The "Candies" are Ready

[my stuff]

<p><strong><em>Just wanted to tell you that “Freddy Baby” my re-touch artist has finished her post production...</em> </strong><br>

<br /> <em><strong>Ben :-)<br /> </strong> </em></p><div></div>

[bill_from_new_york_city]

<p>I enjoy everything about the photograph except what the model is holding. That red blob does not work for me. I could be wrong but it looks like it was Photoshopped in and what is with the highlights on the right side of it that are a distraction that takes away focus from the model.</p>

[silverdae]

<p>I'm sorry to add, but that isn't very strong pp work. To compete professionally with this image, I would definately rethink the post work.</p>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>There was a great article in the NY Times July 17 on Lillian Bassman, 92, that she's PS ing some of her old work from negs that he did not destroy. There's going to be a book and a gallery soon too. You have a lot of really sharp work, this I'll pass on, maybe save it until age 92 ;).</p>

[ken_yee]

<p>that red thing has to be photoshopped in...the reflections don't match her body's. E.g., look at the underside of her left arm. From the way the red thing is lit, the bottom of her arm should be brighter...</p>

 

[ken_yee]

<p>that red thing has to be photoshopped in...the reflections don't match her body's. E.g., look at the underside of her left arm. From the way the red thing is lit, the bottom of her arm should be brighter...</p>

 

[nathan_stiles]

<p>In addition to this being bad photoshopping, since the gummy gator is enlarged, it needs to be a much sharper macro so that it looks like it has the same level of focus that the model has. As is, it was blown up w/ so much data loss that it's a blob. Of course, the lighting should have been the same.</p>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>Hmm, Benjamin has some "mad skills", I wonder if he just put this up as a spoof to await reaction. If not, maybe a client asked for this specimin. I remember doing a shoot for an add in Stereo Review and the results were so bad I asked for no credits or acknowledgement of any kind, but that's what "the client" wanted. Oh well, so goes the world of photography.</p>

[my stuff]

<p>The alligator candy has a totally white bottom. That is exactly how it looks. It is a gelatin chewy candy. The alligator was shot in macro at f11 and is very sharp in fact. This image is for a Fashion Editorial called "Candies".</p>

[nathan_stiles]

<p>I don't think it's your f-stop that made the alligator appear less sharp-- I think it's your lighting. If you used a 72" light source, on a 58" model, did you then use a 3" light source, on a 1.5" gummy that will later be enlarged to look like a 36" gummy?</p>

<p>I don't think so, and I think the lighting ended up much flatter on the small gummy, than it did on the actual size model. For example, the model's hair is "totally white", but the hair on the same side as the gummy's white bottom is not near as bright. From how evenly the gummy is lit, I'd say it was shot at a different angle (3/4 view profile) and rotated in photoshop-- look at the highlight on the tail facing the floor. It's the shadow side for the model.</p>

<p> </p>

[my stuff]

<p>Actually Nathan there were two lights being kicked back in to the model on either side of her. In fact it was the same as was being used on the back-drop. I used 2 x 2K Tungstens for the backdrop and 2 x 2K tungsten at 45° returning to the model all using Full Blue Gelatin Correction Filters plus an Opalite shot down at around 45° directly in front of her using a Pro Phot 1600 ws Flash System. The bottom of the alligator would be very bright indeed; I do agree that the detail of a tiny 4cm alligator is a bitch to light, but I did replicate the lighting on it as I did on the model.</p>

[nathan_stiles]

<p>You don't get what I'm saying. Since relative size and distance determines the quality of the light (in a large part), if you used a source smaller than the model, you'd want a source smaller than the gummy.</p>

[ricardo_tomasi]

<p>As another fan of yours Ben, I'm sorry to agree. It's a great shot except for the gum, the lighting doesn't look right. White is too light, and the shadow from her arm is too dark and cuts off suddenly near the bottom. It's also projecting an unrealistic shadow contour in the bottom left. Nathan sounds right about the light source.</p>

[brooks short]

<p>Looks like an obvious and poorly done strip-in for the gum. Lighting on the gum isn't even close to the same as the light on the shot the model. Nathan makes a good point.</p>

<p>Seems like no good reason to use tungsten lighting either, other than the passing phase of using cinema type lighting as a creative crutch.</p>