Rick36203 Loc: Northeast Alabama

I'm getting tired of shooting him. Going back to birds and bugs if no new willing models come to visit soon.

Single flash in 26" Rapidbox, 85mm, f8, 1/40s, iso200. A little de-saturation, sepia tone, noise added, and a stronger vignette than I normally use. Trying for a "moody" feel with the image. C&C always welcome.

(Download)

Bob Yankle Loc: Burlington, NC

I know not what others may think, but as for me, moody it is!

Rick36203 Loc: Northeast Alabama

Thanks Bob

Nightsky Loc: Augusta, GA USA

Don't give up on this model so quickly - he seems very cooperative.

I really like this shot - contemplation is the work it brings.

jonsommer Loc: Usually, somewhere on the U.S. west coast.

So Rick, I see your model is much more willing and available than mine is, I hope you gave him a great big tip at the end of your session. Now let's see, it seems that you incorporated just about every single suggestion you received in your last post, camera superior position, head turned so ears aren't an event by themselves, broadside lighting, the bright red background is now a rich red, and the model is nicely separated from the background. There is no hotspot on the forehead and you have definitely found a mood. I even like the vignette. I like the crop and I like your page design and balance.

So here's what I'm missing, a connection with those very blue and piercing eyes, and with the current pose, we get no catchlights to make the eyes come alive, at all. The mood may actualley be a bit too somber, though for some tastes, the more I look, the more depressed I become, too, so you definitely good the mood thing down pat on this one.

The gaunt appearance and the prominent zygomatic arch is still visible and very much a contributing factor to the interest generated in this picture, but they don't dominate, but add to the overall effect in a less shocking way.

My final comment is about skin tones, and I know that the UHH compression algorithms can suck the life out of them, but they look awfully gray on my iPad and look like they could use some brightening or maybe a little less Sepia filter.

You've lost the shocking drama of the first one in the series on the black background, along with loosing the chance to look at those blue eyes, you've adjusted the lighting and subdued the BRIGHT RED back ground of the second in the series, but again, here we have lost the connection we had with those sparkling and intense blue eyes, so this one feels isolated and excluded, here it feels like the model doesn't want to be looked at or engaged with whereas, in the first two in this series the eye contact between the model and the viewer was intense.

So, to me, at least, the obvious solution is a reshoot, use all the same settings and lights as you did in this one, just find a way to let us re-engage with those eyes.

Jon

alissaspieces Loc: New York

I think this is the best one yet. I really love the sepia tone and the moody feeling. Love the use of hat to add character! Question..I might want to practice with my own cooperative (self) model to play with lighting. How do you get your eyes in focus? THanks!

Rick36203 Loc: Northeast Alabama

Thanks Nightsky. He's only occasionally cooperative. Quite often, he's opinionated, pushy, and never seems to be satisfied... wanting me to repeat a shot over and over again. Most of the time I have no idea what he's looking for. I'll be happy to move on to someone more compatible.

Rick36203 Loc: Northeast Alabama

Thanks Jon, for the kind and thoughtful comments. I stay confused, but I believe this one still qualifies as short lighting. Most of the face visible to the camera is away from the light. I did have others in the group the were broad lit. My wife wanted this look as she was adding her opinion to the pose.

Rick36203 Loc: Northeast Alabama

Thanks Alissa. I use a target to focus at the spot where I plan on having my eyes. I use BBF so the camera doesn't try to refocus when I press the remote. Or, you can just change to manual focus after getting the spot targeted. Then I move the target, and try to position my eyes in the same focal plane. Just to give myself some more wiggle room, I don't shoot anywhere close to a wide open aperture setting.

jonsommer Loc: Usually, somewhere on the U.S. west coast.

Just a brief comment on shooting portraits with a narrow depth of field, I know that focus is critical in getting something worthwhile, but recently I have been using my 85mm 1.4 and shooting at 2.0. (almost wide open - I love this lens) Personally, I find the results very satisfying and interesting, and very different from the tack sharp, then softened shots that are so common in portrait photography today. At that setting the eyes will be in focus, but the tip of the nose will be soft, and the sides of the head and ears will be really, really soft.

The results seem very intimate to me, and very personal. May be better for shooting women, but it depends on the man. Focus, of course, is the key, and so is good light, but try it, it's worth the effort. My avatar was shot using his technique, not that it's a shining example of great portraiture but can give you a rough idea of the look.

PalePictures Loc: Traveling

A classic case where expression and tone/processing comes together to form mood!
Super!

Rick36203 Loc: Northeast Alabama

I, too, love the results of a good lens shot at, or near, wide open. This is especially true in natural settings. For this image I was shooting against a white background (dark gray w/ the ambient exposure) and knew I could alter it in post with very little effort. I didn't want my wrinkles, age marks, or scars to go soft. But, I do understand your preference, and appreciate your additional comments.

Rick36203 Loc: Northeast Alabama

Thank You, Russ. A comment like this from you, however brief, means a lot. And, it really needs to be balanced with a more critical analysis by Bobby or Cliff. My hat size is already above average. Any additional swelling could be hazardous to my health. :)

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

First of all, congratulations to Jon for being able to work "zygomatic arch" into a sentence.

Yes, there are a few areas the could be changed technically, but for me, Russ' comment is correct - the expression and tone are so good that they cancel everything else.

It is closer to short lighting than anything else.

I love it.

Rick36203 Loc: Northeast Alabama

Thank you, sir. Your qualifier, although appreciated, wasn't even necessary to keep my ego in check. The wife wanted me to practice on her this evening, and her stinging critique of the effort was enough to make me realize that I still have a long way to go for consistently satisfying results. But, in the meantime, I'm happy to be in the ranks of the blind squirrels of the world, by finding at least one small nut this week.

And yes, thanks to Jon, I may cease using the word cheekbone altogether. Zygomatic arch just flows off the tongue, doesn't it? :)