Untitled Portrait

[jenko]

 

[ronlane]

Not sure if you are wanting to just share or asking for c&c. But here are the two things that I see. The eyes look to be over processed, they just don't look natural and the hair fades into the background (not sure if that is fixable here, though).

 

[cgipson1]

As Ron mentioned, not enough background separation with the hair. the whites of the eyes are way overdone. The extreme neck twist created wrinkles in her neck that could have been softened in post. Was the pissed off look intentional (at least that is my interpretation!)?

 

[tirediron]

"Get that friggin' camera out of my face or you're going to wear it"?

 

[jenko]

Thanks for the c&c.

Maybe I will try another version of it. I really didn't do that much to the eyes, so maybe I will do nothing to them next go and see if that improves them. I can probably bring the hair out more too.

 

[jenko]

Here is a version where nothing is done to the eyes at all. Just a conversion and some levels.





I was able to lift the hair a little, but it's just dark. Personally, that doesn't bother me too much. This is not a glamour shot. It's a self-portrait. For that reason, I don't care much about the neck wrinkles, either.

As far as my expression goes, I don't think it is angry. I think it's challenging, definitely. But I don't see that as a bad thing. For most of history, men have decided how women should be portrayed. The male gaze has determined what is attractive, acceptable, and even "angry" when it comes to portraying women. As a woman, I find those conventions very limiting.

It has taken me a long time to stop portraying myself through the eyes of men. So, you may think I look angry, but I think I look liberated.

 

[timor]

"Get that friggin' camera out of my face or you're going to wear it"?

He he, I would say the same. Too much tension in the face and body, but I like the tonality of her skin, quite 3D.

 

[cgipson1]

Here is a version where nothing is done to the eyes at all. Just a conversion and some levels.





I was able to lift the hair a little, but it's just dark. Personally, that doesn't bother me too much. This is not a glamour shot. It's a self-portrait. For that reason, I don't care much about the neck wrinkles, either.

As far as my expression goes, I don't think it is angry. I think it's challenging, definitely. But I don't see that as a bad thing. For most of history, men have decided how women should be portrayed. The male gaze has determined what is attractive, acceptable, and even "angry" when it comes to portraying women. As a woman, I find those conventions very limiting.

It has taken me a long time to stop portraying myself through the eyes of men. So, you may think I look angry, but I think I look liberated.

Goddess knows, I am all for empowering women ... but I would still love you see you with a smile! And looking happy instead of "liberated"!

(Edit: Maybe I am misconstruing that look... it is interesting in some ways!)

 

[runnah]

I was able to lift the hair a little, but it's just dark. Personally, that doesn't bother me too much. This is not a glamour shot. It's a self-portrait. For that reason, I don't care much about the neck wrinkles, either.

As far as my expression goes, I don't think it is angry. I think it's challenging, definitely. But I don't see that as a bad thing. For most of history, men have decided how women should be portrayed. The male gaze has determined what is attractive, acceptable, and even "angry" when it comes to portraying women. As a woman, I find those conventions very limiting.

It has taken me a long time to stop portraying myself through the eyes of men. So, you may think I look angry, but I think I look liberated.

I always thought you were a dude.

I like the intense look. Although maybe subdue some of the lighting on your should as it looks distracting.