Glamour

[Rob Leslie]

Shoot with the Gipsy Queen Wednesday.
The model is of course a complete amateur, just a local lady who has a nice Gipsy Caravan. She is 42 years old.
Lenses were the Zenitar 16mm and the Tamron SP 35-80


Flash was used to add some light which would have been there from the window if the weather would have been better. Flash unit was a Vivitar 283 fitted with vari-power modul and fired with radio slave. It was clamped at the high to the rear were the window is. The net curtains were left to diffuse it.


Something different.


Please feel free to comment as you wish, as long as its fairly polite and respectful to the model.

[Attila]

I really like #2 one , so natural , she has beautiful smile with amazing blue eyes, eyes are very important to me in any portrait. On this images shows very well. I also like portrait right after B&W image, nice capture.

[maddog10]

#2 is far and away my favorite, it just feels like you and her were just sitting around chatting.

[Rob Leslie]

[Katastrofo]

#2 is great, but I like #5 as well, she should smile more, beautiful girl!
(Well she's girl to me, since I'm your age, Rob!)

Bill

[voytek]

BW is my No1. Thanks for sharing.

[poilu]

nice results Rob

[Richard_D]

No 2 is the most natural capture.

[Rob Leslie]

I have just posted a couple more shots on my Blog.

http://roblesliephotography.blogspot.com/2008/06/gypsy-queen.html

[Schnauzer]

She is a pretty girl. #2 is my favorite followed closely by the B&W.

Nice work.

[hacksawbob]

No. 2 for me too, most natural of them. I like some on the blog better the 3/4 profile mono with the sunglasses.

[Orio]

I like the second-to-last one. She looks relaxed and the pose and hairstyle are somehow reminiscent of the '60s.

[Rob Leslie]

It is interesting that most seem to like the 2 most manipulated images.

The BW had a couple of curve adjustment layers with masks and a layer of Photoshop film grain.

#2 the second colour image is very ‘Unnatural’
It’s two Raw conversions blended with a layer mask (HDR) and then curves adjustment.
It also has a Gaussian blur overlay and a diffuse Glow layer.
All the photos are heavily ‘Retouched’ to remove many skin blemishes and lines. Retouching was done with healing brush and history brush as well a bit of Smudge tool.

As for any comment to say it is false, - of course it is, the lady and everybody else wants to her looking good.

I think I would like to start a new trend. Let’s be proud of the work and effort we put into making our pictures rather than the ambiguous ‘No adjustment’ comment

PS Added 21.05 I already mentioned it with the photo but the biggest fake or manipulation on #2 is the lighting - the flash unit behind her. Withoit that the Gaussian blur overlay and diffuse glow layer wouldn't have worked.

[Orio]

[Attila]

I like photography what is show better view than reality, I love to see heavily touched images rather than untouched less looking good ones.

[Rob Leslie]

[poilu]

[Attila]

Look Simon's photos all of them retouched and every body amazed about them. Retouch or not retouch not a question in my opinion , important result only, same than not important lens, camera etc. Only the final result a beautiful photograph what is really touch my heart in photography.

[Rob Leslie]

I have always thought of photography as an adventure.
Everyday can be a different shoot, every situation may need a different approach and technique.
There can be numerous choices and decisions to make and that’s just taking the picture.
The adventure continues in the darkroom where it is common to spend endless hours engrossed in the adventure of producing a good print.
With digital nothing has changed.
The adventure of shooting is exactly the same and the darkroom adventure has been replaced with an adventure in Photoshop.

I have deliberately steered away from any (Silly) photo technique points. Everybody should enjoy their own adventure in the way they know best.

Some quotes from Ansel Adams

‘You don’t take a photograph, you make it’

‘Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships.’

‘The negative is comparable to the composer's score and the print to its performance. Each performance differs in subtle ways’

‘There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs’

[A G Photography]

[Orio]

I postworked this starting from my own photograph:



If a photographer has the right to take a portrait, chance colour of the skin, enlarge eyes, prolongue neck, reduce ears, change hairstyle, change nose shape, and still call that "a photograph", then I claim for myself the right to call this picture of mine also "a photograph".

[Attila]

If you think this is the best shape of your photo From beginning of photography people retouched images to make them better. Nothing wrong with that just now we have better tools than ever before on computer.

[poilu]

[Rob Leslie]

There are some obvious differences between good adjustments/manipulations/retouching and rubbish. There are also many less obvious ones.
First there are no rules, all that should matter is the end result.
The end result may be being used as an example for something and if it shows what the creator intended then it is successful.

My first ‘General’ ‘Guideline’ is good manipulation should not stand out. The viewer should see a good photo not examples of Photoshop or darkroom work.
As a general rule just applying filters or plug in effects to a photo hardly ever work. All the filters in Photoshop were never designed to work in that way which is why beginners always think they are ‘ Too strong, overdone, or just useless’
Filters should always be used as layers and all the many qualities and controls of layers offer can then be used to control them.
Still on the same point of a good adjustment not standing out is the user’s reason/idea/motive for using an adjustment. IMO adjustments are not for correcting mistakes they are for creating the image you have in mind.
If you have no idea of what the finished image should look like then there is no point adjusting it.
Adjustments and especially retouching and manipulation are to help you create the image you have in your mind and preferably you had that image in mind when you made the exposure.
This is about my Glamour post and that favourite of everybody #2 is an example.
It was a very dull day but I didn’t want to photography that. I wanted the sun streaming in from the rear window adding back light. I manipulated the exposure by putting a flash unit there, it is what the scen would have looked like if I had a nice sunny day.
Follow my link to the blog and you will see one of the shots with her hair sticking out. It would have been pointless shooting that if I didn’t have any idea of the finished result I wanted.
Is there anybody not even bothering to control their light with reflectors diffusers and flash?
Adjustments of any sort are basic principle of creating photographs. Manipulation and retouching are equally so. Even good Documentary photographers and virtually all good photo journalists manipulate their shots.
Digital did not introduce manipulation it has been done from the dawn of photography.
Digital has made bad manipulations easy especially with poor plug in effects but good adjustments take a bit of thought as they did in the darkroom, its just the same.
In the early days when the norm was a 10 x 8 negative most photos were 50% painting!
Does anybody believe Ansel Adams would not now be using digital and turning out great manipulated landscapes in Photoshop?

[hacksawbob]