Sophisti-Kate

Granddad · Jan 18, 2017

I'm pushing my luck now with yet another "faux vintage" photo of Kate.
I know that "chin down" is the rule and you're not supposed to shoot up a lady's nostrils but Kate doesn't have any double chin and she has very nice nostrils with no hairy bits so here it is. I'm not entirely confident about the sheepskin but Grandma insisted that we try it. C&C (and processing suggestions) always welcome.

ZombiesniperJr · Jan 18, 2017

jcdeboever · Jan 18, 2017

Very nice. The tattoo juxtaposes the image treatment but IMO, makes it more interesting.

Rick50 · Jan 18, 2017

Despite the low camera the lighting does work so it's good, just not as good as the previous. :02.47-tranquillity:

Derrel · Jan 18, 2017

OMG---40's clothes and color, meets 1990's sheepskin arm pose, meets classic beauty, meets 20-teens-era modern tattos!!! LOVE it! For a lot of reasons. Kinda digging the foreshortening on the hands and arms too. That hand shadow on the neck! So wrong (some would say)...and yet..so perfect!

Why? This has style.

This is a very good picture for 2017.

This will be a damned good picture in 50 years' time.

This will be interesting even in 100 years' time.

Granddad · Jan 19, 2017

ZombiesniperJr said:
Nice

Thank you. (She's married

)

jcdeboever said:
Very nice. The tattoo juxtaposes the image treatment but IMO, makes it more interesting.

Thank you. I liked the tattoo, too.

Rick50 said:
Despite the low camera the lighting does work so it's good, just not as good as the previous.

Thanks. Do you think a different processing style would improve it?

Derrel said:
OMG---40's clothes and color, meets 1990's sheepskin arm pose, meets classic beauty, meets 20-teens-era modern tattos!!! LOVE it! For a lot of reasons. Kinda digging the foreshortening on the hands and arms too. That hand shadow on the neck! So wrong (some would say)...and yet..so perfect!

Why? This has style.

This is a very good picture for 2017.

This will be a damned good picture in 50 years' time.

This will be interesting even in 100 years' time.

Thanks Derrel. That was the way I planned it ... hours of theoretical consideration and artistic sweat! ( :biglaugh:

) OR maybe I just got lucky. OR maybe the stuff I've been learning here is finally coming together.

Donde · Jan 19, 2017

I like it but the tattoo contradicts the "vintage" for me.

Granddad · Jan 19, 2017

Donde said:
I like it but the tattoo contradicts the "vintage" for me.

I understand your point of view completely. If it had been a commercial shoot I'd have required a tattoo and piercing free model to try for maximum authenticity. Very few women had tattoos until quite recently and in some cultures and sub cultures even pierced ears marked a woman as not quite respectable - my mum (a staunch Methodist) only ever wore clip on earrings and she went ballistic when my little sister had her ears pierced at 16.

In some of the images in the set she has triple ear piercings; if they're too obvious I've cloned out 2 of the 3 and even moved her pearl stud from one to another for better effect. The tattoo is just too much to do that with (...unless I get a shot of someone else's upper arm in the same lighting and cut and paste).

As it is I think it's OK, it'll do for faux vintage.

tirediron · Jan 19, 2017

Nicely done.

Rick50 · Jan 19, 2017

Yup, GrandDad you seem to really have the processing down. Your American Indian name is now "Knows what he's doing". :02.47-tranquillity:

Granddad · Jan 19, 2017

Rick50 said:
Yup, GrandDad you seem to really have the processing down. Your American Indian name is now "Knows what he's doing".

Are you sure it shouldn't be Soars on the Wings of a Buffalo?

Derrel · Jan 19, 2017

I just wanted to bump this up for the USA evening crowd... and to make a comment: Look at how loose the framing is on this picture; the reason that's important isn't just for crop room, it also makes this feel more "old-timey". Many photos from the 40's were shot of 4x5 inch sheet film cameras, and there was a tendency to leave MORE ROOM around the subject back then than there has been since the 35mm LeicNikoContPentCanon and the 24x36mm 3:2 aspect ratio came to dominate.

The aspect of this one at 1000:1250 pixels, gives a nice, loose, relaxed feel to the subject, as she's shown within the entire frame. he has some "space" around her, and the space itself adds to that vintage/classical way of framing a portrait subject. 1:1.25 is nice!

Granddad · Jan 20, 2017

Derrel said:
I just wanted to bump this up for the USA evening crowd... and to make a comment: Look at how loose the framing is on this picture; the reason that's important isn't just for crop room, it also makes this feel more "old-timey". Many photos from the 40's were shot of 4x5 inch sheet film cameras, and there was a tendency to leave MORE ROOM around the subject back then than there has been since the 35mm LeicNikoContPentCanon and the 24x36mm 3:2 aspect ratio came to dominate.

The aspect of this one at 1000:1250 pixels, gives a nice, loose, relaxed feel to the subject, as she's shown within the entire frame. he has some "space" around her, and the space itself adds to that vintage/classical way of framing a portrait subject. 1:1.25 is nice!

The original was actually tighter and ended a millimeter below the tips of her fingernails. It didn't look right and left no room for framing. It was shot in 6 x 4 and cropped to 4 x 5 (because that looked right - I've been going through my mother's old albums). I added a couple of inches all round in PS and cut and pasted and cloned in more sheepskin along the bottom and at the left side.

Maybe it's my age that makes me a loose cropper? I'm getting to be vintage myself.