trc Loc: Logan, OH

Here is another photo from the shoot I did with Victoria, the Russian Model.

The photo was taken using a Nikon D800, 1/200s, f/16, ISO 100, 85mm. Manual mode was used and 2 softboxes for lighting. Taken using a f/1.8, 85 mm Nikon lens and shot in RAW format. I was quite close to Victoria when I had taken the shot. Also, the lights were also very close to her.

There are a couple things that I am wondering if they could be better, so I am asking for the photographers to give me your opinion and let me know what you might change and why.

I am purposely not saying anymore since I'd like to get your unbiased opinion and suggestions. Thank you very much. :-)

Best Regards,
Tom

Victoria in a Furry Hat

(Download)

Leicaflex Loc: Cymru

The pose is good and the model attractive.

For a portrait, I think there are issues around the eyes, a bit shadowy and there is no or little sparkle in the eyes which one would expect from a photographic portrait.
Just my thoughts though.

Irvingite Charles Loc: Irving, Tx

:thumbup: :thumbup:

trc Loc: Logan, OH

Leicaflex,

I certainly agree with usually trying to get more sparkle in the eyes of a person in a portrait shot. I find that images uploaded to UHH often times lose something in the uploaded version/translation to UHH. I fight that all the time vs. what my images look like on my computer monitor.

I just talked to someone on UHH last night who said the same thing about images he uploads to UHH. It would be nice if the uploaded images to UHH would be lossless! Maybe it has something to do with the processed color space of the image? Thanks for commenting, and have a good day.

Best Regards,
Tom

trc Loc: Logan, OH

Charles,

The thumbs up is much appreciated! She is an attractive Russian Model and very cooperative, but does not say a lot during a shoot.

Best Regards,
Tom

Irvingite Charles Loc: Irving, Tx

She doesn't have to. :-)

rdfarr Loc: Floridian living in AL

Great subject, and interesting photo.
I might have given her skin some smoothing, much like in most commercial model shots.

trc Loc: Logan, OH

Rhett,

There are a couple reasons why I didn't soften her skin like in magazine model shots.

1). I do approve of skin softening to a degree, but I think it is often used too much or perhaps the skin softening process oversteps it bounds by some photographers to the point of not looking real and hence is pasty looking? I did soften her skin a little by bringing down the highlights and the clarity, somewhat, and compensating by increasing the lightening of the shadows. I don't often use third party programs such as Portrait Pro for skin softening and makeup, etc. I also try not to over sharpen such that the photo comes out at you and slaps the viewer in the face.

2). Victoria has quite a few freckles, and I wanted to maintain those, hence, keeping it realistic for her complexion. She actually does not have the best skin with many flaws which I did lessen and remove. Right or wrong, I attribute that to her nationality and her Russian culture. I don't know if I am stereotyping her 'roots' - I'm just not sure. By working on her blemishes and skin 'spots,' I basically made her blemish free, not only her face, but her arms and hands, etc., as well.

Thanks very much for contributing opinions and providing possible improvements. Everyone's comments are great for learning ideas when processing photos.

Best Regards,
Tom

rdfarr Loc: Floridian living in AL

Understand entirely.
I do a light glamour treatment on most of my photos of ladies as a bit of flattery. They never complain! :-)

trc Loc: Logan, OH

I'll bet they never will. :-) I took a shot of a female political candidate along with two other candidates (another woman and a man). They were three separate head shots and they were to be put on a billboard next to each other. The first woman I mentioned was the oldest of them all, and she was around 75. She was so nervous I couldn't get her to calm down or strike a good pose. Having taken about 20 shots of her, I finally settled for the best out of 20, since she was definitely getting frustrated and her poses were getting worse!

I post processed her a lot! I did maintain reality in her looks, but I did a lot of work and spent a lot of time improving her appearance. I even did some liquify work, not to mention a lot of other enhancements. I showed her my final image of her and she was sooooooo pleased! She was still very real looking, but not once did I see any anger or disgust from her with my results. :-)

In fact, I was paid a bonus for the work I did, and she was quite pleased to have that picture up on the BillBoard for the public to see. I felt a sense of reward knowing I made her quite happy. All three of the candidates I photographed were elected, so it was a complete success for everyone!

Best Regards,
Tom

Bill_de Loc: US

Just a thought. According to your EXIF Tag your image is 4673 pixels wide, by 6209 pixels long. Most, not all, monitors could not fit that on the screen. No matter what UHH does, most, if not all, browsers resize images to fit the entire image. That process is very unlikely to be lossless. The browser has to discard pixels.

Sizing an image for it's intended use goes a long way in letting the viewer see what you see. Since you can't know everybody's device, you may want to experiment with resizing a few images to different dimensions before the rest of PP and see the results. Even at the 600 wide dimension UHH uses for posting, I have seen folks put up some pretty good results.

BTW - Very nice portrait of a very nice looking girl!

--

trc Loc: Logan, OH

Bill,

Hey, thanks for the info on the pixel width size for images posted/uploaded to UHH. I appreciate it and will see what kind of results I may get in future image uploads.

Also, thanks for your kind remark about this image of Victoria.

Best Regards,
Tom

trc Loc: Logan, OH

Bill,

Here is the same image . . . 600 pixels wide, but 797 pixels in height. Better or not? Thanks.

Tom

Russian Model in a Furry Cap - 600 pixels wide

Crazyjay58 Loc: Southern Maryland

:thumbup:

Bill_de Loc: US

I think this show a little better detail than the one at the top of the page. The skin tone is better and the color of the hat seems richer.

IMHO of course. I hope others will chime in.