Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 192 193 [194] 195 196 ... 220 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Recent Professional Works  (Read 1097337 times)
MichaelEzra
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 659



WWW
« Reply #3860 on: October 05, 2012, 07:19:36 PM »
ReplyReply

The character, light and post, all look very coherent.
Logged

David Eichler
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 340


WWW
« Reply #3861 on: October 05, 2012, 07:23:39 PM »
ReplyReply

I agree with Scott, it's more professional to do it in camera, although sometimes it could be painful.

To complement the above comments I would suggest avoiding the blue light (daylight) hitting the right side of the steel parts.

It could be intentional but I think it contaminates the very clean otherwise. Just desaturating the blue would be enough.

ACH

In my opinion, it is only the end results that matters to the viewer. With all of the tools digital provides, I don't see why one method is more professional than another, unless, as Scott points out, you need to show an on-site client something that is pretty close to the finished result. Techniques such as Scott uses work fine for his style, clientele and temperment, but I would not want to be limited to just "getting it right" in camera when digital offers so many additional creative and problem-solving opportunities. In the end, though, what I still prefer above all is great ambient lighting, often just daylight. I just dont think you can beat the sun as a light source.

As for the blue reflections in Scott's photo, I like them because I think they provide a bit of color contrast. Nothing wrong with blue color casts, in my opinion, if used appropriately to suggest blue sky reflections or twilight.

Kind of curious, these days, for still photography, how many are correcting mixed lighting at the source, as opposed to later on in post?
Logged

ACH DIGITAL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 373



WWW
« Reply #3862 on: October 05, 2012, 09:41:09 PM »
ReplyReply

In my opinion, it is only the end results that matters to the viewer. With all of the tools digital provides, I don't see why one method is more professional than another, unless, as Scott points out, you need to show an on-site client something that is pretty close to the finished result. Techniques such as Scott uses work fine for his style, clientele and temperment, but I would not want to be limited to just "getting it right" in camera when digital offers so many additional creative and problem-solving opportunities. In the end, though, what I still prefer above all is great ambient lighting, often just daylight. I just dont think you can beat the sun as a light source.

As for the blue reflections in Scott's photo, I like them because I think they provide a bit of color contrast. Nothing wrong with blue color casts, in my opinion, if used appropriately to suggest blue sky reflections or twilight.

Kind of curious, these days, for still photography, how many are correcting mixed lighting at the source, as opposed to later on in post?

Well two different questions. First as you all know, what you see in location is not what the camera sees, so the quotation that t is natural" doesn't really is. When you see a slight tint of blue in real live it translate into a deep blue as you are balancing for tungsten. So it is never natural.
In my case if I can deal with it in camera at location, is faster and easier. If I can not then I'd do it in post.

Some clients allow for more natural reflections and mix lighting, others just don't allow for it. Some clients like little retouching, others ask for a lot.

The problem with mix lighting is that, as I said before was not that intense in real as it shows in film or digital. So for me in this case I would try to avoid or lower its intensity at location or in post, what ever is handy to me.
See this example, first the untouched image then the final. That blue was never like that for real, so it has to be solved.



Logged

Antonio Chagin
www.achdigital.com
David Eichler
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 340


WWW
« Reply #3863 on: October 06, 2012, 12:17:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Well two different questions. First as you all know, what you see in location is not what the camera sees, so the quotation that t is natural" doesn't really is. When you see a slight tint of blue in real live it translate into a deep blue as you are balancing for tungsten. So it is never natural.
In my case if I can deal with it in camera at location, is faster and easier. If I can not then I'd do it in post.

Some clients allow for more natural reflections and mix lighting, others just don't allow for it. Some clients like little retouching, others ask for a lot.

The problem with mix lighting is that, as I said before was not that intense in real as it shows in film or digital. So for me in this case I would try to avoid or lower its intensity at location or in post, what ever is handy to me.
See this example, first the untouched image then the final. That blue was never like that for real, so it has to be solved.




I don't disagree with anything you said in this quote. In your example, the real daylight was probably a bit cool looking to the naked eye (if not as cool as the "before" example), but that would not be the best look for this photo, so you went with something that was not what the naked eye saw, to make a better photo. With other subjects and combinations of colors, it might be a different story, in my opinion, and of course the client's desires matter too.

Logged

Dick Roadnight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


« Reply #3864 on: October 06, 2012, 03:28:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Well two different questions. First as you all know, what you see in location is not what the camera sees, so the quotation that t is natural" doesn't really is. When you see a slight tint of blue in real live it translate into a deep blue as you are balancing for tungsten. So it is never natural.
In my case if I can deal with it in camera at location, is faster and easier. If I can not then I'd do it in post.

Some clients allow for more natural reflections and mix lighting, others just don't allow for it. Some clients like little retouching, others ask for a lot.

The problem with mix lighting is that, as I said before was not that intense in real as it shows in film or digital. So for me in this case I would try to avoid or lower its intensity at location or in post, what ever is handy to me.
See this example, first the untouched image then the final. That blue was never like that for real, so it has to be solved.



...and back to my original comment on Scott's picture: does anyone "do it professionally" by taking different shots for different light sources (e.g. daylight, tungsten and fluorescent) so that each light source can be independently light-balanced before merging the shots? This, of course, give you a very wide range of options to satisfy a clients requirements.

Did any of you do separate exposures for each (filtered or gelled) light source on one sheet of film?
Logged

Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1679



WWW
« Reply #3865 on: October 06, 2012, 03:33:50 AM »
ReplyReply

It is just Professional Photography in the Digital World.

Move away from that monitor and you'll find real workspaces, real homes, real cars and thankfully real women in a Real World.
Logged

KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1679



WWW
« Reply #3866 on: October 06, 2012, 07:33:14 AM »
ReplyReply

I should perhaps add that I can and do appreciate the level skill that is a part of making many of the images I see here. However I can't help feeling a sense of irony when I hear commercial photographers bemoaning CGI and the effect it has had on their livelihood and yet see those same photographers imitating the look.

Anyways, Ive been around long enough to realise it's all cyclical, hopefully the next cycle will bring a little more in the way of humanity.
Logged

Scott Hargis
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 194



WWW
« Reply #3867 on: October 06, 2012, 10:06:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Dick, I can tell you that lots of people work that way.
As I said on a different forum recently, in my opinion, what combination of techniques you use doesn't matter. The point is to be in charge of a managed process, not just throwing shit at the wall and hoping that what sticks looks good. Pre-visualize the shot, and then go through whatever steps you need/want to get there. If the end result matches what was in your head....then you're doing it right.

Logged

<a href="http://www.scotthargisphoto.com">Website</a>
semillerimages
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 163


WWW
« Reply #3868 on: October 06, 2012, 12:52:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Mr. Ezra,
Please forgive my formality Smiley
Your images are absolutely stunning, some of the most impressive nudes I've seen that are all about form yet have that slight hint of eroticism.
What do you do with these images? Gallery? Personal work? Sell to the model?
This new set probably is the most impressive that I've seen by the way, as I lurk away on here Smiley
Congratulations on a perfection of your style!

*steve
Logged

semillerimages.com
MichaelEzra
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 659



WWW
« Reply #3869 on: October 06, 2012, 01:25:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Thank you, Steve. I guess this would get categorized as personal work, I don't get to do much with images besides making them. some time ago I was selling prints on eBay, will probably try to revive that. I had a few attempts to work with galleries a few years ago, but that was not fruitful.  The largest exhibit I had "recently" was in 2009 in Moscow on FotoForum with 29 prints, that went very well. You can also view it on my site under Exhibits/Concept of Form. Having a day job unrelated to photography leaves little time for it, especially in the last few years. I still have many untouched negatives going back to year 2000; hopefully, some day will go through. If time permits, I plan to consolidate various projects into a book and also write an instructional book on Sculptural Photography on the basis of masterclass given on the same FotoForum-2009.
There are more levitation works that are still in the RAW, was actually hoping to process a few this weekend:)
Logged

semillerimages
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 163


WWW
« Reply #3870 on: October 06, 2012, 01:31:42 PM »
ReplyReply

I love to buy that book Smiley
Thanks for the rapid reply!
Logged

semillerimages.com
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #3871 on: October 06, 2012, 01:44:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Move away from that monitor and you'll find real workspaces, real homes, real cars and thankfully real women in a Real World.




Keith, you're messing with my head again: I tried clicking on Real World looking for those real women, and nothing happened... just like in Real Life.

;-)

Rob C
Logged

KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1679



WWW
« Reply #3872 on: October 06, 2012, 01:53:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Keith, you're messing with my head again: I tried clicking on Real World looking for those real women, and nothing happened... just like in Real Life.

They're out there, Rob, in the real world, just don't expect them to respond to clicks ;-)
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #3873 on: October 06, 2012, 01:58:57 PM »
ReplyReply

They're out there, Rob, in the real world, just don't expect them to respond to clicks ;-)


Yet to try clicks, but they long stopped responding to the snapping of fingers - or even of suspender belts. But they don't wear them anymore, I believe... so much gets lost with progress!

;-)

Rob C
Logged

bcooter
Guest
« Reply #3874 on: October 06, 2012, 02:04:03 PM »
ReplyReply

The character, light and post, all look very coherent.


Thank you Michael, but as you know this is the reality of an open forum is we all live in a glass house so some people will love what we show, some not.  

Some of it's constructive and I like that, but all is personal opinion and that's fine also.

Anyway

The real story of this image



is commercial work and commercial work brings with it a different set of discipline especially today with a major eye on expenses.

If this image (which is one of many) was shot completely on location,  the cost of permitting, securing parking, adding RV's,  police, grip trucks, catering, running cable, generators, would have impacted this portion of the shoot by a lot.

Then you have the issues of crowd control, wind, overtime because it's evening, etc. etc.  Also this project has a video component so the cost exponentially goes up with video due the motion requirements and added crew.  

Do this on 4 locations and the numbers add up. 

I know because two years ago using some of the same or close to areas in san francisco we were into those prices and honestly the imagery is not any more "real" looking or compelling because commercial work comes with it a lot of selection by committee, changes, swapping out subjects, expressions, etc.  In other words a lot of post production.

When it came time to create the main subject for the image referenced, in discussion with the creative group/client  we could either light and place the subject in studio to look organic,with more realistic lighting, or shoot it as if we added key light for a more stylistic approach.  It was decided by all to use a more stylistic approach.

Consequently, these two images were shot on location with some minor to major supplemental lighting to look organic and regardless of what we did they still require a great deal of post production, because . . . that's the standard of the industry today.



When I look at Michael's lovely nudes the technician in me sees post work and physical construction, though the artist just sees pretty images. (which is the way it should be).

I don't shoot a  great deal of nudes to compare it with, but this image



Was shot "organic" and has virtually no retouching.  Even the lighting is from practicals moved into position.

Do I think it's better or worse than other imagery . . . NO, I just think it is what it is.

IMO

BC
« Last Edit: October 06, 2012, 06:17:07 PM by bcooter » Logged
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #3875 on: October 06, 2012, 10:14:25 PM »
ReplyReply




Was shot "organic" and has virtually no retouching.  Even the lighting is from practicals moved into position.



My wife looked just like that until, you know, we had kids.  Seriously, freaked me out for a second.  I was like "She never told me about this."

Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1679



WWW
« Reply #3876 on: October 08, 2012, 11:49:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Another from Lovokomeio.



H3D11-22...but really, who cares?
« Last Edit: October 08, 2012, 12:20:32 PM by KLaban » Logged

HarperPhotos
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1249



WWW
« Reply #3877 on: October 08, 2012, 02:41:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Hello,

Shoot with a Mamiya RZ body, Leaf Aptus 75 back and 180mm SB lens with tilt/shift adaptor.

Question is. But is it art?

Just kidding.

Cheers

Simon
Logged

Simon Harper
Harper Photographics Ltd
http://www.harperphoto.com
http://www.facebook.com/harper.photographics

Auckland, New Zealand
jsch
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #3878 on: October 08, 2012, 03:06:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Hello,
...

Question is. But is it art?

...


Hi Simon,

if there is a curator who says it is art, it is. If there is no curator saying that, I'm sorry it isn't.

You see, it is very easy to decide whether someting is art or not.

Best,
Johannes
Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1679



WWW
« Reply #3879 on: October 08, 2012, 03:19:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Art is married to Hilda and fixes our cars.
Logged

Pages: « 1 ... 192 193 [194] 195 196 ... 220 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad