing I wanted to see is just how much clarity I could get with how much cloud!

Admittedly, I did some multi-color powder shots just to well, “go wild”! (Okay, I really should get out more!)

Anyway, so much for my preliminary technical eval! Stuff I guess I figure I need to know for the kind of shooting I like to do!

I appreciate you helping me with my artistic deficiency Mike. God knows I need all the help I can get Brother!

[Mike Buckley]

I agree that there is no need to have a favorite. Sometimes I have a favorite, sometimes not. This time I have one.

[wilgk]

That is seriously clever! Well done indeed!

[IzzieK]

Actually I like the clever change of powder colour in this shot simply because it is different. It made me think of the brushes having a different sort of powder in each before the contact with one another...it would have been much better looking perhaps if the colour of the handles of the brushes have the opposite colour to the powder. Now that would certainly be strange but pleasing perhaps. What do you think?

Cool it -- With all the images you had posted to share with us so far, if you truly are in need of creative-ness, you probably just need a little dressing on your creative wound...where I need to be in intensive care...hahahaha

[Loose Canon]

Thank you Kay!

Thanks for commenting Iz! If I’m reading you right, and I never really do (must be why I like you so much!), I’m not saying I need to lick any wounds!

I’m just saying I’m not really what I would consider to be an artistic type shooter. I don’t think there is anything wrong with that. And I think there is room for that. I can create something from nothing. Well, sometimes! And I know the so-called “rules”! But I am just more interested in the technical details of a studio shoot. I work with light. You know, the “how-to’s”, the “why’s”, and the “what-if’s” kind of thing rather than looking at it from a purely artistic standpoint. If there is one little detail causing problems in a lighting solution it have to know why. It will bug the snot out of me until I find out! Even if I can’t do anything about it with the given composition I figure it’s my job to know why.

I don’t think I see things the way some of the more artistic folks see them! And I figure that is why, though I have great respect for them, I really don’t have much interest in doing some kinds of shooting. Street photography might be an example. The folks who do that well see things I don’t think I can. I think their stuff is awesome. I don’t know for sure, I’ve never tried it and I’m not in love with an urban landscape. I hate being in a big city. Ironically, I would love being on the edge of one taking night shots.

And I guess that is also why they have art directors/stylists on the big sets.

I guess it could be said that the two intersect sometimes, but I’m probably more of a “form follows function” kind of guy! I don’t know if that came out right Izzie and this could probably be a topic great debate in a thread of its own.

[Mike Buckley]

this could probably be a topic great debate in a thread of its own.

Yep. An apt thread title would be "different strokes for different folks."

[Mark von Kanel]

errm not seeing anything!

[Loose Canon]

Sorry Mark.

Its been up over 24 hrs and being seen.

There is another posting that I'm not seeing either. Maybe a site/Tinypic glitch?

[Loose Canon]

Well whadaya know?

I had another look and now I'm not seeing it either!

I must have used disappearing ink powder instead of makeup!

[IzzieK]

errm not seeing anything!

When I first read Terry's comment off line, there wasn't any image later. Come back a little bit later and it will show up. I have checked and it is there now. That was 2 hours ago.

[JBW]

Beautiful!

[Mark von Kanel]

Its there now,,,, gremlins are lurking!!!