james mitchell dc Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 Is Leica glass to blame? She's still in her 20's... Epson RD-1s, 40mm 'cron. <center><img src=http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/4548568-lg.jpg></center> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnmarkpainter Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 The lighting is to blame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james mitchell dc Posted June 10, 2006 Author Share Posted June 10, 2006 John, I know, but I was too polite to ask her to turn around. And the low-angle sun was very bright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_kaplan1 Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 You need to hang out with younger women ;-) That grazing side lighting doesn't help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james mitchell dc Posted June 10, 2006 Author Share Posted June 10, 2006 I like a challenge, Al. You know all of the meanings I put into that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james mitchell dc Posted June 11, 2006 Author Share Posted June 11, 2006 Here's the one that I like better, but only for her sake... Not as well composed or metered, but she likes this one... <center><img src=http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/4548570-lg.jpg></center> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coalburner_01 Posted June 11, 2006 Share Posted June 11, 2006 maybe just toss a Bounce in with the dry cycle...she looks fine and will continue to look fine for years to come... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roger_smith4 Posted June 11, 2006 Share Posted June 11, 2006 Maybe add a reflector/touch of fill. Or break out the Holga and get creamy soft portraits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james mitchell dc Posted June 11, 2006 Author Share Posted June 11, 2006 I have one camera and one lens with me... No accessories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james mitchell dc Posted June 11, 2006 Author Share Posted June 11, 2006 Chris, I agree. I adore her! One of my best friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
summitar Posted June 11, 2006 Share Posted June 11, 2006 To me, she looks prettier in the first photo, because of her smile. She is a beauty in any case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canfred Posted June 11, 2006 Share Posted June 11, 2006 Hi James , too much DOF and as pointed out the side light does not help. I would use a larger aperture and perhaps a Zeiss Softar. The model is beautiful. If you dont mind cleaning your lens try a little vaseline, a very small amount in circular wipe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_.1 Posted June 11, 2006 Share Posted June 11, 2006 She's just a bit wrinkly is all. Lighting, as mentioned, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
love4leica Posted June 11, 2006 Share Posted June 11, 2006 James...... Sarah looks just beautiful in both picture but I personally prefer the first one. She looks exactly how you see her in her and your daily life. Light and lighting play a very important part in pictorial documentation depending what exactly you want to depict or enhance. The classical example is forensic photography where often grazing light is used to bring out minute texture in exaggerated form. A friend of mine was courting a young girl for 21 months. One Saturday night he took her out for a special meal and had decided to propose her for marriage. She had dressed beautifully and looked stunning. They sat at the dinning table having drinks and waiting to order their meal. After some time the waiter came and lit the candle on their table. His words to me " I was shocked what I saw". The light from the bottom of her face showed her facial wrinkles and some small scars which was the result of auto accident when she was still at school. With help of daily cosmetics and in ordinary light of the day, he obviously could not see what he saw at the restaurant table with her face lit from the bottom. What happened afterwards is not relevant but the reason I am telling this story is to point out light can sometimes show and exaggerate under un-natural lighting conditions. PLEASE do not start a debate on the story but stick to light for photography. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bart feliciano Posted June 11, 2006 Share Posted June 11, 2006 I don't think there's anything wrong with your shot, but if the traditional, flattering effect is desired try 0.5 - 1.0 sec handheld with a large format camera? http://static.flickr.com/70/155851436_a3ed2e4ec3.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
e_b7 Posted June 11, 2006 Share Posted June 11, 2006 In the second photo, you're closer to the subject, so the face is distorted a bit. That's one of the reasons the first photo is more flattering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bart feliciano Posted June 11, 2006 Share Posted June 11, 2006 2nd try. <br>Longer shutter time would introduce a faint motion blur that smoothes out skin. <br>This example is probably a bit too long a shutter speed. <br>><br> <a href=" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://static.flickr.com/70/155851436_a3ed2e4ec3.jpg" width="500" height="371" alt="." /></a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent_tolley2 Posted June 11, 2006 Share Posted June 11, 2006 Shoot her in the shade. Duh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted June 11, 2006 Share Posted June 11, 2006 James, The favorite head/shoulder photos of my woman that I made were all shot with a 50/2 Summicron-R, @f/2, in the shade and handheld. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lutz Posted June 11, 2006 Share Posted June 11, 2006 James, she's a beauty. I prefer the first pic, though it's a bit on the darkish side on my screen. Had you worn a white shirt, here's what it might have looked like (courtesy of responsible use of PS). BTW, wrinkles add to the personality, don't they? ;-) Cheers.<p> <center><img src="http://www.photo.net/bboard/uploaded-file?bboard_upload_id=30522184"></center> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icuneko Posted June 11, 2006 Share Posted June 11, 2006 Try open shade for such portraits. You'll avoid such lighting contrasts and still get good detail though a bit softer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_s. Posted June 11, 2006 Share Posted June 11, 2006 Alternate take<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_s. Posted June 11, 2006 Share Posted June 11, 2006 Alternate take<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
________1 Posted June 11, 2006 Share Posted June 11, 2006 Scary, Richard. It's a head shot, the knees poking up at the front edge of the picture plane do nothing for the image. The enviroment is not discribed well enough to be worth including. Cropped vertically it looks like a bad commercial shot so crop it hortz and a little looser. Would look ok 4x5 in a nice little free standing frame sitting atop the baby grand sort-of-thing. Maybe a little less contrasty than this.<p> <img src="http://members.shaw.ca/jamie_jenkins/jameshead.jpg"> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terry_rory Posted June 11, 2006 Share Posted June 11, 2006 /.,;<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now