Peter Fry wrote:
This is an interesting shot, as her gaze presents almost a friendly challenge. It brings to mind images of dueling pianos. I think she is very pretty and I love the view straight down the strings like in the other \"Impressions\" with her.
-Zach
+1 The lighting makes her eyes different sizes.
Peter
Hello Peter.
It is always nice to see you in one of these discussions.
You wrote: \"+1\"
That was a very short Impression.
I suppose I could put that in the exhibition as \"+1\" but it may need some \"backstory.\"
_________
WARNING: The following opinions are those of \"Steady Hand\" and do not reflect those of \"conventional wisdom\" or most studio photographers or technical pundits.
The following will also be part of my future book...so remember...you saw it here first.
______________________________
You also mention \"one is is bigger\" observation due to light.
Light makes all kinds of things happen.
When I see one eye smaller or bigger than another, I consider the source of light and the relative effect AND the situation (location, activity, etc.).
People who use studio flash all the time are often surprised to see this, since they usually shoot in relatively dim rooms with only momentary bursts of light.
For most \"Studio Flash\" users, the goal appears to be \"a single catch-light\" (no more mind you) and it \"must\" be at the 1:00 position (not too low, not too high, and rarely at 10:00).
I see eyes very differently!
I base my POV on my own \"eyeball\" observations (close) of people in real situations, real rooms, ambient light of all types, and in real \"sunlight.\"
In the real world, people often squint, or have a different \"look\" to their eyes. It is completely natural.
This is particularly noticeable in real sunlight, real stage lighting (which is often harsh spotlights), and in real outdoors ambient lighting (such as on water or at the beach etc.).
AND....they can often have lots of different \"catchlights\" at different points on the eye and of different shapes, sizes, and intensities. Rarely do they look like a white octagon or \"umbrella\" (in shape) and so I do not find a \"typical\" catch-light (studio made) to look very natural at all.
OK that was the \"serious\" part of my POV.
You know I like humor too. So follow this line of humorous reasoning:
For fun, imagine what would have happened to Clint Eastwood\'s \"image\" if he did not have that \"squint\" (he was \"known\" for his \"Clint with the glint/squint\" look) that was so famous in his images of the \"Man with No Name\" character. Can you imagine him with big dilated pupils and a single catch-light at the 1:00 position? It would have been a completely different and unnatural look (to my eye).
So...\"Vive la difference!\"
In short, I think it is more natural to see a variety of catch-lights and how the eyes react to light in a natural way to various types of light.
Dec 02, 2008 at 08:32 AM
Previous versions of Steady Hand's message #6441381 « Your Impression #66 Mezzo »
