Glamour 1 is loaded with great photographers and models portfolios, forums, photography tips, workshop info and much more than a typical portfolio site. These valuable services increases traffic and operating costs and those that support our community of models and photographers by upgrading their accounts as a Lifetime Member (pay only once, never pay again) enjoy practically no advertising--upgrade now to increase your viewing pleasure while supporting this community and family of glamour photographers and models.
Don't want to see this message or large ads, register, then upgrade now!
All right, that day that I have dreaded and waited for has now arrived...my first "glamour" images out in the world for public scrutiny...
These are not PS'd...which will likely not be hard to figure out...but I wanted basic images first so that the feedback was based upon the initial image and not my shortcomings in PS. These are from the Chicago workshop, and as such I realize that they don't necessarily have the same difficulty rating as setting everything up on your own, but am ready for the harsh, honest truth.
By the way, a public thanks to Tiffany, Kat, Ashley, Gayle, and Natalie for their efforts and patience with the crew. Each brought something special to the weekend's activities, and made for a great shoot. Big thanks also to MUA/Stylist extraordinaire Sally Kempton and of course to Rick for all the efforts to keep things operational. And thanks to Ralph Haseltine for the use of his studio and his hospitality. Oh yeah, RG...you were all right too.
__________________
My goal in life is to rid the world of ignorance...mainly my own.
Last edited by Carpe Imago : 04-04-2006 at 08:25 PM.
You either took these with a Polaroid camera or the jpeg compression screwed up all your images. Something is definitaly wrong.
BTW, it was nice meeting you.
Congratulations, not to sound like a psychologist but what do you think of your first time? Do they look the different on your computer versus when you view them in this thread? Are they raw or JPEGS? I read many times all digital can use some degree of sharpening, so fresh out of the camera may not be the best way to post. I dont have time now for meaningful critique but I did want to take the time so say congratulations.
Ken
Most are looking a little flat.
I would recommend you at least do a levels adjustment in photoshop before posting. I think most of these could do with just such an adjustment.
You either took these with a Polaroid camera or the jpeg compression screwed up all your images. Something is definitaly wrong.
BTW, it was nice meeting you.
Yeah, it wasn't a Polaroid but something definitely did not go right. I need to go back and figure out where the weak link in the chain was between camera and post. I'm not saying that I'm Ansel Adams, but these don't even look the same as they did on the initial download. Very dull and grainy...no the combination that I was going for.
__________________
My goal in life is to rid the world of ignorance...mainly my own.
Congratulations, not to sound like a psychologist but what do you think of your first time? Do they look the different on your computer versus when you view them in this thread? Are they raw or JPEGS? I read many times all digital can use some degree of sharpening, so fresh out of the camera may not be the best way to post. I don’t have time now for meaningful critique but I did want to take the time so say congratulations.
Ken
Actually Ken, the whole thing was sort of eye opening for me. To answer your question though, these were shot in JPEG. I am quite disappointed in how these look on the post, because Driftwood in correct...they look very flat. I went back to the master files this morning and they hardly look like the same pictures.
There are things that I was quite pleased with, but on the whole I'm not even sure that I like the whole "glamour" thing. I loved working in the studio, loved working with the places the light fell, and the models with whom I had the opportunity to work were wonderful. Even so, my aversion to the mandatory Photoshop "improvements" just makes the whole thing feel empty. I understand that photographers have always mananged their darkroom techniques to get the most out of a photograph, but to me it is starting to sound like a crutch. I guess it all depends on the individual using it, but it does suck some of the fun out of it for me.
If I need Photoshop to make Tiffany look beatiful or bring out Kat's sensuality than it's time to take up golf again.
FORE!
__________________
My goal in life is to rid the world of ignorance...mainly my own.
Bob I hope you had as much fun in Chicago as I did. I would like to echo your comments about all involved with RGs workshop. Rolando did a great job presenting a lot of information in a very short time but more importantly for me he expanded my vision of what was possible thank you Rolando.
The models, well the models were all smart. The models all knew how to model and did I mention there were all jawdroppingly gorgeous. Gale has the face of an angel and the body of a well you know. Ashley had that wonderful Mona Lisa smile going on most of the time when she didn't know she was doing it. Natalie was only able to work one day but she worked so hard I thing I have more shots of her then any of the other girls. Kat, Kat is a real uptown girl, strong, powerful lines mixed with soft curves a real fine art photographers dream. Tiffany Karns is Tiffany, she is so in love with life you can't help capturing that when you photograph her. Thank ladies you have all helped me grow as a photographer.
Sally Kempton is a real renaissance women. Make up artist, photographer, assistant, and great background painter. I am going to get ahold of you I need a couple of those backgrounds. Ralph Hasseltine and his whole family gave up there weekend to help out. Then there was Rick the hardest working guy at the workshop and one of those guys that you instantly like and want to hang with.
Then the guys who make it all possible the photographers. I am glad I was able to spend time with all of you and truly wish I was closer to all of you just to talk shop and hash over photography.
OK Ok the photos. You did a nice job of job of shooting at the peak of action, the moment when the model hits her pose. The photos all look a little underexposed to me I think you need to get a meter and a strobe and get that 1D dialed in. I think once you get that camera up to speed your eye is going to let you be a strong photographer. http://pages.cfu.net/ron.paulsen/Tiffany.jpg
Glad for the most part that everyone had a good experience in the studio. We try to accomodate the workshop and make everyone feel comfortable, so, if we succeeded in doing that and you got some images you like, came away with some new knowledge, then we did manage to get part of what we wanted to done. As for me, you all know you can reach out to me at any time, be it for advice, questions, to shoot the $hit, or even if you need a studio in a pinch...I can accomodate you without breaking the bank like most...I am in photography for the art and fun of it...not to make an over night killing on rental fees...so, if you have a need, let me know..we can set something up...Ed Lubin and I are already working on a location shoot in a few weeks that spread from an idea he had..so, it is do-able and if I can, I will...take care all and thanks for attending Chicago 1....Ralph Haseltine
__________________
I am truly convinced that if there is a God, he has one sick sense of humor....
There are things that I was quite pleased with, but on the whole I'm not even sure that I like the whole "glamour" thing. I loved working in the studio, loved working with the places the light fell, and the models with whom I had the opportunity to work were wonderful. Even so, my aversion to the mandatory Photoshop "improvements" just makes the whole thing feel empty. I understand that photographers have always mananged their darkroom techniques to get the most out of a photograph, but to me it is starting to sound like a crutch. I guess it all depends on the individual using it, but it does suck some of the fun out of it for me.
If I need Photoshop to make Tiffany look beatiful or bring out Kat's sensuality than it's time to take up golf again.
Simply wanting to get the results you want without resorting to Photoshop is no reason to give up. Like many others, I shot most of my glamour work on 35mm or Medium Format transparency film. No photoshop options. Getting the exposure spot on in camera is the first requirement. Seeing the light and getting the lighting ratios right will take you the next step, and it can all be done in camera. That remains true even if you are now shooting digital.
Yes, Photoshop will allow you to recover from a lot of your mistakes (I use it all the time<img>), but that doesn't mean you can't get it right in camera.
Don't know why you are seeing such a big difference between your originals and what you posted, but I did open the images in Photoshop and checked the levels, and most appear to suggest some underexposure. I don't think the levels are altered in the jpeg compression (somebody correct me if I'm wrong please) so I assume the same is true of the original files.
My personal recommendation for honing exposure and lighting skills is transparency film. No interference from monitor calibrations, compression algorithms or anything else. You just look at the slide and you know immediately if you got it right or got it wrong.
Photoshop is a tool in the digital toolbox, don't let anyone convince you that you can't make great pictures without it.
Just realised something ........... I miss my Kodachrome. <img>
Bob, glad you enjoyed yourself, we really do love doing the workshops. Hope you got some great images, the girls were all great.
Thanks for the nice compliments.
IP: 67.39.52.70
Re: Chicago...my first...
Linear Mode
