Igor, I always appreciate that you take the time to render thoughtful opinions. I'll try and address most of your points.
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 5:43 PM, Igor PDML-StR <pdml...@komkon.org> wrote: > > Bruce, > > I second Cotty's summary word by word (even though we probably differ in > detail). > > Being less diplomatic than Cotty, I can give some specifics if you are > interested. I am, thank you. > I especially liked 1, 4, 11, 12, even though #11 might look > somhhwat cliche (or was it your photo that I've seen before? ;-) ) Pretty sure I've shown that here as a PESO. Could be wrong though, I've kinda lost track. > (If those were mine, I would probably try to tone down slightly the window > light reflection from the RHS wall in #4) I think that's actually blown out though. Would mean some serious Photoshop'ing. :) > Unless it was a part of some special story, I'd say the toilet in the > background of #5,6 is not as glamorous as the rest. We all liked the vintage bathroom and just had to work with it. I'm not partial to including toilets in shots (generally: yuck!), but <shrug> it was there and I decided to go along with it. I've been practicing being less anal than is my usual tendency to see where that takes me. My 90mm lens restricted my sightlines though. I had to stand outside the bathroom shooting in, mostly. > I like the idea of using reflections in #6,7, but it would've been better if > the mirror were cleaner in #7. :-) But I suspect that it may not have > been a planned shot (has it?). I asked my shooting partner Judi to bring a mirror and she produced her makeup mirror. I did not inspect it for grunge -- whoops! It was my inspiration to ask the model to hold it, and Judi suggested the "put on makeup" angle. Nothing was really pre-planned except that we all arrive at that location at the same time for a shoot. :) In fact, both myself and Judi brought lighting gear, but none of it got used at all. I liked the ambient light and as I was the designated lighting designer, we shot all ambient. > From the entire set, only two are somewhat bothering me: > In #8, the pose is too static (as in obviously posed). It looks obvious that > she was standing in that pose for some time. It is present in some other > shots, but the frozen muscle strain is not as obvious in those. That's not true. I honestly don't see where you are getting evidence of muscle strain from. She's way OOF and what texture you can see on her back is her ribcage. Besides, Araina is not a pose-holder. She is a very dynamic poser and moves fluidly and quickly from one to the next. If you don't focus and shoot fast you miss many. :) I would sometimes say "please hold that" when I saw a great pose that I just needed to get but that would be for maybe 5 seconds, tops. Now, I agree that #8 is perhaps one of the oddest poses, but I'm looking for unobvious looks and poses to liven things up. I got the idea to pose with her reflection looking back at us and I worked it for a little while and was never 100% happy. This was one of the better ones, but as it didn't quite click for me I'm not surprised that you (and many) don't go for it. That's okay as quite a few have remarked on it and quite like it. Yeah it's weird, and has a toilet in it, but on a site where most of the women are standing around in cliche'd poses and locations looking bored, this makes you take notice. :) > Sorry, from the previous discussion, I suspect that it doesn't bother you. I try these things on to see. I like to get feedback yay or nay, so thanks. > In #10, with that counterlight, - it's an interesting effect, but I wish it > was softer with that. I don't know how that can be reached. > I am thinking that a "soft" portrait lens (Pentax FA-85) might work for > that, even though I've never used one. This photo is too softer than a sharp > one, but just not soft enough for that "creamy" cloud-of-dream look. > I don't know, - maybe some local PS experts (Mark?) know how to enhance that > in post? I hear you. I worked very hard to get the right amount of veiling flare to get a soft look, and the lens I was using -- the DFA645 90mm f:2.8 Macro -- just would not flare. It's a beast of a lens, and one of the best that Pentax has ever made I think. Anyway, this was one of a handful of shots where with the sun coming straight into the lens from the model's RHS, I got some nice dreamy softness, though mainly just on that side. There aren't any special "soft portrait" lenses available for the 645Z that I'm aware of. But you have got me thinking, and I should do some research to see what was made over the years. Maybe I can eBay one. In general though, I only like to buy current new stock. I only own two 645 lenses: the 55mm f2.8 SDM and the 90mm f2.8 Macro SDM. BTW, I have plenty of Photoshop methods available to soften the shot and make it dreamier, but I chose to leave it at that level. My portrait plugin has a really good emulation of soft portrait lenses that I've used in the past for glamour/boudoir style shots. > Igor Thanks, Igor! > PS. The website design is weird: clicking on the thumbnail of the "active" > photo moves the thumbnail tape to the top, and the active photo disappears, > so you'd have to reload the page and start over. And that's in 4 different > browsers on Windows. I understand that it is not your website. Until you mentioned it I had not experienced that bug. But as I was writing my responses to you it occurred a few times to me. I think you jinxed the site, Igor. :) The site has launched a recent code change that includes all kinds of Javascript bugs that prevent quite a few features from working. I suspect they must be working behind the scenes to fix a raft of issues. > > Steve Cottrell Thu, 24 Sep 2015 13:09:50 -0700 wrote: > > On 24/9/15, Bruce Walker, discombobulated, unleashed: > >> NSFW for mild topless nudity. A baker's dozen shots ... >> >> https://www.zivity.com/models/Araina/photosets/57 >> >> These images are from my first shoot with local model Araina Nespiak >> in August. Taken in a borrowed conference space in Mississauga. > > > > Great job as usual. Regarding style, some I'm not bothered about but > some are superb. Really really superb. -- -bmw -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
