friscoron wrote:
You have to be new to FM to suggest that I don't want advice from FM. Certainly I do, and I have a long history here demonstrating that and expressing appreciation for it. However, I'm not going to change my style based on other people's opinion. I know that when I blow out a face as I did in No. 7, 90 people out of 100 are not going to like it. Maybe 95. Maybe 98. I don't really care. I'm not trying to please the majority when I shoot and edit. If we all did that, we'd be making the exact same image. I have absolutely zero interest in that.
I'm not put off by people here expressing their displeasure with that image, or the others in this set where the face is more blown out than what they think it should be. I'm in no way comparing myself to Picasso, but look at how schizophrenic his paintings were. You think his sanity wasn't questioned while he was making those paintings?
N
When I presented the images to the client and her daughter, the subject, I showed four different images of this shot: two non-smiles, one soft smile, one big smile. My normal thing. In all other shots in the series, she'd select maybe one of four shots I presented, something like that. I presented something like 115 images, and she selected 32 for the book. She selected all four of this shot. And we spent more time just sitting there staring at these four images than any of the others, by far.
So your argument would be that it would have even more impact if I brought in more skin tones, and I'll argue that she had skin tones in plenty of other relatively similar images. But these were different. And these were the shots that stopped her.
And actually, if it means anything, the mom is a makeup artist and works at a salon. She did her daughter's makeup, and it was flawless.
If anything comes out of this, I just hope that someone reading this will dare to be different. Follow her or his own path....Show more →
No Ron, I'm not new to FM.
Folks were right to question Picasso's sanity.
But none of that matters and I guess I should have kept my fingers off the keyboard as my inutition adivised.
friscoron wrote:
I think you meant No. 4. It's close being blown, but it's not.
As for the high-key exposures, whether she has a pale skin tone or whatever, that's the way I do things. I get it that other photographers will think it's too blown out. But it's different, yes? Well, that's exactly the boat I want to sail, the USS Different.
So having said that, I'll touch on my artistic bent here a bit. I like that the skin is blown out so her eyes and lips just pop the way they do. That's exactly the look I was going for, and I'm always happy when the light works like that and it allows me to do that....Show more →
Ron,
I like the style.
Can you please comment on your technique to accomplish these results? Do you over expose and then pull down non-skin exposure in PP? Or so you properly expose and the raise skin exposure? Other?
Another vote for skin tones in 3, 4 and 7 look way over the top too pale, too pinkish and unattractive. Image 1 is the only sample with skin tones that looks normal.
Images 4 and 7 she looks like an albino vampire.
Concur with the suggestion you should let your client see different versions.
Glad you and your client are happy, but as said by others, if you post it here expect some dissenting opinions.
gschlact wrote:
Ron,
I like the style.
Can you please comment on your technique to accomplish these results? Do you over expose and then pull down non-skin exposure in PP? Or so you properly expose and the raise skin exposure? Other?
Guy, the original photo is properly exposed. She's wearing a white sweater and with her makeup, her skin tone is very pale. I start with a preset that I use in LR for every photo where I add a little punch to the exposure. Then I make my LR edits. In this one, I really pushed the exposure. Once it's in PS, I have a couple actions that I apply to a lot of my images, depending on whether it works for them or not. My style is bright, colorful, and pop. In this photo, I pushed the skin tones as far as I felt like I could go without completely losing the tone.
By the way, this is lit with natural light. I have a huge cloudy sky in front of her. She's then holding a reflector. I'm standing on a picnic table shooting down on her. Some people hate flat light, but I love it, and I've just enveloped her in light the way I like it. (I also really like the opposite of flat ilght, dramatic edgy lighting).
But none of that matters and I guess I should have kept my fingers off the keyboard as my inutition adivised.
With your number of posts, I knew you weren't new to FM. I was making a point with that comment, and you missed that as well. If you follow FM People and you've seen my posts over the years, you'll see that quite a few people have commented on things and I've made changes to my images based on those comments, as long as it applies to my style. And I've expressed appreciation repeatedly for those comments/critiques.
I also used the questioning of Picasso's sanity as a point.
As for critiquing my photos, you're wrong. I want it. I always do, and you guys often see things that I missed. However, you said that I was not listening to people who were saying that the image was too bright. I was, and it was expected. Because it is, for most, too bright. I totally get that, and it doesn't bother me the least. In a class, I would probably get an F. If this was submitted to PPA, I'd probably get kicked out. I totally understand all that.
But I was put off by your saying that I don't listen to people here. I listen, and I'm respectful, but I don't have to agree with them. Certainly not when it comes to my style. Hopefully, you can get over this and continue to comment. And I promise to continue to listen/read, but I don't promise to agree.
friscoron wrote:
As for critiquing my photos, you're wrong. I want it. I always do, and you guys often see things that I missed.
You've always taken my suggestions graciously.
I've been thinking about the style of these photos. For some reason, I would expect to see the bright faces with a more, filmic, vintage look. I think I know what you're going for and I'm on board with it. The last image is the one that I think misses the mark. I think it's the combination of the lack of detail in the face and the vibrancy of the image. My preference would be to back down the skin just a smidge, keeping the same feel but providing just a little more structure in the face. An alternative would be to back off the vibrancy/saturation just a tad. I think the saturated grass is jarring against her skin. I'm not suggesting a different style, just a refinement of the style that is working for you.
I know you addressed it earlier, but 4 and 7 her skin is too washed out for me....at least it looks that way on my monitor...I know you said that this was your style, but honestly Ron, I dont recall seeing your senior photos with that light a skin coloring.....maybe her skin really is that white and no color....not sure....
dmacmillan wrote:
You've always taken my suggestions graciously.
I've been thinking about the style of these photos. For some reason, I would expect to see the bright faces with a more, filmic, vintage look. I think I know what you're going for and I'm on board with it. The last image is the one that I think misses the mark. I think it's the combination of the lack of detail in the face and the vibrancy of the image. My preference would be to back down the skin just a smidge, keeping the same feel but providing just a little more structure in the face. An alternative would be to back off the vibrancy/saturation just a tad. I think the saturated grass is jarring against her skin. I'm not suggesting a different style, just a refinement of the style that is working for you.
That's exactly what I'm talking about, Doug. I think the saturated grass is playing a part in this. I may bring back the skin just to ensure you can see more structure. I think that's what the concern is, more than anything. That it's so blown, you can't really see the structure of her face. Dial it back down a bit, and it might get better.
Herb wrote:
I know you addressed it earlier, but 4 and 7 her skin is too washed out for me....at least it looks that way on my monitor...I know you said that this was your style, but honestly Ron, I dont recall seeing your senior photos with that light a skin coloring.....maybe her skin really is that white and no color....not sure....
Oh no, Herb. This is definitely not the first time people have mentioned this to me. I definitely toe the line between being too blown out... or not quite. Not all of my images, just some of them. The ones that, to me, call for it.
friscoron wrote:
That's my style. Anything different, and my clients would be looking at me with their head sideways, their nose scrunched up, and glaring like... well, not happy. This client was very happy and spent roughly twice as much as she was planning to.
Style and client preferences notwithstanding, the exposure on the last one seems to be pushing into "unflattering" territory. It's just blinding to me, and the face ends up looking almost featureless and lacks dimensionally.
engardeknave wrote:
Nope. This whole "that's my style thing" is hilarious. The face is overexposed to the point at which she looks like an illuminated marshmallow puff. This is just wrong.
I know you don't like hearing that, but somebody's got to break the news to you. If it doesn't look that bad on your monitor, try another one.
Hi engardeknave,
You may be taking "proper exposure" too literally. When Ron steps outside "proper", personally, I'm very interested in the why behind it.
You could certainly offer your thoughts, perhaps rephrased. Commenting is one thing... ridicule is another. Particularly when you're ridiculing one of the most talented, prolific, generous and highly thought of members on FM's People board.
It makes you look like sort of a color-within-the-lines dork.
Ron - The one shot that seems too hot to me is the last one. I do like #1 and #5 the best. The problem I see here is that you've got a gal whose face starts to feel weirdly distorted the more you see of her left (camera right). And with a subject like this you also have to be very careful with camera height. She's not someone where it works well to be seeing under her chin. Look at how well the scarf works in #1 to direct your attention to her face, which is great, but the same clothes in #3 don't work very well. See how you have her chin down in #1. That makes a huge difference for this person. And then look again at #5 and see how, just by turning her head slightly, you've redefined the shape of her left side (again, camera right) into a much more pleasing and less distracting shape, effectively pretouching rather than needing any retouching. I get what you're trying to do for in this "look", which isn't my taste, but if you like it and your clients like it then who's to argue. As always, it's the little things that count.
Thanks, Peter. I appreciate your feedback. I like evaluating the angles I'm shooting from to determine if it's flattering or not. I'm still working on that last one, still letting it simmer a bit before I tackle it again.
When Ron's photos start looking like many of ours, one of two things will have happened; either we've all become significantly better photographers or Ron is listening to the wrong critics! (lol)
