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
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 →
In the realm of desired "authenticity" ... it does appear to be distinctly stylized, moreover than natural. Guessing, this is not headshot oriented, though. So, some latitude exists of course for portraiture rendering liberties. But, wondering if you pulled back on the stylized aspect (skin texture looks rather "processed" to me) a bit, if you would be letting more of that "authentic" show through more than being dressed up so strongly in processing ... that is if authenticity is important on this one.
Just something for consideration ... there's more than one way to present "inauthentic". I totally get the point about features, but quality of those features are part of that also, imo. So, authentic vs. authentic plus artistic stylized vs. inauthentic ... sometimes those can be some blurry lines we draw.
A lovely image, but I'd not call it authentic due to its heavy stylized processing. I think the point about the nose lacking similar texture to the skin (makeup or not) is a strong telling point, as well as the lashes, brows, iris, etc. Again, lovely ... just a very fuzzy, wide berth being granted, if this is somehow being construed as "authentic", imo.
So, creative choices noted ... are indeed creative (also having created a dissimilar skin texture) for a compelling image. I just see your processing hand distinctly atop her qualities on this one. Again, lovely image ...
While it may have not been captured oof ... the illusion presented by the processing applied to different structure renders it softer than one might expect, causing it to look as such.
Imo, this is the byproduct of processing issues, not capture / focus issues.
Here is a side by side comparison of the original file and the edit. This portrait session was done because I was inspired by this girl's unique beauty (including the moles which to me resemble a constellation), her makeup artistry/skill, and her charisma as a person. She really is just lovely to work with and be around, and is one of the nicest people I have met. If you don't believe this is an authentic representation, that's valid, as any edited photo by nature is not authentic to the image that was originally captured and this is simply a representation from my individual vision. I hope this does not come across as invalidating anyone else's opinions, I only wish to explain my point of view.
Here is also a close up of both the nose and eye at 100%. As you can see, the nose retains skin texture, the pupil is in focus, the lashes are in focus, and so are the brows.
DavidWEGS wrote:
I love the feeling evoked by this: retro in style, almost 50’s era, with a splash of Vermeer quality.
I would concur about the ear piercings, but feel the slight imperfections in the skin only serve to highlight the perfection of the way it was created... and therefore I’d leave the moles.
Lighting is very good, but I personally would like a little something to separate the backdrop...
Overall, 8.5-9/10
Well done.
Thank you so much, and I'm also grateful that you're being respectful with your critique. It is very much appreciated.
gheller wrote:
Great explanation. My brother is an acting coach in Hollywood and we talk occasionally about headshots.
greg
Hey Greg, I appreciate you sticking up for me and for continuing to have respectful discussion with me even when we don't see eye to eye on every aspect of the shot. Thanks for being a stand-up person. I do appreciate the feedback and I do consider all of it. My work isn't perfect and I am far from being the photographer that I want to be, so please bare with me for now lol.
DanielScott wrote:
Here is also a close up of both the nose and eye at 100%. As you can see, the nose retains skin texture, the pupil is in focus, the lashes are in focus, and so are the brows.
So noted, Might have been in resizing / compression that made it seem overly smoothed / soft, etc. I hope you understand that I didn't mean to offend, only present what I was seeing. Carry on.
RustyBug wrote:
In the realm of desired "authenticity" ... it does appear to be distinctly stylized, moreover than natural. Guessing, this is not headshot oriented, though. So, some latitude exists of course for portraiture rendering liberties. But, wondering if you pulled back on the stylized aspect (skin texture looks rather "processed" to me) a bit, if you would be letting more of that "authentic" show through more than being dressed up so strongly in processing ... that is if authenticity is important on this one.
Just something for consideration ... there's more than one way to present "inauthentic". I totally get the point about features, but quality of those features are part of that also, imo. So, authentic vs. authentic plus artistic stylized vs. inauthentic ... sometimes those can be some blurry lines we draw.
A lovely image, but I'd not call it authentic due to its heavy stylized processing. I think the point about the nose lacking similar texture to the skin (makeup or not) is a strong telling point, as well as the lashes, brows, iris, etc. Again, lovely ... just a very fuzzy, wide berth being granted, if this is somehow being construed as "authentic", imo.
So, creative choices noted ... are indeed creative (also having created a dissimilar skin texture) for a compelling image. I just see your processing hand distinctly atop her qualities on this one. Again, lovely image ...
...Show more →
Thank you, really. Regardless of me explaining my point of view, I am taking in and considering all criticisms, and I appreciate that you continue delivering your critique in such a respectful way. I may have been a little bit defensive considering the way someone else was delivering their opinions, but I just want to make it clear that I AM listening and I AM grateful that you are taking the time out of your day to do so with respect.
RustyBug wrote:
So noted, Might have been in resizing / compression that made it seem overly smoothed / soft, etc. I hope you understand that I didn't mean to offend, only present what I was seeing. Carry on.
I was wondering the same thing regarding compression. I truly appreciate your comments and I absolutely respect every point that you have taken the time to make.
Well, I'll probably get blasted for this, but here goes. I think the portrait is quite good in technical terms. Lighting is super, detail excellent (maybe too excellent as has been mentioned). However, as soon as I brought this photo up on my monitor, I instantly disliked it. The pose and expression make the model look haughty, conceited and perhaps downright mean. You described this woman as being very nice and lovely to work with and be around, but this particular image fails to show that side of her personality. Perhaps there were other shots from the shoot that did, but this is the only one I have to go on.
Just my opinion (fwiw) and stated in the interest of honest critique.
Cheers,
Brent
Nov 25, 2020 at 12:34 PM
Notice: Undefined index: adsensetopicmiddle in /var/www/vhosts/fredmiranda.com/httpdocs/forum/viewtopic.php on line 1500
bnfotografie wrote:
Well, I'll probably get blasted for this, but here goes. I think the portrait is quite good in technical terms. Lighting is super, detail excellent (maybe too excellent as has been mentioned). However, as soon as I brought this photo up on my monitor, I instantly disliked it. The pose and expression make the model look haughty, conceited and perhaps downright mean. You described this woman as being very nice and lovely to work with and be around, but this particular image fails to show that side of her personality. Perhaps there were other shots from the shoot that did, but this is the only one I have to go on.
Just my opinion (fwiw) and stated in the interest of honest critique.
Cheers,
Brent...Show more →
You're more than entitled to your opinions. Thanks for commenting.
bnfotografie wrote:
You described this woman as being very nice and lovely to work with and be around, but this particular image fails to show that side of her personality.
+1 that this one shows a very formal presentation ... different vibe.
I actually love this, great shot, beautiful details! Also agree with your stance on removing features from a subjects portrait Daniel. Would only consider if commercial or requested.
ahqball wrote:
I actually love this, great shot, beautiful details! Also agree with your stance on removing features from a subjects portrait Daniel. Would only consider if commercial or requested.
