Notice: Undefined index: Bumped in /var/www/vhosts/fredmiranda.com/httpdocs/forum/functions_2021_i.php on line 1850
Notice: Undefined index: SecondBoardID in /var/www/vhosts/fredmiranda.com/httpdocs/forum/functions_2021_i.php on line 1851
Notice: Undefined index: LatestPoster in /var/www/vhosts/fredmiranda.com/httpdocs/forum/functions_2021_i.php on line 1852 People Photography - Photography - FM Forums
A portrait I took earlier this year of a makeup artist who I had previously met when she did the makeup for another shoot of mine. She had such striking features and I'm glad she was willing to let me set up a portrait shoot with her when the job was done.
Shot using the original Canon 5D with a Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro USM lens attached, set to f/11, 1/160th sec, ISO 100. Lit using a single Neewer C300 with a 20x28 inch soft box and a silver reflector.
I am not normally a fan of removing beauty spots, but in this one, I would. The image screams, "perfection" with everything but the moles (and especially the ear piercings).
I know many will disagree, but if it were my image, I would remove the blemishes. YMMV
I am not normally a fan of removing beauty spots, but in this one, I would. The image screams, "perfection" with everything but the moles (and especially the ear piercings).
I know many will disagree, but if it were my image, I would remove the blemishes. YMMV
I agree with gheller to an extent. If I shot this I would use a healing brush at a low percentage opacity to blend the two largest beauty spots a bit more with the surrounding skin. I would also eliminate the two post holes in her ear. To me, leaving beauty spots, scars, etc. in an image is fine, but dress them up a bit to minimize their perceived presence.
story_teller wrote:
I agree with gheller to an extent. If I shot this I would use a healing brush at a low percentage opacity to blend the two largest beauty spots a bit more with the surrounding skin. I would also eliminate the two post holes in her ear. To me, leaving beauty spots, scars, etc. in an image is fine, but dress them up a bit to minimize their perceived presence.
Really nice job on the image!
Thanks for the feedback. Since two people have brought up the same detail, I'll give my thoughts on it. If this were a commercial shot, then yes I might have to agree that these details could be minimized or removed. For my personal work however, and for many of the portraits that I take of actors and artists who build much of their career on their physical attributes, I do not believe in removing or dressing up permanent details that to me build on someone's unique appearance, including piercings or other modifications someone has made to themselves. I like creating a beautiful portrait, but I want my portraits to be more authentic over being dressed up and turned into something inauthentic. I hope my explanation isn't coming off as defensiveness, only an explanation for my creative choices.
DanielScott wrote:
I like creating a beautiful portrait, but I want my portraits to be more authentic over being dressed up and turned into something inauthentic. I hope my explanation isn't coming off as defensiveness, only an explanation for my creative choices.
DanielScott wrote:
Thanks for the feedback. Since two people have brought up the same detail, I'll give my thoughts on it. If this were a commercial shot, then yes I might have to agree that these details could be minimized or removed. For my personal work however, and for many of the portraits that I take of actors and artists who build much of their career on their physical attributes, I do not believe in removing or dressing up permanent details that to me build on someone's unique appearance, including piercings or other modifications someone has made to themselves. I like creating a beautiful portrait, but I want my portraits to be more authentic over being dressed up and turned into something inauthentic. I hope my explanation isn't coming off as defensiveness, only an explanation for my creative choices. ...Show more →
Great explanation. My brother is an acting coach in Hollywood and we talk occasionally about headshots.
Beautiful portrait, Daniel! Except for some hot spots on her nose, I would leave the beautiful work as is. Yes, the lens is a tad unforgiving, especially at that aperture but the model did it without any major issues.
Joshua
Nov 20, 2020 at 02:20 PM
Notice: Undefined index: adsensetopicmiddle in /var/www/vhosts/fredmiranda.com/httpdocs/forum/viewtopic.php on line 1500
Stunning portrait Daniel. I agree that beauty marks should be left alone, adds character IMO and certainly in no way detracts from this beautiful person. The piercing marks however, if it was me I'd probably remove them.
Gary
story_teller wrote:
I didn't take it as defensive at all. We're good.
Oh good! I actually joined this forum after leaving another. In that other forum I couldn't so much as go into any sort of explanation for my work without people losing their heads over it. I am grateful for constructive criticism, but I also think it's important to understand the photographer's point of view as well when it comes to these things. It's nice to be able to explain myself and not have my head ripped off for it.
gheller wrote:
Great explanation. My brother is an acting coach in Hollywood and we talk occasionally about headshots.
greg
I miss living in Hollywood. Creative portraits of actors is what I'm most passionate about when it comes to portrait photography, and there was always a willing muse or work to be done there.
AGeoJO wrote:
Beautiful portrait, Daniel! Except for some hot spots on her nose, I would leave the beautiful work as is. Yes, the lens is a tad unforgiving, especially at that aperture but the model did it without any major issues.
Joshua
Thank you, and I appreciate your feedback as well.
sum1sgrampa wrote:
Stunning portrait Daniel. I agree that beauty marks should be left alone, adds character IMO and certainly in no way detracts from this beautiful person. The piercing marks however, if it was me I'd probably remove them.
Gary
Thank you so much. I guess it's one of those details that will always vary depending on the photographer. Body modifications to me are a permanent aspect of somebody's appearance as I see them in front of me, and that's just something I personally choose not to remove unless a client or muse requests it.
1- Beauty spots removal is governed by three factors included in the signed contract or vebal agreement:
a- Whomever commissioned and paid for the shoot calls the shots
b- The objective of the shoot
c- The model
2- Please comment on the following:
a- The obtuse nose shadow
b- The blown highlights on the nose bridge and nose tip
c- The lack of texture on the nose
d- The left cheek heavy contour
e- The focus on the eylashes and eyebrows v the pupils
Almass wrote:
1- Beauty spots removal is governed by three factors included in the signed contract or vebal agreement:
a- Whomever commissioned and paid for the shoot calls the shots
b- The objective of the shoot
c- The model
2- Please comment on the following:
a- The obtuse nose shadow
b- The blown highlights on the nose bridge and nose tip
c- The lack of texture on the nose
d- The left cheek heavy contour
e- The focus on the eylashes and eyebrows v the pupils
I'm not sure why you're asking me to comment on these things when you have already commented on them yourself.
DanielScott wrote:
I'm not sure why you're asking me to comment on these things when you have already commented on them yourself.
Let me give it a try:
a- The obtuse nose shadow: YOUR POST IS OBTUSE, THE SHADOW IS SUBTLE AND SOFT
b- The blown highlights on the nose bridge and nose tip: GOES WELL WITH THE THEME, AND HOW THE PHOTOGRAPHER DESIGNED THE HEADSHOT
c- The lack of texture on the nose: YEAH, SHAME ON HER FOR HAVING PERFECT SKIN
d- The left cheek heavy contour: IT'S CALLED MAKEUP; AND ADDS DEPTH TO THE PHOTO
e- The focus on the eylashes and eyebrows v the pupils: FIX YOUR EYES OR GET A BETTER MONITOR. FOCUS IS SPOT-ON. SEE HOW HER EYELASH *AND* EAR IS IN FOCUS? HOW COULD HER PUPIL BE OOF?
