Reading mode: Light Dark

~~Hot~~ photos!

Go to last post
Responding to this:
JoshGordon said:
Check these out, all from a Canon 20D:
Click to expand...
The 20D did not make them look like this. Post processing them in Photoshop did.

You’re just getting you knickers in a twist because we’re not in awe of these pictures like you are.
JoshGordon said:
JoshGordon said:
JoshGordon said:
Has anyone said that they were bad pictures?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Hello!

The first thing you said was "And photoshop."

Guess there's no reading between the lines here, eh?
Click to expand...
--
EOSMan
http://www.pbase.com/eosman
 
EOSMan, you don't have to say "These are bad pictures" for people to understand you think they are bad. You are just putting negative remark after negative remark about them. Guess what, I just looked at your pbase gallery and you know what I saw???? LOTS OF PP. Hypocrite much?
--

20D / Kit Lens/ 70-200 F4L/ 50mm 1.8/ 500DG Super/B+W MRC CP/ Hitachi 4GB Microdrive.
 
First of all, at least I'm willing to display my pictures for others to look at (where are yours?).

Second, post processing a picture shouldn't leave the subject looking like a mannequin.

Hmm, much to learn you still have.
Yodaman said:
EOSMan, you don't have to say "These are bad pictures" for people
to understand you think they are bad. You are just putting negative
remark after negative remark about them. Guess what, I just looked
at your pbase gallery and you know what I saw???? LOTS OF PP.
Hypocrite much?
--
20D / Kit Lens/ 70-200 F4L/ 50mm 1.8/ 500DG Super/B+W MRC CP/
Hitachi 4GB Microdrive.
Click to expand...
--
EOSMan
http://www.pbase.com/eosman
 
There is a lot that's great about these pictures - they're lively and fun, capture just the right moment with the right shutter speed, good lighting and so on but...

they are over noise reduced/blurred.

The best photoshop advice I ever had was " if you can see what effect has been used - you've used it too much"
 
I especially like the first and second pictures from the first link.

MM
 
... there's a trend with the Maxim and FHM, etc photos to make the models look plastic. Personally, I hate that look. But someone must like it!

Anyway, back to the original post. There are some nice shots in there-- on the first set with the woman, though, be careful with your nose shadow when working in the studio. One of those shots it looked slightly odd and would have looked better with 'butterfly/beauty' lighting or more of a defined shadow off to the side and slightly angled on her upper lip (created by keeping the key light up a little higher and at about a 45 degree angle).

But nice shots.
--
Pete Springer
http://www.dogwooddigital.net
 
I never said that the photos were not nice. The OP assumed that I didn't like them and went on a rampage. I personally liked the B&W one the best out of all of them. I would not have PP them like that because I don’t care for the plastic look myself.
dogwood said:
Anyway, back to the original post. There are some nice shots in
there-- on the first set with the woman, though, be careful with
your nose shadow when working in the studio. One of those shots it
looked slightly odd and would have looked better with
'butterfly/beauty' lighting or more of a defined shadow off to the
side and slightly angled on her upper lip (created by keeping the
key light up a little higher and at about a 45 degree angle).

But nice shots.
--
Pete Springer
http://www.dogwooddigital.net
Click to expand...
--
EOSMan
http://www.pbase.com/eosman
 
EOSMan said:
EOSMan said:
I never said that the photos were not nice. The OP assumed that I didn't like them and went on a rampage.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I didn't go on a rampage. Your comment suggested that you didn't like them. That's fine. You just seemed like predisposed to give a negative comment about what are clearly photos from an accomplished photographer.

You even called the photographer an amateur at one point, no?
 
.. and artistic touch. More over the photographer has put a personality in his pictures.

More of us can learn plenty by this kind of photos, or at least think about where we stand.

JoshGordon, thank you for bringing this up.

Normaly on this kind of boards the first few posts after the OP set the mood of the tread. The Eosman did his best to compromize the tread, and turn it into a personal vendeta. I feel sory for him. If some body do not like something it's probably enough to say it once.

Emil
 
I think the photos in the first link are very creative, well shot AND the post processing rocked. It's obvious by the quality of the photos that the original photographer knows his stuff and if he would have wanted them to look any other way they most definitely would have.

And Josh...

You shouldn't be suprised by the reaction to those photos by most of the members of this forum though. Just from browsing around I'd say 80-90 percent of the photos posted here are birds, bugs, pets or children. While there's technically some great photography going on I wouldn't call hardly any of it creative in the way that these photos are. Fun and creativity are rarely shown and not well understood by the masses. If it were, it wouln't be considered creative anymore. JMO...YMMV!

Lucky
--
http://www.kapfoto.com
- - - - - -
I'm out of my mind at the moment. But feel free to leave a message.
 
I have seen "GOOD" photographers output some C* like that and get applauded by others EQUALLY good.

Then others get flaimed because they don't belive in post processing.

This dude at least has the taste of not overdoing the sharpening tool.

Guys, seriously, if you are going to sharpen your pictures, PLEASE INVEST in a high quality MONITOR in the FIRST PLACE!!!!

--
KEG ( http://www.pbase.com/k_e_g )

 
(perhaps only IMHO, of course)

I think you may have misread his comments, and perhaps you have responded more to his tone or what you thought he implied, than to his actual comments. Mine (in my earlier post, above) although truthful, were far more severe than his, and noone even responded to them. So it looks more to me that perhaps you are the one with the 'personal vendeta'? I have seen many of his posts before, and I don't remember him ever sugar-coating his opinions.

And perhaps, my opinions expressed above, are accurate (I think so) but they were not expressed in any sort of condiscending way. Maybe that is the reason I am (so far) not being flamed.

I'm sure everyone has a different idea of what a 'good' photo is. I'm probably more of a realist than those here who are all drooling and bubbly about these photos. I think the black and white photo that he said he thought was the best, probalby is. That is because in my opinion it was more real than the others. The lighting and shadows were more natural, and were not pumped up to the point of a subject's nose being indisinguishable from her cheek. While you can look at the first photo and clearly see that this is how it looks, you may not feel that it detracts from the photo. I do.

Some of the comments here seem to fail to distinguish the model from the quality of the photo. For example, if you think these photos are "hot" then tell us why, from a technical perspective. I wrote in my first post, why I didn't think this photo was particularly good, from a technical perspective based on my understanding of what a good photo is.

I will say right up front, I have done very little in portraits, as nature and sports are more my interest. So my comments are based on what I've seen in portraits; not what I've done myself.

Best regards,

Tim
eta said:
.. and artistic touch. More over the photographer has put a
personality in his pictures.
More of us can learn plenty by this kind of photos, or at least
think about where we stand.

JoshGordon, thank you for bringing this up.

Normaly on this kind of boards the first few posts after the OP set
the mood of the tread. The Eosman did his best to compromize the
tread, and turn it into a personal vendeta. I feel sory for him. If
some body do not like something it's probably enough to say it once.

Emil
Click to expand...
--
Pbase homepage at http://www.pbase.com/tim32225/root
 
Hi Tim,

Your comments where put forward as personal opinion and that is your birth right to have a personal opinion, mine just happened to be the other direction, no harm done. The eosman insisted the others have to see the way he sees the matter in hand out of some given authority. But if you cannot see the difference between you comment and his it's not me to point it out.

And I spend so little time here to get personal, just could not help but notice some fresh pictures the OP brought to us.

Cheers,

Emil
 
On this picture:



I think you post processed her face too much. I think it should have been more subtle, especially around the shadowed areas (the nose area and the right eye is too bright). Also, the skin has some blotching on her right cheek that I am guessing is from either the clone tool or the heal tool. Other then that though it looks good. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top