Tried and failed but will try again....

[binga63]

brenizer method fail


Elyse by Chris Crossley, on Flickr

back to what I do


Elyse by Chris Crossley, on Flickr


Elyse by Chris Crossley, on Flickr

 

[Braineack]

I dont think it failed so much as you didn't capture enough of the environment around the subject. I think it's a pretty good image, but the shallow DOF around the legs/feet are a little distracting and it almost appears to be a 'shopped, blurred, background.

 

[robbins.photo]

I love shot #2 - her eyes are captivating. I also love the lighting and pose in shot 3. Shot 1 has kind of a surrealistic look that I rather like, maybe if it were cropped just a bit wider...

 

[amolitor]

Doesn't look like a failure to me. Well done, I say!

 

[runnah]

I like the one you didn't post from the series the best.

 

[rlemert]

I like #3 the best - sets a very evocative mood.

I'm not too fond of #2 for two reasons: first, the eyes seem too bright for the rest of the image - almost like they've been added later; second, the way her lips are slightly opened gives her more of a leer or a look of contemptousness that I find unsettling.

 

[robbins.photo]

I like #3 the best - sets a very evocative mood.

I'm not too fond of #2 for two reasons: first, the eyes seem too bright for the rest of the image - almost like they've been added later; second, the way her lips are slightly opened gives her more of a leer or a look of contemptousness that I find unsettling.

May I toss in a pshaw? It's the thrill of the chase. The challenge. Therein lies the excitement. A lot of guys will brag about going hunting or fishing and telling you all about the trials and tribulations they faced obtaining their quarry. I have yet to have anyone regale me with tales of going through a drive through and just having the stuff handed to them.. lol

So no, still sticking by the notion that #2 is a definate keeper. I love that facial expression, and they eyes. Don't change a thing.

 

[weags77]

I dont think it failed so much as you didn't capture enough of the environment around the subject. I think it's a pretty good image, but the shallow DOF around the legs/feet are a little distracting and it almost appears to be a 'shopped, blurred, background.

This was my first impression of #1. The others look very good to me.

 

[rexbobcat]

What did you shoot the first one with? The DOF is incredibly abrupt so that it does appear to be Photoshopped. If it was done just by stitching photos together, it's a really interesting anomaly lol.

 

[binga63]

What did you shoot the first one with? The DOF is incredibly abrupt so that it does appear to be Photoshopped. If it was done just by stitching photos together, it's a really interesting anomaly lol.

I used a 70-200mm 2.8... I was as close as I dared... here are the first three shots without any extra post only merged, I think I merged better than the script


Proof by Chris Crossley, on Flickr

 

[pgriz]

Personally, I think all three worked, but each in its own way. The very thin DOF in your first image makes the image quite arresting, in the way you separated the model from all her surroundings. The second image really focuses on her face and her eyes almost burn into the viewer. The third has really lovely light and I admire the way you've been able to make your model three-dimensional, with light and shadow revealing the body's curves and shapes. Was the Rembrandt effect intentional in the third one, or a happy coincidence?

 

[binga63]

I tend to lean towards Rembrandt lighting... it could be my history with fine arts that does it... but if you look at a lot of my pics I have used it alot

 

[jenko]

The first is my favorite. Subtle, natural, lovely. All three shots are unique stylistically, and visually interesting.

Her skin looks a bit too discolored in #3. Her dress is really cute, but it clashes with the wall, IMO. An emerald green or mustard colored wall might work, but not with the current skin tone.

 

[annamaria]

Love number 2, like someone said don't change a thing.