Paul & William: The two of you have been so generous with excellent advice here. Big, big thanks. Cheers, Christine
----- Original Message ----- From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 9:49 PM Subject: Re: GESO: Anne > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <pnstenquist > Subject: Re: GESO: Anne > > >> But keep in mind that nailing it in just a few shots is an aberration. >> Most accompished >> portrait photographers shoot a lot of frames. Don't quit working until >> you've nailed it. But >> don't count on volume. Make every shot count. > > I'd like to expand slightly on this. > Sometimes it doesn't matter how many frames you shoot, you are just > wasting yours and your > subjects time. > It happens. > Recognize if this is happening, and go and do something else. There is > nothing to gain by trying > to force a picture to happen, and often, there is much to lose. > > I found when I was learning portraiture (some would say I never did), I > shot the same model, > often with the same background, the same lights and the same lens many > times in a row, probably > 50 times. As I worked with her over time (several years), I got more > keepers per session, and > the quality of the keepers went up as well. > You have some good shots there, and she really is quite beautiful. > Next time you photograph her perhaps try keeping the lens axis at or near > her eye level, I think > you will find she photographs better with a slightly elevated camera. > Also, longer focal length > and get farther away. I wouldn't go shorter than ~90mm with her. > > In general terms, when you are going through you pictures, don't dwell > overly on the good ones. > Everyone shoots good pictures from time to time, and frankly, I'd rather > look at someone else's > good pictures than try to feign a lack of narcissism about my own. > Cull out the good ones and give copies to your friends, post them to the > net, or whatever, and > get over it. > It is far more instructive, and far less egotistical, to look at the ones > that didn't work and > try to suss out what went wrong. > Once you've figured why a picture didn't work, don't repeat that mistake. > Eventually, you will > get more keepers (if for no other reason than to be able to stop looking > at crappy photographs). > With your portraiture, try to be very objective about your subject. > No one has a perfect face, and there is nothing wrong with either doing a > bit of camouflage or > misdirecting to limit the exposure of less than wonderful features. > Contrary to popular belief, portraiture isn't about recording what your > subect looks like. > Also, people tend to either have goofy happy smiles or else rather stern > expressions. > I hate goofy toothy smiles in portraiture. > You have to do a few to keep the subject's mom happy, but only do a few, > perhaps while adjusting > any lighting you are using. If you do too many the person starts to look > like Ronald McDonald. > Stern expressions tend to make the person look sullen or morose, which > isn't attractive in the > least. Unless you are Yousuf Karsch, stern is a good expression to stay > away from. > I like to try for a "pleasant" expression. Sort of smiling on the inside, > and just letting a > hint of it out for the camera to see. > If that makes any sense.... > > William Robb > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
