single photos MOdel: Inge MUA: EWartistry

Although this shot was technically nicely done and obviously the model portaited here is very beautiful, still this picture doesn't 'do' it for me. For me the face looks a bit too unnatural with the heavy make-up, which creates a strangely big difference between her face and her neck/chest. Her eyes do not sparkle as much as I would have liked, now she looks a bit uninterested.

Hugo

Derek may address how he achieved this look, but I believe one comment above might be misleading as to how one might achieve, or improve, this look. Since no one has addressed it, I thought I might, since this is a learning site.

 

The use of softboxes would not be able to achieve this look, the quality of light they generate is not what is need to create the defined shadows and transitions found here. The Hollywood photographers from the 30's and 40's, this style, used large fresnel lights(focused light) and reflected floods. All very hard light sources. It is true that softboxes can be used to create a dramatic photo, however, the transitions and shadows are never like this--they are soft. The light is much more enveloping than the light sources that can create this effect.

 

If anyone is interested, google William Coupon (renowned for his one softbox portrait work of Presidents and Celebrities) to see what a dramatic softbox photo looks like--which is nothing like this, to be sure.

Perfect clean and lifeless doll, that is what she seems to me.

It is definitely a magnificent shot under a more technical point of view. Lighting is perfect and makes the skin look so soft and sexy. I would say that the lighting used is so beautiful because it gives a "sculpture" effect. I don't like the big shadow on the side of her nose and the fact that the left (right for the viewer) eye looks smaller and unproportioned in comparison with the right one. On the right eye there is also a shadow from her hair that is interesting but it bothers my eye a bit and it looks like her make-up is melting down or something.

The first job I ever had was as an office boy at United Artist on Toronto. Part of my job was to go through the head shots of actors and send them to movie houses as part of promo packages. This is as good as any I have ever seen. And I have seen a ton. I love the eyes and the overall lighting.

 

In Peace and Healing

Glenn Wainman M.A.

A stunning work, 1920-40 film stars should have had it so good. Little streaky with light across the face, a little softer tone there might have helped, and this I think was overly critical of me. As i said, stunning. Congrats.

Hi, this is a great portrait with the play of highlights and shadows it gives shape and volume, the butterfly lighting is just right...also it helps a lot to have a beautiful subject that knows how to face to the Lens....

Classic Harcourt style.

 

Really nice

Well what is wrong with this photograph.

1. I wish I had taken it, "hi hi"

2. The light on the left cheek is a little hard.

3. the hair light on the right side is to hot, it shows up to hard under her right shirt collar and shoulder.

4. Other than that it is "GREAT".

 

James/k8mia,

Aw, Alexander Chubb didn't make it again. Boooooo hooooooooo! Sniff! Sniff! Boo hoo hoo.

 

Nice photo. Takes me back to yesteryear.

beatiful loght congratulations

Yes, a virtual mannequin, a little too flawless. Was this a creation of Lucasfilm Industrial Light and Magic one might wonder. And the texture or lack of texture of the skin that makes it a poster,rather than a portrait. Also a little too much symmetry in the face and the lighting maybe. A great ad for home hair coloring product. (The Breck shampoo girl?) An actress from the film noir of the '40s, well perhaps,but not for me, lacking the mystery and eroticism of Marlene Dietrich,Ava Gardner, Ingrid Bergman or Gene Tierney or Merle Oberon or Lizabeth Scott or Joan Crawford evoked by the master studio photographers.(See John Kobal's book of Hollywood Portraits for examples of what I am getting at if you wish)

 

Sorry but no kudos here, since a critique has got to be honest I have to demur from unqualified praise. The pose and lighting may be classic (sort of) and technically fine for a head shot, but it doesn't reach me personally as a very compelling face study. I guess Evita M and I may have had the similar reaction. Thanks for the opportunity to comment.gs

Perhaps the best example of butterfly lighting since the '30s - perhaps even better.

 

Wish I had done this shot.

grate light ... good portait...

This photo has the "garbo" of Greta.

 

Best regards and good luck!!

 

 

Throw away your computer, keep the girl.....

Eitherthe make up is over the top or the pic is just too good to be true.

I offer an analogy for over-sharpened, over-processed digital darkrooms which is that digital darkroom work is a bit like breast implants, they often look great, but do they feel real? No.

I love the makeup, the pose, and the expression. But it it clearly lit from two opposing directions and that bothers me. The light on the left jaw, coming from our right is much too intense for a fill light. I would have preferred maybe a kicker/hair light behind her. But overall this is a great image.