Flames or no flames?

Flames or no flames?

  • Total voters
    36
  • Poll closed .
•
In my book, graphically, there both great!

The second is stronger as this is what one may see of smoke.
The first is very cool but the fire is too dull…
more opacity maybe?

Your on to something very fine there, Simon!
 
juggler said:
Thanks, Kodiak. Maybe the flames are a little dull; I was trying to stop them dominating the image.
Click to expand...
•
In theatrical scenes, the fire IS dominant.
It is its visual way to spell danger…

The girl is really cool and you did good work on that!
 
Definitely flame, balances the shot so much better without overpowering her. Given that the model has been "weathered" it's just about the right brightness to give good contrast.

To really be Lara she needs the pistols though!
 
My preference is for no flames.
The second image lends itself more to the double entendre - smoldering (smoke & beauty)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
They're both good in their own way :)

Unfortunately, the lighting doesn't look correct direction wise, though it is better in the second one.
 
I think the fire one is too unreal. There's no sweat :), and the WB is too perfect - maybe warm it up a bit on the model? That close to a fire, and the subject should look like they're cooking... Anyone illuminated by flames would have a warmer glow to them.

The second one is the winner for me. Less "obvious", more to think about, and the model looks more a part of the surroundings.

Just my opinion!
 
kendo1 said:
They're both good in their own way :)

Unfortunately, the lighting doesn't look correct direction wise, though it is better in the second one.
Click to expand...

I can understand that it doesn't look quite right in the flames shot. You're implying that it looks wrong in the second one, though. In what way? The smoke was in the original raw file (and the studio, for some time afterwards :) ).
 
Firstly I think they both look great.

But I'm surprised no one else has mentioned that the rimlight would need to be gelled for the flames one to work properly.
 
Harlequin565 said:
I think the fire one is too unreal. There's no sweat :), and the WB is too perfect - maybe warm it up a bit on the model? That close to a fire, and the subject should look like they're cooking... Anyone illuminated by flames would have a warmer glow to them.

The second one is the winner for me. Less "obvious", more to think about, and the model looks more a part of the surroundings.

Just my opinion!
Click to expand...

Thanks!

We tried to simulate some sweat during the shoot but discovered my plant mister spray thing was broken :(
We did use some baby oil but the sheen is rather subtle.
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
Firstly I think they both look great.

But I'm surprised no one else has mentioned that the rimlight would need to be gelled for the flames one to work properly.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I tried to compensate for the lack of gels by letting some of the colour of the flames encroach where the rimlight hits the model but clearly haven't quite managed it - I might give it another go.
 
I'd go with the flames.We all know they are not real but they do look realistic and in no way naff/fake. Yes number 2 looks great as a studio piece and your pretty s_ _T hot at that suff so good youve done something different. What did the model have in mind like the first one eg the movie persona or a studio type image.

Gaz
 
cargo said:
I'd go with the flames.We all know they are not real but they do look realistic and in no way naff/fake. Yes number 2 looks great as a studio piece and your pretty s_ _T hot at that suff so good youve done something different. What did the model have in mind like the first one eg the movie persona or a studio type image.

Gaz
Click to expand...

Thanks! As for what the model had in mind.. her principal concern was to show off her abs - she's been working on them for two years - and to do something more robust than the arty nude stuff she normally gets booked for.

I'll give her both, once I've tweaked the rim light colour, as well as the raw file. She's a retoucher too, it'll be interesting to see what she makes of it.
 
I think the second is the stronger image... of two very very good shots and processing. That lighting is phenomenal!
 
sunnyside_up said:
I think the second is the stronger image... of two very very good shots and processing. That lighting is phenomenal!
Click to expand...

Cor, thanks. I forgot the pullback :(

Two gridded standard reflectors, back left & back right, gridded large beauty dish on a boom at a funny old angle dead close to and kind of skimming the front of the model, large black panels to either side of the model and one on the floor in front of her.
 
Phil V said:
…But I'm surprised no one else has mentioned that the rimlight would need to be gelled for the flames one to work properly.
Click to expand...
•
…more brains are sometimes better than just one!
 
Like both Simon, was going to comment about the colour of the highlights but had to rush off to the dentists and that's already been covered.

With the first I'd like to see the background have deeper blacks, K's point above, that and the rim light colour sorted and I think that'll look pretty amazing.

That lighting....well, just looks stunning.
 
Phil V said:
Firstly I think they both look great.

But I'm surprised no one else has mentioned that the rimlight would need to be gelled for the flames one to work properly.
Click to expand...
Sorry for my ignorance, but what is a Rimlight and why would it need to be gelled. Just so I have some sort of idea as to what you're talking about.
 
Nostromo said:
what is a Rimlight and why would it need to be gelled
Click to expand...
•
The rim light is designing a thin line of light from the back on the edges of a subject.
If the fire is supposed to have created that rim light, then a gel should reflect that.

Is this good english enough? …not always sure to be clear =(
 
juggler said:
I can understand that it doesn't look quite right in the flames shot. You're implying that it looks wrong in the second one, though. In what way? The smoke was in the original raw file (and the studio, for some time afterwards :) ).
Click to expand...

I think it may be the rim light on the second one. Maybe it is a touch too strong (just my opinion as an amateur!)
I think it makes the situation look just a bit unreal. In real life it wouldn't be there as she is lit from the front.

Does that make sense to you?

Edit: It makes more sense in the first pic. It's maybe a subconscious reaction to the lighting - but maybe I'm being too anal about it!

Nice pics :)
 
Last edited:
Nostromo said:
Sorry for my ignorance, but what is a Rimlight and why would it need to be gelled. Just so I have some sort of idea as to what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

Rim light = light around the rim of the subject. Useful for separating subject from background, enhancing 3 dimensionality and generally providing interest. Often overdone, including by me.
Gel = coloured acetate sheet that goes over a light.

In this case if the rim light is supposed to be coming from the fire then it should be (more) orange.
 
Both are great, but I'd go with the second image too, it's more realistic, with the flame one you'd have sweat & totally different lighting (yes I understand it's a composite) but it doesn't look #real but the second one does, if you see what I mean.
 
Morbid said:
Like both Simon, was going to comment about the colour of the highlights but had to rush off to the dentists and that's already been covered.

With the first I'd like to see the background have deeper blacks, K's point above, that and the rim light colour sorted and I think that'll look pretty amazing.

That lighting....well, just looks stunning.
Click to expand...

Ta. I very much appreciate the comments on the lighting - but confess to having a secret hope that one day I'll make a great image with amazing lighting that only I notice :)
 
Nostromo said:
Sorry for my ignorance, but what is a Rimlight and why would it need to be gelled. Just so I have some sort of idea as to what you're talking about.
Click to expand...
As above.
You can see the rimlight down the models sides, you'd be amazed how much difference it's making to the image, it separates the model from the background, have a look through magazines, you'll see the technique everywhere.
 
Last edited:
If you had of used an orange gel with the back /rim light I would have said with flames as it would have made a big difference to the reality of it

Edit - just noticed it's all already been said
 
Last edited:
juggler said:
Ta. I very much appreciate the comments on the lighting - but confess to having a secret hope that one day I'll make a great image with amazing lighting that only I notice :)
Click to expand...
We're photographers, we learn by deconstructing, the man in the street would just say 'wow'. Try it as a FB share :D you'll see we're right, it's a great image.
 
I'm torn... both are nice.

I think the first is more dramatic and has a bit more "context." But I think the BG needs more contrast/vibrance and she needs "color correction." (a LAB selection of highlights would work well).
The second image works better as a whole "as is." But for me, the BG in this image is really just "negative space" and doesn't add a lot to the image, especially towards the lower right. I think a different composition/crop might work better.
 
The 'faults' that are being found in the first image are not going to be noticed by 99% of viewers (outside of a photography forum). The fire works, stick with it. Great work BTW!
 
I think for the type of image you are after the flames adds a lot more drama. They are both good but the flames give a bug of story to the image. Like the model has just escaped a forest fire or something. Pretty sure you'll be able to orange the rim light (good thinking @Phil). Which ever you choose I'm sure the model will be very pleased.
 
Yep, I'm being very picky - but that is why we are here :)

If the client is happy...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top