I like this one as well as the previous one posted of him. This one definitely portrays the more straight-forward side of him. Very classic, professional-looking.
I think the two (as well as the rest of the series) will be of great benefit to him. Great work!
radioblurs wrote:
it's nice but i'm not a fan of butterfly lighting guys, so much (yes, just personal preference)-nice conversion
daniel
It's not the butterfly so much as the lack of a reflector to fill those heavy gaping shadows. Mind you, if you want large gaping shadows then the shot is nicely done
Personally, I like shadows, even large gaping ones, I just think the catchlights are a little too bright in this one
I love big gaping shadows! I usually only ever light portraits with one light.
We did a pretty wide range of looks throughout the shoot since he does a lot of different things. The suit is the outfit he usually wears while doing corporate speaking jobs, as well as some of his magic acts.
We also did one with him in a simple jeans and tshirt outfit for when he speaks or does magic and his escape act at high schools or for younger crowds.
There are a few other variations of the outfits to give his potential clients an idea of what kind of look they can expect if they hire him.
i have to respectfully disagree with those of you who dislike the shadows and suggest more light in the eyes-there are very visible catchlights already there
also, look at some of the great portrait artists (my personal favorite right now, Yousuf Karsh) and notice that some of them have very deep shadows-for a magician, i'd hate to see a clamshell pattern or lots of fill in the overall lighting setup-this situation calls for something more moody IMHO
I feel like if everyone lit every portrait to this forums standards then they would all look exactly the same and it would get very boring fast.
Definitely not trying to cause any drama, I just do not agree that there needs to me more light in the eyes. If this was a high school yearbook photo then sure, maybe it would be better if it had more even lighting, but its not. It is just a portrait, which only leaves me with the rules that there has to be a person present in the photograph.
I like the picture. I now realize this series is part of his marketing so the partial smile is justified. I wonder how a flat serious expression would turn out given the excellent B&W conversion.
Jess Edward wrote:
I feel like if everyone lit every portrait to this forums standards then they would all look exactly the same and it would get very boring fast.
Definitely not trying to cause any drama, I just do not agree that there needs to me more light in the eyes. If this was a high school yearbook photo then sure, maybe it would be better if it had more even lighting, but its not. It is just a portrait, which only leaves me with the rules that there has to be a person present in the photograph.
Have to agree with one of the other posts, I'm not such a fan of this lighting.
... and if you do look at the works by Karsh and pay particular attention to clipping there are very few that are clipped. Most have some detail remaining in the shadow areas (there are some that are clipped but usually then NOT in the facial detail area).
Again not to argue but this site is a little more advanced than some other sites so I thought I would throw the observation out there.
Added by edit: ... and I should have mentioned great smile, great look, great friend, and great image. Although this image would not be my personal preference it is an attractive image and falls squarely in the range of what you apparently were trying to create.
Karsh shot on B&W film negative giving him a hell of a lot more tonal range than today's digital cameras. Anyway, there's nothing wrong with a lot of Zone 0 in an image, Bill Brandt (one of my favs) used it all the time.
Burk Young wrote:
... and if you do look at the works by Karsh and pay particular attention to clipping there are very few that are clipped. Most have some detail remaining in the shadow areas (there are some that are clipped but usually then NOT in the facial detail area).
Again not to argue but this site is a little more advanced than some other sites so I thought I would throw the observation out there.
i'm with you on that-something i am very meticulous about these days is preserving detail in the shadows as well-but i know in this digital age that many b&w conversions block up the blacks by default-doesn't bother a lot of people
karsh's work is something i aspire to and for the record am not comparing anyone to him...wouldn't be fair great food for thought
@liamh agree about tonal range... agree nothing wrong with zone 0, just not my personal pref but does have very appropriate times but not sure the eyes in a portrait are one of them at least not for me.
@radio yea the tonal range and shadows are a very hard thing for me... and indeed comparisons would not be fair :-)
... and thats what I was hoping to bring out is the matter of preference and the difficulty of tonal range in digital format, also to maybe chat a bit about the eyes in a "portrait".
By no means is this meant to take this thread South... Jess if you or anyone else thinks this is getting off topic or hijacking a thread please let me know, but your image is intriquing to me and does have a spark to it even though it seems to "violate" some "rules" of portrature one of them being attention to the eyes of the subject.
When I process images I am always very aware of where my highlights are at making sure they arent clipped if I can help it. As far as shadows go, I tend to lean more towards the darker side keeping them fairly heavy. In this particular image, the only shadows that have actually lost all detail are the ones in his black jacket, and his dark brown hair, which I really dont view as a terrible thing at all. I lit the photo with one light and made it fairly top heavy, I kinda expect some of the shadows to be pure black.
I like to make sure there is at least some point of pure black in my images which is just my own personal preference for processing. If you look through my website you will see I have always processed this same way.
P.S. Lets get off topic and talk about tonal ranges. Its an interesting subject to me because everyone has their own preferences, and every monitor is calibrated differently. What looks completely blown out black on one monitor can look like many shades of grey on another.
