DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> DPC Record Attempt
Pages:   ... [62]
Showing posts 126 - 150 of 1529, (reverse)
08/23/2004 07:57:15 PM · #126
08/23/2004 07:57:58 PM · #127
I could just hide all of your posts and you would have just wasted 10 minutes of your life :P

Message edited by author 2004-08-23 19:58:38.
08/23/2004 07:58:01 PM · #128
Run into a page break and my handle is turned into
08/23/2004 07:58:32 PM · #129
You're far too nice for that Ben.
08/23/2004 07:58:53 PM · #130
u sure? hehe
08/23/2004 08:00:10 PM · #131
Originally posted by bongo:

Run into a page break and my handle is turned into

Hmmmm..... I knew SOMETHING was up with you, Randy... ;o)
08/23/2004 08:01:05 PM · #132
But that's me, my little contribution to a fellow DPC'er.
Ahhh yes. Making a meaningful contribution to a project so important to humanity kinda makes me feel.......immortal.
The power!
The thrill of the power!
We will become LEGENDS.

(Good Challenge by the way...LEGENDS)
08/23/2004 08:01:45 PM · #133
You're getting there. Slowly but surely. ;)
08/23/2004 08:01:46 PM · #134
I dont think any thread will ever beat Discover Freedom :(
08/23/2004 08:07:28 PM · #135
Originally posted by bongo:

Run into a page break and my handle is turned into

I think you should be DQ'd for such a name!
08/23/2004 08:22:00 PM · #136
This comment came from Kevinriggs who is desperatly needed for this record attempt.
Just posted it so everyone can see what a vaulable member he is and to push the page numbers along. hehehe


Congrats on the model shoot. Hope you had fun on it.

I'm going to direct my comments to your last edited shots (the 12 pics you edited on your website).

Overall your subject definitely has some features to commend her: she has incredible body in her hair and that's not the easiest thing to find in a model. Her eye color matches her coloration (hair and skintone) well; they don't standout too much but they tend towards giving her an attractive "girl next door" quality that has a place in the industry. She probably needs to bulk up a little but she definitely looks to me like she could get work today if she works on her expressions and just gets some more time in front of the camera.

While I love her hair, it can generate difficulties in lighting for you. That leads into my evaulation of your work. In the first two shots (2004-08-09-17-07-37.jpg and 2004-08-09-17-09-18.jpg) her beauty and her facial features seem evident to me but both lack a little something in lighting on the face. In the first she has only a little sparkle in her eyes. The lighting across the face is good and fairly even; its a smooth transition that keeps her face (on my monitor anyways) from having any hotspots and allows her features to be shown with some tones around them for depth and character. What is missing in that shot, IMO, is the flash or catchlight in the eyes. The eye on the right of the pic (what I assume to be the model's left eye) has just a little but its subdued. I love the lighting on the hair here and even the model's expression. You (or she) got a good angle on her head tilt. While the background is blurred for separation it is still evident and that's OK but you have a leaf in the frame at the top right of the composition. You might want to carry just a little twine or some bungee's or something on the next shoot so that you can tie back organic objects that want to interject themselves into your frame; I'm a proponent of not hurting the setting in which you shoot but you can tie a branch back for 5 or 10 minutes while you shoot and then release the string so that it bounces back into place. In this composition the in focus leaf just detracts from the separation you produced so well above the model and to the left of the photo.

I think the 2nd shot shows more appropriately how this model's (and many model's) hair can cause a lighting problem. Its not something for the model to worry about but a white reflector at about knee or waist level could have brightened up her face without removing the rim lighting effect. It looks like you got some catchlights here whether from a reflector or a flash I'm not sure but either way I think the model's features are a little shaded. On the other hand, in this frame I like the use of the leaves much better. Here they seem to be closer to the camera than in the first shot and, as such, they have more blur inparted to them. This helps to maintain the separation your built with the out of focus background behind the model.

In the third shot (2004-08-09-17-23-38.jpg) I like the model's smile, her outfit, her pose (great capture on your part as she seems to be moving and you got that). I like the setting as "dressy" clothes in a natural setting can yield an out of place air to a shot and, thus, produce a subconcious separation for the model much like the blur of a shallow depth of field (just more subtle to the viewer). The only two nits I see in this shot would be the model's teeth compared to the bright white of the dress. Just touching that up would make a difference. Also, the phone/power pole just to the right of the model's elbow on the horizon. Clone that element out. Well, while I'm at it, you did a great job capturing the model's motion and the feeling of unhurried activity. To go along with that you got good angles on the model's hands (they don't look gargantuan and some of that is due to the fact that they probably aren't but believe it or not some of that is also due to the angle at which you captured them so I say again, "Good job." The problem I am headed towards is the ring on the model's hand. I don't usually have much of an issue with rings or even bracelets but this ring in that lighting with the dark background just kind of stands out to me. I would try and see if I could clone it out since the hand already has the sense of motion in it and a small edit might not be as noticible.

In 2004-08-09-17-26-02.jpg (4th shot) you really start to see some great features for this model. The conversion to monotone accentuates her features. The expression she delivers in this shot also works for me with her body language. The tones allow the angle of the arm to bomplement the angle of the white elements of the dress. The tonal quality of this monochromatic shot gives texture and depth to the subject's upper body, especially her shoulders and collar bones. Showing the model's curves in her arm, her hips and the tones of her shoulder region add to a feminine feel for this shot. The model's lovely shaped face with her features are given a nice, softly feminine setting in which to truly stand out. The model's face competes less in this shot (IMO) and therefore the viewer gets a good shot of those hooded eyes and that slightly open mouth (as opposed to gaping open or laughing). You really set the model's eyes apart from the background here as the imaginary line of the horizon passes from just below her right ear (photo left) to mid-neck on the right (her left) and the sky has a lighter tone to set apart (again subconciously) her eyes. One thing that I think you could try if you're interested at all is to selectively lighten her eyes. Use the lasso tool to go around her eyes and then feather your selection about 5 pixels. Throw a Brightness/Contrast layer on there and just lighten them about a 3-5 and see how that looks. You still want them to blend with the face but it might be something to try.
The next set of shots (2004-08-09-17-26-11.jpg, 2004-08-09-17-26-11BT.jpg and 2004-08-09-17-26-11BW.jpg) are my favorites of the set you've edited. The angle of approach is the same in all of them (wonder why - just kidding). I like the extreme blur you've achieved on the background. The tones in the background tend to be more muted and closer to the models coloration but they don't blend with her so there is still some separation. The first shot is a great pose and composition but it just doesn't have that "Oomph". The 2nd and 3rd of these really enhance that. I'm going to stick with the 2nd (the "BT" version) as the warming filter that you seemed to have applied makes this version by far my fave. You nailed the action in this one with her hair moving. Did you have much wind at this point or was her hair just teased and reacting to her motion? Either way, I love the hair. I love the hair. I love the hair. It imparts action frozen in time. The lighting on it is awesome, too. The lighter hair in the back to show how sunny a day it was and then a ring of darker toned hair (not in coloration but in lighting it looks like) is right up next to the model's face and that yields the separation that help to focus your viewers' attention on the subject you choose. The model's eyes, while still slightly hooded are open enough and clear enough that you can delineate her pupils and iris. That makes a definite difference. There is not catchlight but this shot doesn't need that. It's made compelling by the tones and the warmth (generated by the filter) to complement your composition. This shot also displays some feminine features that commend this young model: her earring is a minor point of interest but it doesn't detract from those lovely eyes. Her lips are full and sensuously opened (a different expression here could have worked, too, as I think your composition defines this shot). The subject's shoulder line goes a long way in setting a feminine tone to this photo. The distance between the strap coming over the model's shoulder and her skin at the collar bone help to give a "dainty" feel to this shot. Contrast this with images of men who's shoulders are generally more muscular and don't have this kind of separation. IMO beefy, full shoulders on a guy sets a great context for displaying his masculine features. I'm not suggesting that all models should be thin to be feminine; I'm saying that in this photo the separation at the shoulder line provides definition to the model's frame in a less obvious but still notable manner. It, like the blurred background, is not the key element but her shoulderline goes a long way in helping to set a mood for this shot. To continue at the base of the photo (around the model's shoulders) you've addressed the model from the oblique which allows you to get more of her torso into the frame even at this distance and that completeness helps the viewer, again IMO, to perceive this young subject without having a distraction like a cropped off shoulder. Your DoF here is spot on. The subject's leading shoulder and trailing shoulder are mildly out of focus yet they are both distinguishable. Whether the viewer spends the time to notice or not, you got the collar bones pretty darned close to level and that yields a symmetry and balance that become a good basis for helping to delineate a base in this photo. That should be contrasted with the other 3 sides of the shot which are out of focus and which subconciously invites the viewer to perceive the model's head as being placed into the frame (again creating that non-verbalized, non "in your face" type separation that can move a good portrait into the great category).

The swimsuit shots are not my favorites but here goes.
The first shot just feels uninspired. The model's expression seems to be the same that she's used throughout the session. The lighting is pretty flat and the background, while blurred out is too dark in the middle of the water and skyline; it seems to be just as much the focal point as the model upon first glance. This shot is good for displaying the model's jawline and facial features. You got a clean shot of her facial features but I think with her head turned on a similar angle you could pick a better background or create a better composition next time and come away with a winner. Also, in this shot, tell her to smile. She has enough pensive shots and she has very porportionate and attractive features. This kind of closeup would be a wonderful time to show them in a different expression.
In the next bathing suit shot (or would it be modeling suit shot as she's neither bathing nor swimming in these photos), I think you have your worst shot. I'm not trying to be a PITA here but the droop of the model's shoulders, the incredible darkness around the eyes, the floating barrel in the background and the waterline crossing the model's body at the chest line and drawing attention to her chest here all contrive to make this not such a good shot. Conversely, you did get a shot of her legs in the edited bunch and they look like another element that would be a good attribute that she could display more in her work. The ring again in this shot is a minor nit. I'd say congrats to her and her fiancee (or her jeweler if she's not engaged) on such a large and apparently lovely stone but it just seems distracting to me.

The next shot (2004-08-09-19-01-14.jpg) has some decent elements in it but still not an outstanding shot IMO. I love the way you captured the "live action" of the water splashing. Without that, the model's hands over her head lose context and just look out of place (and not in a good way, just kinda funny). The angle of the model's body is good, it shows her features off and is pretty well exposed (in terms of lighting). You no longer have a droop to the shoulders and along with the contours of her outline you can see some definition in the body. She looks like she's having fun and here her smile shows that her teeth are closer in white level to the color in the swimsuit. The background is slightly over saturated but you might be able to pull that back down a bit by lowering the yellow level under a Hue/Saturation layer. Even though the model's eyes are unavailable to the viewer I happen to like the pose and action of this shot (except for those arms being extended so far beyond the head). I think you technically got this one pretty good but it just doesn't really appeal to me.

Shot 2004-08-09-19-01-18.jpg is my favorite of the swimsuit shots and it has an element that is missing in some of the other frames. That smile! Here the model looks relaxed and like she's having fun. The background doesn't have such heavy lighting on it to cause it to be a nuisance and you exposed the subject quite well. I love the playful lock of hair that has fallen onto the model's face; it complements her smile and playful stance (notice the shoulders not drooping like she's involved and interested here). If I had any nit about this one it might be that if you could have gotten just a little higher you could have gotten her completely against the backdrop of the water without the waterline intersecting the top of her head but . . . not a problem really. You did shoot her from higher than eye line so you've already imparted to this shot some depth of composition that gives it character.

Not so much a fan of the final shot. You did a very good job on the exposure of the model from about the chest down. Her torso against the water looks well-lit and has some shadows in it to provide definition. The model's expression just loses me and her arm cutting across her face does little for me. The dark element to the left side of the photo is a stark contrast between the powerfully lit background and becomes at least a minor player that draws my attention in this composition.

All-in-all I like the set and think both you and the model produced some good shots and looks. I think that the more you all work (either together or with others) the better you're going to both get at your respective parts of this. You nailed some of the shots in here either from a compositional standpoint or from a post-shot editing standpoint. Keep on with this and please post more portrait and modeling work.

08/23/2004 09:07:42 PM · #137

08/23/2004 09:11:51 PM · #138
who farted?

08/23/2004 09:12:49 PM · #139
' . substr('//smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/_950/fart.gif', strrpos('//smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/_950/fart.gif', '/') + 1) . '

I bet it was your brother... he's been AWFULLY quiet today. ;o)
08/23/2004 09:28:34 PM · #140
[i]useless info for this record breaking thread/i]

Our Presidents...

1840 William Henry Harrison (died in office)
1860 Abraham Lincoln (assassinated)
1880 James A. Garfield (assassinated)
1900 William McKinley (assassinated)
1920 Warren G. Harding (died in office)
1940 Franklin D. Roosevelt (died in office)
1960 John F. Kennedy (assassinated)
1980 Ronald Reagan (survived assassination attempt)
2000 George W. Bush????????????

Abraham Lincoln was elected to Congress in 1846.
John F. Kennedy was elected to Congress in 1946.

Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860.
John F. Kennedy was elected President in 1960.

Both were particularly concerned with civil rights.
Both wives lost their children while living in the White House.

Both Presidents were shot on a Friday.
Both Presidents were shot in the head.


Now it gets really weird.

Lincoln's secretary was named Kennedy.
Kennedy's Secretary was named Lincoln.

Both were assassinated by Southerners.
Both were succeeded by Southerners named Johnson.

Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln, was born in 1808.
Lyndon Johnson, who succeeded Kennedy, was born in 1908.

John Wilkes Booth, who assassinated Lincoln, was born in 1839.
Lee Harvey Oswald, who assassinated Kennedy, was born in 1939.

Both assassins were known by their three names.
Both names are composed of fifteen letters.


Now hang on to your seat.

Lincoln was shot at the theater named 'Ford.'
Kennedy was shot in a car called 'Lincoln' made by 'Ford.'

Lincoln was shot in a theater and his assassin ran and hid in a warehouse.
Kennedy was shot from a warehouse and his assassin ran and hid in a theater.

Booth and Oswald were both assassinated before their trials.


And here's the kicker . . .

A week before Lincoln was shot, he was in Monroe, Maryland
A week before Kennedy was shot, he was in Marilyn Monroe.

08/23/2004 10:28:59 PM · #141
I don't find that useless at all, Eric... it's important US History trivia... ;o)
08/23/2004 10:36:21 PM · #142
I agree completely. Good point.
08/23/2004 11:17:20 PM · #143
keepin it alive....
08/23/2004 11:17:57 PM · #144
A week before Lincoln was shot, he was in Monroe, Maryland
A week before Kennedy was shot, he was in Marilyn Monroe.

08/23/2004 11:31:25 PM · #145
I refuse to partake of this blatant attempt to drag us all into the quagmire of repetative redundancy.

REBEL and pledge not to add your time and effort to this travesty of communityism. Be unique and boycott this madness.

Individualists of the world UNITE!

08/23/2004 11:33:08 PM · #146
Originally posted by drgsoell:

I refuse to partake of this blatant attempt to drag us all into the quagmire of repetative redundancy.

REBEL and pledge not to add your time and effort to this travesty of communityism. Be unique and boycott this madness.

Individualists of the world UNITE!


Yeah...what he said...
08/23/2004 11:36:38 PM · #147
A couple named Willy and Nelly
Spent their honeymoon belly to belly
Because in their haste
They used library paste
Instead of petroleum jelly

08/23/2004 11:42:53 PM · #148
This thread is much more fun and far less acrimonious than the discover freedom thread
08/23/2004 11:47:31 PM · #149
08/23/2004 11:47:53 PM · #150
picque moi
Pages:   ... [62]
Current Server Time: 06/24/2022 06:41:27 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.

Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2022 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 06/24/2022 06:41:27 PM EDT.