Just starting out. Don't be too cruel.

toastydeath · Oct 15, 2006

I do fetish photography for various modelling friends who ask it, usually with their cameras. Needless to say, I never get to keep any of them. But, my girlfriend liked my nonsense enough to get me a d50.

I like technical photography, so I'd love to hear as much technical commentary on what I did right and wrong. Lighting was a pitch black room, with three different jerry-rigged 6500k lights. Plastic shopping bags were used in some shots as improv softboxes. One is a perminantly snooted hard light. This is, of course, all relative to homemade scrounged lighting.

I'm still very new, so please go gently.

Edit: Oops, now following the rules.http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y5...tures/laura first lighting/DSC_2475-small.jpg

LaFoto · Oct 15, 2006

Hiya Toastydeath, welcome to ThePhotoForum.

Please chose ONE of the three and post it directly, will you, by using the THIRD line below the pic, the one that has the [ IMG][/ IMG]-brackets already around the URL, and then ask for critique ... the guidelines for this section say: only one photo (or one and its various edits) at a time for specific critique. OK?

mysteryscribe · Oct 15, 2006

I like it lots of drama.. I think a verticle crop eleminating the light switch might have been in order though. It really is an interesting portrait though.

LaFoto · Oct 15, 2006

Oh yes, our mystery scribe likes his vertical crops

... and I like to put the spelling of the word right :greenpbl: (forgive my, will you? Please!)

mysteryscribe · Oct 15, 2006

Damn spill chick took the day off again... lol....out late again last night she was... and i dont think the vertical crop is uncalled for anytime I mention it however it is always a matter of opinion.

A stray light switch in a portrait has to be a bit distracting. Of course, I can never quite get used to a verticle subject with a half mile of empty space on one side.

If this discussion goes farther it probably should be in a different place don't want to hijack the thread.

I will try ot git spill chick wrkn agin

LaFoto · Oct 15, 2006

You can make any other spelling mistake, only testicles and vertical should not be confused

.
When I challenge you on the spelling, I never mean to say you are not right in suggesting ... I only do so to repeat the word in writing myself... forgive me. Will you?
And yes, I mostly agree that for many a good portrait the vertical or upright or portrait style photo is the better option!
(Have I put the thread nicely back on track, what do you say?)

W.Smith · Oct 15, 2006

LaFoto said:
Oh yes, our mystery scribe likes his vertical crops ... and I like to put the spelling of the word right :greenpbl: (forgive my, will you? Please!)

I'll say, you've got testicals, LaFoto!

LaFoto · Oct 15, 2006

I say I don't :greenpbl: --- that would be absolute NEWS to me!

Hey, we are very much derailing this thread.
Serious critique on the portrait as such from now on!!! *stern look*

mysteryscribe · Oct 15, 2006

Love a woman with a stern look you domme you....

Alex_B · Oct 15, 2006

Totally unrelated to the question if LaFoto has got verticle testicals or not ...

On the image posted I do like the light in the face! The background however wrecks the image abit, in particular the right half with the light switch. Also I would like (maybe just shy) eye contact to give the image more tension.

mysteryscribe · Oct 15, 2006

Does she have eyes? On my cheap (goodwill) monitor I can not see anything but eye lids. I like the shadows. I think they might be lost with enough light for me to see her eyes but I can see you point in a traditional portrait.

Just for the record spill chick has verticle testicals or is that backwards

LaFoto · Oct 15, 2006

(I don't want that question discussed, anyway :greenpbl

But ... yes, the light switch is severely distracting, which is probably why mysteryscribe suggested the vertical crop from the start ... cropping is always an easy and often quite effective means to get a picture right that at a first glance is not quite right. So, toastydeath, you might consider cropping ... and for the next shoot eye-contact could be nice. I much agree with Alex here.

mysteryscribe · Oct 15, 2006

To be perfectly honest (and I'm not often) post shooting cropping is probably the most important thing I do even though my mostly of mine are set up images. No matter how much attention I pay to detail, and even thought I mostly compose on ground glass, I usually have to crop to position things where I want them on the image after I shoot.

When I shoot landscapes, (not often) I always crop a little off here and there. Cropping is not a sin believe it or not. So don't be afraid to chop a little here and there. In this image the best crop would be square not really verticle because she is so close to the edge of the frame and that is fine the very very close up is popular right now. So this might make a nice mood portrait for her.

Her eyes will be a little low in the frame but that not too bad for a close close up I think.

Opinion of the apprentice villiage idiot only.

toastydeath · Oct 15, 2006

Now that it's been pointed out, I'm noticing the light switch where I didn't notice it before. I clearly just need to pay more attention when lighting up the background to ensure nothing distracting is in that background.

To reply to some various comments/questions:

For clarity, the purpose of photo wasn't the girl. She is on hand, and always willing to be lit and stand still.

Her eyes ARE closed. How she was standing in the light at the time didn't lend itself to having her eyes open. They're dark brown/green, and got lost in the shadows. However, she's got great makeup on, and that shows up brilliantly!

And finally, something that's on my mind but only tangentally related to the topic.

One of the comments I'm not yet sure how to deal with, but comes up incessantly, is "show more of her!" With the type of photography I enjoy (nude/fetish), it invariably gets said to me over and over when I step out and try something new, no matter how many other photographs in the set do just that.

mysteryscribe · Oct 15, 2006

I used to know a painter who was married to a shrink....At a dinner party that point came up. At least I think the point you are making came up. The painter I will call her Anna because that was her name that week.

Anna: I hate to see a portrait chopped up it just grates on my last nerve...

Shrink: do you know why?

Anna: no smart person (severly edited) tell me.

Shrink: It is a primorial response to a dismembered body. Our mind rebells at the site of another human being dismembered. It's why murder is even less acceptable if the body is stuffed into a trunk.

Me: So If I frame a shot and chop off an ear, it would be disconcerting to everyone.

Shrink: Not everyone but most everyone. People are used to seeing all or certain parts at least.

Anna: Like if you cut a picture at the head and shoulders it seems okay.

Shrink: No it seems complete. Cut it sex inches lower and the mind wonders what happened to the rest of him or her.

me: So that's why people hate pictures with no feet in them.

Shrink: hate is a strong word, its more like uncomforatable. They probably don't even realize it.

Me: Well I'm never going to do that again..... and I try not to.

I am always amazed how many things have reasonable explainations.... This is a true story by the way, only the names were changed to protect the children of the guilty.