leanne_newton

I think everyone has given good advice here.

Lose the glasses, get her to brush out her hair

and dab a bit of Dermablend on the spots.

Side light shows bumps and texture, so I would

definitely use a frontal light,

tunnel lighting is always nice.

Give her a picture she will be happy

to look back on....

This is actually a nice portrait-- it needs to be retouched

or printed soft contrast and dark and then bleached with a sepia tone.

I usually avoid filters etc.

Easier to think ahead and avoid post production problems.

The problem with working on location

is that you need to go prepared,

down to the last extension cord/reflector/stand.

Whether you are working on a windy beach or

in some other `location` which is not a studio.

It`s easier to work in a studio than on location,

it is not the same thing. In a studio

there are fewer surprises.

At the moment you have questions like

~Am I an Idiot~ or ~Please Help~

under `Uncatergorized`.... Really fun to navigate.

But yes I agree that it`s low priority

and this is a critique site for hobbyists,

not a site for professionals.

Problems I have

I usually solve on a case

by case basis. I usually shoot

nudes or movement,

the client chucks a product in

and expects great

feel and a great rendering

of the product as well... :)

Choices get easier with experience, I know.

Not a particularly good scan, but you get the idea.

It would be great to see the lighting forum developed

a bit.....

I have so much to learn about lighting

but every job I do seems to get more difficult.

I had to shoot a girl flying through the

air on a white background surrounded by flying

coloured plastic balls....if you are interested

the result can be viewed

on my website. I shot it

on the Mamiya 6X7, and yes it could

have been done digitally but the

ad agency wanted it shot that way.

Took a while to figure out how best to do it.

At the moment I rent

lighting according to my needs.

It would be great to have categories

making research easier,

and so you have my full support

in this, Timber.

I don`t spend all that much time

on the lighting forum because the topics

are not well defined.

Just laziness on my part I guess.

To be corrected right away,

even if it means wading through it all.

Didn`t mean to upset you, Louis.

It`s not as if I feel strongly about this.

I guess I missed the point entirely,

which is that you are looking for comments/ratings

on individual images, and you are not interested

in receiving feedback on your presentation

as such.

My mistake for misunderstanding your post.

Go shoot outside of the studio for a while. I find that a change of pace helps a lot. From what I see you've posted,

your studio work looks very classic ( not a good thing-- I don't mean timeless). There is a lot more you could be experimenting with in the studio technically,

and you could work on styling/makeup/hair/ideas a lot more too.

But first, get out for a while, fresh air will help get your creativity going again....

Thank you Timber.

This would be very useful to me.

A photograph should speak for itself.

So often the photographer`s words

can alter the viewer`s

experience in a negative way.

This is a big subject to handle on the forum,

but I think that as a presentation

this lacks impact.

The argument is too unfocused.

Too many ideas thrown out without

a central theme. (story).

If the presentation introduced the photographer

on a more personal level (vision)

or dealt with a particular experience (theme)

it would be more coherent, I think.

As it stands the pictures are good,

but what the photographer thinks is not a compelling

photographic theme.

Great pictures can be made by

people who aren`t

even all that interesting... sometimes just by

working from instinct

they manage to

capture the viewers` imagination.

What the photographer thinks then becomes as much

of a subjective opinion as anyone else`s.

Great. I don`t mind it full frame as is.

Good story.

Grant that's a great picture and even if you tell me you did it on digital, it's still a great picture.

Tom, I really like the image, don't get me wrong. Studio work on a white background can look a little flat, or plain, so the lighting is important, detail/texture is important- whatever it takes to give it a bit more life. It's usually done on medium format too... so all I'm saying is yes, you need to start out with as much detail as you can get and I suggest film, based on what you have posted here.

I'm still thinking this over, Tom. I honestly think this would have looked better on film. The original color would have looked better shot on medium format, the lighting is good, the little girl is great...

The manipulated color would also have looked better working from a higher quality original. Are we taking a step backwards using digital ? I ask this in all seriousness. Convenience aside, I think digital works well under certain conditions, but I would not choose it for work of this type...

I also think black and white achieved in this way lacks depth....

I'm starting to feel worried now. Don't mind digital but I hope to have the option of using film for a long time to come.

Rockstar attitude...maybe it's about time :) Well, I've never actually shot less than a roll, to be completely honest. Sorry about the way that came across, I was responding to a flame ( I think) but it got deleted, so...

Makeup and hair do help. It's wrong to think that only models need this kind of attention. It builds confidence and makes people feel that you are looking at them critically in order to help them look their best.Then they trust you more too, when you say that they look fine.

It takes me one frame to shoot a portrait

good enough to publish in a magazine,

of a complete stranger I have never seen

before in my life.

`Hanging out together somewhere comfortable`

as Jim suggests is not

always an option under professional circumstances.

The use of makeup and hairstyling is quite usual, on the other

hand.

I don`t manipulate my images

in photoshop either, because I prefer a more direct result.

Makeup is the best filter -- a little powder goes a long way. Cuts down on odd reflections and blown highlights on the nose, forehead,etc.

Women are usually too heavily madeup for "formal" portraits, less is more. Get them to do it over, from scratch, if possible. Soft lipstick, or just lipgloss is fine. Half the eyemakeup and mascara they usually use-- invisible "blusher" - blended...no hard lines!

The hair can make or break a picture. Soft, clean hair looks like hell in a photo,. You will need to run some handcream/hairoil through it,. Just a bit, don't overdo it---if the person has fine flyaway hair, very little is needed.

Your subject will feel flattered that you are showing an interest. Pay them a compliment and get their reaction on film.

They will look much better in the photo.

Do a google search on the `right

of publicity/privacy`.

If the title of the photograph is something like

`A Christmas Show`, then it should be ok.

About being someone who takes photographs for a hobby... in a legal dispute I think the law recognises a 'body of work' ( amateur or not ) more favorably than a 'casual snapshot'. I mean to say that if an image is published that the photographer can prove has a connection to personal work/ artistic intent, it can count as 'exhibiting' your work, more than a single snap would.. And, in some cases, that may override the subject's claim to copyright of their own likeness.

So you could then say you entered the competition looking for exposure...and being published on the cover becomes 'exhibiting' your work.

But, check all this with a lawyer...I'm just thinking out loud again.

To be a bit more specific....you can go around taking pictures, and this is not illegal. These pictures can be printed by you for your personal use, and exhibited as examples of your 'art'.

In the case of editorial use, I think this refers to news reporting, photojournalism.

Most stock agencies will require a release for images to be used as illustration in magazines. For example, the photo of a child illustrating an article on child abuse.

Magazine covers usually require model releases, because the publication generates sales through successful covers. Therefore the rights are worth more. Not to mention the advertising that some publications do, featuring their latest cover.

So, when I say you'll probably be ok, I mean you probably won't win;) so the problem may never arise, and even if you do, the people in the picture probably wouldn't bother to sue, but they could.

Doisneau and co. have all been in court re copyright/privacy issues.

It's dangerous to promote the idea that model releases are not required. Always best to get one whenever possible.

Laws are subject to change, and while your right to take a photograph is not in question, your freedom to publish your image may be limited.

Think it over carefully.

This is a bit of guesswork on my part....the cover of a magazine may qualify as "advertising use" in some countries. The laws may be different in different countries so what goes in America may not be the only criteria in the case of an international publication.

You should be ok, I think, but no-one can guarantee anything, especially on-line.

Read the fine print carefully, there probably is a bit of unintelligible legalese which places the responsibility on the photographer for all rights and releases to the image. Study the paragraph which most probably deals with the image "belonging" to you , with care.

It might help if they did specify that the photograph used is the winning entry of a photo competition. If that's the prize, they are saving money on producing an image for their cover, or paying for the usage rights for one...which would cost more being a cover, and not an inside page, and an international one at that.

Most of the competition rules I've read involve the sponsor using the image in some way, and most times the 'prize' is of less monetary value than the rights to the image.

To complicate matters more, I think b/w images are considered more "artistic" by the law, than colour --a lawyer told me this (!). I mention this to illustrate how complicated it can be....you need to ask a lawyer who specializes in this area.

This is my least favourite ,

because of the framing.

I like the others very much.

We are still talking about staged

portraiture here ?

If someone gives me an evil look and a

nasty handsignal why should I not show that ?

Of course people looking at the image might

think I am a nasty person for provoking

such a reaction -- therefore I might prefer

to show a soft smile,

or a simple stare at the camera....

I think when I edit I try to choose

a portrait

which is interesting for people who

are objective about the situation.

ie. The viewer.

Some people may not be as interesting as they

look photographed by a good photographer,

so the photographer who is able to communicate

something more than a flattering

or otherwise rendition

of a ( perfect ) stranger is getting it right,

in my opinion.

Quote from Arbus....`it was my teacher,

Lisette Model, who finally

made it clear to me that the more

specific you are, the more general it`ll be.

You really have to face that thing.

And there are certain evasions, certain nicenesses

that I think you have to get out of.`