First portrait with continuous lighting

[samhaddixphotography]

In case it matters, this was lit with a Lowel video light with a small softbox attached. :er:

 

[cgipson1]

In case it matters, this was lit with a Lowel video light with a small softbox attached. :er:

Definitely not a cheap CFL, lol!

 

[Granddad]

How about keeping reasonably on topic, Buckster, eh? OP asked for comments on his photo, why not give some positive input?

Thanks for skipping over the idea of admonishing those who decided to take it off track to take a leak on CBS in the first place, and kick me in the teeth for it instead. Seems legit.

Also good to know that we should never question statements made without support, especially if those statements bash a product, company or person. It's fine to do that, and wrong, wrong I tell you, to question it.

And in the immortal words of Bitter about threads going off-topic:

Tangents happen. Get over it.

You can go bash him for it in the thread where that occurred, if you're in the mood to police the forum for that sort of thing. It's here: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...ebate-i-m-gonna-get-flamed-8.html#post2870531

As for the image itself, I generally like it, even if it's not making me crazy with any particular emotion, neither up nor down.

ETA: By the way, where's YOUR positive (or otherwise) input about THE PHOTO?

Last question first, I don't feel that I have the expertise to comment on the subject of continuous lighting so I was leaving it to those with more experience. I do however like to read the comments and attempt to absorb some knowledge.

[FONT=&quot]As I don’t wish to derail the thread further I’ve taken my tongue firmly between my teeth and deleted my response to your other point. [/FONT]

 

[Buckster]

I don't feel that I have the expertise to comment on the subject of continuous lighting so I was leaving it to those with more experience.

Regardless of HOW it was lit, surely you can give an opinion about the end result; the photo itself? Especially since you've made it clear how important it is to you that I shouldn't have posted without addressing it, unlike say, tirediron, who apparently gets a pass from you on that account. Or is it that you get the same pass as he? Where can I buy one of those passes? Or maybe before admonishing me, you could have just made the bold assumption that I have no expertise in continuous lighting, same as you?

By the way, do you feel you need to have expertise in, say, shooting photos of elephants (as one of about a million examples) before you can provide CC on a photograph of an elephant? Or what about a particular lighting arrangement that you've never personally tried? Can't comment on those either? What if you find out after the fact that it's a lighting arrangement you've never personally tried, but have already commented on? Do you have to take it back at that point and apologize for providing an opinion without justification? Just wondering how you work through such a myriad of potential problems when trying to decide what to comment on...

 

[DannyLewis]

I would not consider this a photograph (portrait). It is a picture or a snapshot, nothing that really reaches out to me.

 

[tevo]

I wish the eyes were a bit brighter... the left side of her face dominates the frame (imo) and the eye on that side is barely discernible.