Posing workshop

[Josh66]

And #3, its not so much the sweater, but the pose.

If you're talking about all those 'rings', it is very much because of the sweater. I can't remember what it's called, but it happens with digital cameras when they take a picture of a grid-like pattern.

I think shes talking about the mock baby belly. And I can't see these rings, did you zoom in?

You really can't see it? I didn't zoom in or anything. You can only see it one the last one. The lines (on the sweater) have to line up just right with the pixels on the sensor, or something like that...

You don't see that?

 

[Josh66]

Moire - yeah, that's it. Thanks.

I can't remember what the hell it's called, but the last one has it big time - all over her sweater. The rings, or whatever you want to call it.

Moiree... it's a result of the compression. Hi-res

Hi-Res looks fine. So how do you avoid that when you resize?

 

[tirediron]

Moire - yeah, that's it. Thanks.

I can't remember what the hell it's called, but the last one has it big time - all over her sweater. The rings, or whatever you want to call it.

Moiree... it's a result of the compression. Hi-res

Hi-Res looks fine. So how do you avoid that when you resize?

Use a better re-size utility. For web-posting like this I have a quick & dirty right-click menu utility called "Prish Resizer" that shrinks the hell out of an image, but does hurt the quality (just a little).

 

[cgipson1]

Looks like the key light was way low, based on the highlights... and the fill light was high? How did they light this?

Badly. Very badly. Key: Shoot-through high/right. Fill, small soft-box low left.

Really? I see a low highlight on the right.. and a high highlight on her left.... in the third pic... even downloaded it to check it.. ! Am I going blind? lol

 

[tirediron]

Looks like the key light was way low, based on the highlights... and the fill light was high? How did they light this?

Badly. Very badly. Key: Shoot-through high/camera right. Fill, small soft-box low camera left.

Really? I see a low highlight on the right.. and a high highlight on her left.... in the third pic... even downloaded it to check it.. ! Am I going blind? lol

Fixed.

 

[chuasam]

OH gawd...I hate the middle pose. It sits up there with the hands forming a heart on the belly for maternity shots. Was this at Kerrisdale Cameras?

 

[tirediron]

Yes, with Bill Fowle. Cliched, yes, but I thought it was a good shot.

 

[rexbobcat]

Why is (was?) the whole "tilted head resting on arms" popular? She just looks constipated...actually, she looks constipated in all of the poses....

 

[tirediron]

I think it was that 'cute, innocent' sort of look. I don't get the constipated comment though, why do you say that?

 

[DiskoJoe]

Well this would be a typical cliche pose. So in that respect you nailed it. But to me its boring and I hate to shoot poses like this. So lifeless and impersonal.

 

[tirediron]

Well this would be a typical cliche pose. So in that respect you nailed it. But to me its boring and I hate to shoot poses like this. So lifeless and impersonal.

Well, it was a posing workshop, geared toward formal, studio-type portraiture...

 

[2WheelPhoto]

you and your friends putting this workshop together can chip in a few bux each on the cheap and have a pro model come in for an hour or two and show you more creative posing techniques

 

[kundalini]

Replace the word "Formal" with "Classic" or "Traditional". Does that help? These are the types of poses that the masters of portrait photography have used for a very, very long time because they work in the best form of showing the "likeness" of the subject.

Think of it as having to learn the exposure triangle. Learn the foundations first, then start the bending process.

Thanks for sharing John.

 

[Big Mike]

I see the moire, even on the high rez version. It's (usually) a result of a pattern that lines up with the mosaic of the camera's sensor. LR4 has an anti-moire brush/tool.

I don't know why people are being so hard on the lighting and the model. There is plenty of room for improvement...but overall, they're still better than 80% of the people shots I see on here everyday.

IMO, there is nothing wrong with studying and practicing the 'classic' techniques...no matter what field we're talking about.

 

[chuasam]

Replace the word "Formal" with "Classic" or "Traditional". Does that help? These are the types of poses that the masters of portrait

They used it for a very very long time because Photography took a very very long time (like minute long exposures), much less (or more) actual sittings. They don't really show the best form, they're just poses that can be kept for the eon or so it would take. Learning to see and learning to feel is far more important than learning to "pose."

I agree, an experienced model might be a better idea.

Thank Goodness I don't see any White Collared shirts + Blue Jeans familes on Bill Fowles' site. That is my #1 family portrait pet peeve.