Model Portfolio shots

Mahoneyd187

Mahoneyd187

Messages
2,604
Name
Danny
Edit My Images
No
Just a few from a shoot yesterday, home devved Ilfosol 3 (1+9)
1)
6227012503_1aa43d44a3_z.jpg

Delta 100
2)
6227011943_f7e9ab26f4_z.jpg

Delta 100
3)
6227530986_5b16d6ebfd_z.jpg

Delta 100
4)
6227532600_07e7f1e6e7_z.jpg

Delta 100
5)
6227531230_9f2fd96ea1_z.jpg

Tri-x 400

All taken at box speed with a Mamiya RZ67 and 180mm lens, scanned on a V500 Epson flat bed (most of you know what I use anyway I think)

Thanks for looking :)

Dan
 
Hi danny - as I mentioned in the other thread, thought I'd give you my £0.02 worth - bearing in mind I'm not really a people-shooter - but hey, everyone's entitled to an opinion I guess...

I've taken the liberty of adding no's to the shots - just for clarity.

okay - here goes...

1) - like the semi-silhouette look, I'm looking at this shot on the TP Black theme, and you can just pick out a little of the models face - I'd like to see maybe just a touch more - maybe it could be dug out of the neg by a bit of D&B action...

Good use of the soft reflections in the gloss doors, interesting pose - though my first reaction was "has she stepped in some dogmuck or something" - probably because of the rest of the litter on the floor before her... Background OOF effect could be stronger - though I understand it's probably as OOF as the kit on hand would allow in the situation. I'd also have been tempted to darken out the stairwell where it met the RH door - a hard black to shiny door line would just define the door area a little IMO. All round, not my favourite from the set but certainly interesting.

2) I like the reduced backlighting from the doors being half closed, again, the pose works quite well for me, though the banister rail of the stairs apears to slightly confuse the shape of her outer thigh, while the newel post by her calf being so bright draws the eyes away from the models legs... A little more light on the girls face works well for me, though again I'm not sure about the stuff on the floor - was it positioned there to produce the effect of - say - opening the doors to collect a post-drop, or was it just random crap that you left there?? If it's supposed to be saying something, then it needs to shout a little louder.

3) I really, really like this one - perhaps not as "challenging" a shot as the first two, It's well lit, well seen, well composed and well exposed. It also uses the leading lines of the stairs, rails and bannisters to great effect - try as you may, your eyes are led right to the model. The one thing I'm not 100% on, and this may or may not be a valid criticism, is that I'm not quite sold on the "straight up the nostrils" camera angle

4) IMO it's a brave composition that slices your model in half diagonally... even heavily OOF, it distracts me a little too much. I also think that the degree of blur in areas of the shot is just too heavy for my tastes. Sorry, but it's not really for me.

5) Another corker - a wonderful portrait of a striking young lady - bends or breaks a few compositional rules, and possibly the better for it. Putting her face top RH quarter and allowing her hair to occupy almost all the other half of the frame works well - it's a striking (theres that word again :LOL:) feature, and deserves to be given some airtime :)

From a technical viewpoint, they're well exposed (for the effects you were going for) and the dev/scan part of things seems to have worked well. Far and away better than I could ever hope to produce TBH, and so far out of my own shooting comfort zone that I feel a little strange commenting on them, but what the hell... It's got to be better than "I like #3 best", surely ??
 
TheBigYin said:
....so far out of my own shooting comfort zone that I feel a little strange commenting on them, but what the hell... It's got to be better than "I like #3 best", surely ?
Click to expand...

Infinitely better my friend I thank you kindly for your feedback :cool:

All valid comments, and it's nice to have feedback from a "non-portrait" photographers as well, as your opinion isn't influenced by your own style as such.

Over the last couple of years I've shot with 99% flash, to be honest I'm still pretty new to shooting with natural light, properly backwards I know but hey (y) I struggle a little with having less control but I'm learning :bonk:
 
Last edited:
I'll drop my 2p in too, might as well :D

1) Like the pose but i think it cold benefit from a little more light to the models front and maybe a small straighten, nothing that cant be done in PP

2) Again, i like the pose and its good to be able to see the model more, but there is something about the doorframe which is a little skewed, maybe you werent straight on for the shot and it has messed the verticals :shrug:

3) good exposure and good pose, not sure about the rail towards the top left though, the fact that its out of focus makes me feel like it was an accident

4) The out of focus stuff at the top of the frame is messing with my eyes a little, cant tell where her hair ends etc but the other diagonal railing i think is a good line, all in all a good shot, i just dont get on with the OOF stuff on the top

5) Good exposure and pose (im spotting a recurring theme here :D) the composition is unconventional yet great, i like that it there appears to be a sense of movement from her hair, but the image just seems a bit flat, the whites of her eyes seem very grey and the whole image could do with a bit of a bump in curves

Like Mark, i dont shoot people so im a little out of my comfort zone so i can understand why you would disregard anything i say :D

Rob
 
robhooley167 said:
I'll drop my 2p in too, might as well :D

1) Like the pose but i think it cold benefit from a little more light to the models front and maybe a small straighten, nothing that cant be done in PP

2) Again, i like the pose and its good to be able to see the model more, but there is something about the doorframe which is a little skewed, maybe you werent straight on for the shot and it has messed the verticals :shrug:

3) good exposure and good pose, not sure about the rail towards the top left though, the fact that its out of focus makes me feel like it was an accident

4) The out of focus stuff at the top of the frame is messing with my eyes a little, cant tell where her hair ends etc but the other diagonal railing i think is a good line, all in all a good shot, i just dont get on with the OOF stuff on the top

5) Good exposure and pose (im spotting a recurring theme here :D) the composition is unconventional yet great, i like that it there appears to be a sense of movement from her hair, but the image just seems a bit flat, the whites of her eyes seem very grey and the whole image could do with a bit of a bump in curves

Like Mark, i dont shoot people so im a little out of my comfort zone so i can understand why you would disregard anything i say :D

Rob
Click to expand...

Woohoo comments :)

Not meant to contradict your comments in any way, just explaining my madness :)

1 & 2 I was debating whether or not to shoot these as silhouettes, they've ended up something in between really. I couldn't get straight on so good spot, the verticals are off, parked car in the way dammit!

3 & 4 were intentional "playing" with lines and shooting through gaps to create blurry frames. In this case I didn't pull it off very well in my opinion, but have shot since, and I'm getting the hang of it a little more. I'm trying to test things like shooting models in reflections, through gaps, through glass of different shapes and thicknesses etc.

5. The shots mostly unretouched, just tidied. I did a version after this using a different scan technique which resulted in high contrast. It looks better I think but I'm not sure. I probably should have used some location flash to improve the contrast and drop the background values. I do find my shots are coming out very, grey. I might start unexposing and over developing to push the highlights up and boost the contrast. Decisions decisions.

Problem is, I dont actually know any film shooters personally. The only info I have access to is online so it's a bit of a slow learning curve lol

Thanks for the input and taking the time to critique :)
 
Its good to know there is method behind the madness and im not just being overly pernickety :)

With regards to the parked car, you have an RZ67, a slight knock to the car would move it enough if its as heavy as an RB :D :D

I always found my v500 scans to be quite high contrast, which suits me fine for my black and white work, i personally havent used more than 1 roll delta 100 so i cant comment on the contrast of it and i havent used any tri-x so i cant say if its the film itself or the scanning

I found push developing to give good contrast and quite pleasing grain providing it wasnt too extreme a push, i dont do more than 2 stops but ive seen good results with more radically abused film, have you tried coloured contrast filters?

Rob
 
For me 5 has the biggest technical problems. You have compressed the tonal range down to the dark end and its therefore missing a bit of 'brightness'. I don't think it needs to be high contrast but a bit of brightness on the buttons and some highlights on the face would give better definition to her face. It would improve the picture no end. Otherwise I like them, quirky portraits that are well shot and I imagine meet your vision of the images!
 
I'll do a cheeky re-edit tonight and see whether I can do better on that one. D&B here we come
 
I liked the crop/composition of the first posting, but definitely prefer the tonal balance of the second one - to quote my old tutor "It's called black and white, not dark and light grey" :)
 
robhooley167 said:
Its good to know there is method behind the madness and im not just being overly pernickety :)

With regards to the parked car, you have an RZ67, a slight knock to the car would move it enough if its as heavy as an RB :D :D

I always found my v500 scans to be quite high contrast, which suits me fine for my black and white work, i personally havent used more than 1 roll delta 100 so i cant comment on the contrast of it and i havent used any tri-x so i cant say if its the film itself or the scanning

I found push developing to give good contrast and quite pleasing grain providing it wasnt too extreme a push, i dont do more than 2 stops but ive seen good results with more radically abused film, have you tried coloured contrast filters?

Rob
Click to expand...

Thanks for the input Rob

I think it was my previous scanning method to be honest, that was leaving me with flat scans. The re-edited shot above was from a second scan of the same negative, a scan with much better contrast. Finally getting to know the vuescan software a bit better (y)

I'm tempted by contrast filters but dont really want to lose any more light. Flash lit would be fine but I'm quite enjoying natural light portraits at the moment, which is new for me!
 
Much better contrast in there, whites are present with the blacks maintained. It brings her to life a bit more. She was rather 'grey' in the last one! ;)
 
I like them Danny but my one overall comment is start using coloured filters. I find white skin comes out grey without filters and trying to change the contrast to get the skin looking a bit whiter has an effect on the whole image that you may not want.

I've used yellow and orange on females with reasonable effect, although you then have to look at the rest of the colour in the image (not good if she'd wearing a yellow or orange jacket). You just can't manipulate B&W film in the same way as B&W digital when it comes to the photoshop end.

The tricky thing with this is the light you lose with filters. Not so much for a big budget boy like you but for hotshoe flash guy like me the filters suck up the power. Sometimes you can open up a stop or so but then you risk having too little DOF. The only other option is to up the ISO and then you've got grain to contend with. It's not always a problem depending on enlargement size and application.
 
Kev M said:
I like them Danny but my one overall comment is start using coloured filters. I find white skin comes out grey without filters and trying to change the contrast to get the skin looking a bit whiter has an effect on the whole image that you may not want.

I've used yellow and orange on females with reasonable effect, although you then have to look at the rest of the colour in the image (not good if she'd wearing a yellow or orange jacket). You just can't manipulate B&W film in the same way as B&W digital when it comes to the photoshop end.

The tricky thing with this is the light you lose with filters. Not so much for a big budget boy like you but for hotshoe flash guy like me the filters suck up the power. Sometimes you can open up a stop or so but then you risk having too little DOF. The only other option is to up the ISO and then you've got grain to contend with. It's not always a problem depending on enlargement size and application.
Click to expand...

I've been debating whether to get filters for a while now. My scans really are pretty grey, even with levels adjustments in the scanning software. And I really don't want to have to do that anyway I'd much much rather get it right in capture.

Thanks for taking the time to write that for me. Would you be able to direct me to exactly what I need? I'm not massively clued up about filters, all I know is I use a 77mm thread lens and cokin is a cheaper option to Lee. But in terms of adapters and stuff, no clue.

Light is the issue too and what's kept me clear of filters, I'm still not used to the amount of light MF needs, lol. Pretty unprepared. My gear is going through a major transition period. Digital and flash, now 100% film, and soon to be introducing alot of continuous, starting with tungsten then maybe HMI if I can justify it and get along with it :bonk:

All the gear no idea me, lol
 
I reckon you've got more of an idea than me Danny.

I use Hitech filters which are somewhere between Cokin & Lee in terms of cost and quality. I think mine are the 85mm filters sitting in a holder connected to a 67mm threaded adapter. The good thing about my Bronica is that with the exception of my 500mm F8, all of my other lenses take a 67mm filter. The downside of the Bronicas is that although the filter size is the same, it means the front element doesn't get bigger so you're max aperature goes down. I've got

50mm 2.8
80mm 2.8
150mm 4.0
250mm 5.6
500 8.0 (but that takes a saucer sized filter)

All 67mm but it's a real pain in the arse when you want a longer focal length and the amount of light is fighting you.

I suppose there's two options. Buy some cheap **** circular screw in filters from ebay to see how the different colours affect the skin tones of different subjects and how much light they suck up. They'll be horrible optical quality but shouldn't cost too much before you realise whether or not they're for you.

Alternatively you spend more on a set of Cokin/Hitech/Lee filters and if they don't work out you should be able to sell them on and lose somewhere around the same you'd have lost chucking away the cheapo filters.

Personally I've found that when shooting indoors, using filters and hotshoe flashes with modifiers is that ISO400 really is the minimum. I've made some all right 16x12 prints from ISO400 where you don't notice the grain at proper viewing distances and will only see it if you go looking for it.

If you shoot males apparently green is the filter to use for that rugged, harsh look.
 
Kev M said:
I reckon you've got more of an idea than me Danny.

I use Hitech filters which are somewhere between Cokin & Lee in terms of cost and quality. I think mine are the 85mm filters sitting in a holder connected to a 67mm threaded adapter. The good thing about my Bronica is that with the exception of my 500mm F8, all of my other lenses take a 67mm filter. The downside of the Bronicas is that although the filter size is the same, it means the front element doesn't get bigger so you're max aperature goes down. I've got

50mm 2.8
80mm 2.8
150mm 4.0
250mm 5.6
500 8.0 (but that takes a saucer sized filter)

All 67mm but it's a real pain in the arse when you want a longer focal length and the amount of light is fighting you.

I suppose there's two options. Buy some cheap **** circular screw in filters from ebay to see how the different colours affect the skin tones of different subjects and how much light they suck up. They'll be horrible optical quality but shouldn't cost too much before you realise whether or not they're for you.

Alternatively you spend more on a set of Cokin/Hitech/Lee filters and if they don't work out you should be able to sell them on and lose somewhere around the same you'd have lost chucking away the cheapo filters.

Personally I've found that when shooting indoors, using filters and hotshoe flashes with modifiers is that ISO400 really is the minimum. I've made some all right 16x12 prints from ISO400 where you don't notice the grain at proper viewing distances and will only see it if you go looking for it.

If you shoot males apparently green is the filter to use for that rugged, harsh look.
Click to expand...

^^ I'm not ignoring this, I'm taking it in and doing some google searches (y)

Any idea how this will be effected when using tungsten lighting? Whole other kettle of fish I imagine? :bonk:
 
Dunno mate. When I've used it I've had a mixture of daylight tungsten and flash and just got on with using what I've got. I've ever shot a polaroid or three or used the DSLR to get a preview. I'm guessing a yellow/orange filter would possible counteract some of the yellow tungsten light.
 
To be fair I'm just looking at the photos I posted in your other thread and maybe it's this ****** work monitor but I'd say maybe my skin tones aren't any better than yours even with filters.

Time to eat my hat.
 
Kev M said:
To be fair I'm just looking at the photos I posted in your other thread and maybe it's this ****** work monitor but I'd say maybe my skin tones aren't any better than yours even with filters.

Time to eat my hat.
Click to expand...

It's an impossible science really, I really need to get some and try them myself, using my own gear and my own processing, with and without the filters to see what I get so I can compare.

It might just be the flat lighting from shooting on overcast days with no artificial light that's causing me an issue.

I'll get my mobil out and fire off some location flash test shots too I think
 
Danny, if you want to just try out the filters, I've a set of the cheapo 77mm screw in jobs that Kev mentioned, that I can lend you for a while if you want... post 'em back when you've tried 'em ??
 
TheBigYin said:
Danny, if you want to just try out the filters, I've a set of the cheapo 77mm screw in jobs that Kev mentioned, that I can lend you for a while if you want... post 'em back when you've tried 'em ??
Click to expand...

That's unbelievably cool of you!!

Pm on it's way for you :)

Can you let me know how much compensation to apply for each filter please :)
 
I'll dig 'em out over the weekend and get 'em in the post on monday hopefully - I know i've got 'em - it's just which bag of stuff they're in :LOL:

(it's a full set - red/orange/yellow/green and blue - i'll include the adjustments on a post-it with the filters when i've checked the values - as they're cheapies, it's probably best if I do it for these lenses rather than quote typical values...)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top