StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Dass-9

Dass-7

Dass-8

Dass-1

Dass

Dass-2

Dass-6

Dass-3

Dass-4


My thanks to the lovely model . Also, one of these will probably be my submission for the SDN monthly photo contest, so don't complain .

Also, I know, the light is CRAP. We were supposed to start at 9AM but complications arose. That resulted is us starting only at 12.
a quickr pickr post

She doesn't really look comfortable in all but a few of the pictures. Where these supposed to be mainly headshots? Cause you had a really nice location but it seems like you had your camera right in her face most of the time.

3862812152 is a double, by the way, I think you accidentally double-posted that link.

And your model looks eerily like someone I used to know. She's not half-Italian by any chance, is she?

Bounty wrote:She doesn't really look comfortable in all but a few of the pictures.

The more comfy looking shots were boring alass, or she didn't want me to upload them. (she's a good friend of mine, so I gave her veto rights).

Where these supposed to be mainly headshots?

Nope. Almost every shot (except for the head shots against the black fabric) were with a 30mm Prime in fact.

Cause you had a really nice location but it seems like you had your camera right in her face most of the time.

Lots of locations actually. Which photos/location are you talking about?

And your model looks eerily like someone I used to know. She's not half-Italian by any chance, is she?

LOL. Probably not

Hokay, first off - no need for these to be so damn big. Rule #1.5 of presenting photos is make sure you can see the whole thing in one go. Gallery wall? Knock yourself out. Computer monitor? Keep it inside the boundaries of the screen, please.

Second - major lighting fail. You acknowledge as much, but I don't think the importance of good lighting for portraits can be understated. Temperature, direction, and hard/softness all play a huge role, so all have to be taken into account. Light is always important, but for portraits it's especially so because of how it affects the shape(s) of a face, the color and texture of skin, and the characterization of the subject. Even 'always good' early morning light would have been completely inadequate unless it 'said' precisely what you wanted to say about the person you are photographing. There's a reason most portraits are done in studio: control.

Third - some of these poses are okay for posed portraits (#2, 3, 4), but some look bad (#6), some look boring (#1, 5) and some look like you were running out of ideas (#8, 9). Unless you are a total noob and your model is experienced, you should be directing the shoot. If you are that noob, you should convey what you want so the model can deliver it. The key in either case is purpose. There is no need to try and pretend that a posed portrait is candid, so make sure that you get what you want out of a shoot. "Photos of [model]" is never it.

http://jzportraits.home.att.net/ is a good reference for classic studio portraiture. It's as good a place to start as any.

That's really the main thing. You're making, not taking - especially when the shot is posed.

Death wrote:Nope. Almost every shot (except for the head shots against the black fabric) were with a 30mm Prime in fact.

Not that it's a problem, but photos aren't defined by the kind of lens they were shot with. They're headshots taken with a normal. They would be just as headshotty with a tele of any length, or a proper wide.

(Before you say "wuh buh it's a wide lens," my 28mm can focus down to 0.4 meter, which should be plenty adequate to fill the frame with a face.)

Simplicius wrote:Hokay, first off - no need for these to be so damn big. Rule #1.5 of presenting photos is make sure you can see the whole thing in one go. Gallery wall? Knock yourself out. Computer monitor? Keep it inside the boundaries of the screen, please.

Width wise it's fine . (But I shrunk em a bit).

Second - major lighting fail. You acknowledge as much, but I don't think the importance of good lighting for portraits can be understated.

Believe me i'm painfully aware of it. There were external constraints that fucked up the schedule.

Light is always important, but for portraits it's especially so because of how it affects the shape(s) of a face, the color and texture of skin, and the characterization of the subject. Even 'always good' early morning light would have been completely inadequate unless it 'said' precisely what you wanted to say about the person you are photographing.

True, bright morning light suited this girl more than warm golden late day light, but external constraints applied (I have studies in the evening).
Next shot will have the right light for the shot though, assuming the model in question ever has a free evening.

There's a reason most portraits are done in studio: control.

The limits of my studio is a bunch of black fabric I bought from a seamstress last week. I'd rather work with constraints than not do anything, especially due to how lacking my portrait skills, techniques, repertoire and ideas are.

Unless you are a total noob and your model is experienced, you should be directing the shoot.

I am a total noob . I did direct it, (using the environment, poses, etc'), it's just that i'm not good at it (yet) .

The key in either case is purpose. There is no need to try and pretend that a posed portrait is candid, so make sure that you get what you want out of a shoot. "Photos of [model]" is never it.

I lack a purpose other than practice, and trying to get better at this. People pictures are my weak point, I lack any sort of sympathy, empathy or interest in people, hence my need to improve at it. Why do you think that I was going for a candid look? (I wasn't).

http://jzportraits.home.att.net/ is a good reference for classic studio portraiture. It's as good a place to start as any.

Link is broken.

Death wrote:Nope. Almost every shot (except for the head shots against the black fabric) were with a 30mm Prime in fact.

Not that it's a problem, but photos aren't defined by the kind of lens they were shot with. They're headshots taken with a normal. They would be just as headshotty with a tele of any length, or a proper wide.

(Before you say "wuh buh it's a wide lens," my 28mm can focus down to 0.4 meter, which should be plenty adequate to fill the frame with a face.)

... Have you seen what happens when you take a close up head only shot with a 30mm lens? (I took a couple. I like them for their amusement value, but she looks very weird and gaping due to the distortion)

I lack any sort of sympathy, empathy or interest in people

Apart from the purely technical stuff, I think this is a major problem. How can you take good pictures of something you don't care about? If you can't see the beauty or the appeal of a scene - you know, the very reason why you press the shutter button - how do you expect to get good pictures?

If you don't give a shit about people, don't do portraits. I'll bet this is why she looks so awkward in most of these shots; it's all posed for the sake of being posed, there's no real life in it.

Bounty wrote:

I lack any sort of sympathy, empathy or interest in people

Apart from the purely technical stuff, I think this is a major problem.

The joys of being an autist .

How can you take good pictures of something you don't care about?

Same way I learned social skills. Through focus, practice and continual improvement.

If you can't see the beauty or the appeal of a scene - you know, the very reason why you press the shutter button - how do you expect to get good pictures?

Practice.

If you don't give a shit about people, don't do portraits.

I used to be reeeaaaaallly bad at people pics. I improved from that, and now i'll improve some more. Defeatist attitudes never helped anyone (Except for risk assessment insurance company surveyors).

I'll bet this is why she looks so awkward in most of these shots; it's all posed for the sake of being posed, there's no real life in it.

No, that's just personal reasons. (Hopefully i'll be better at calming down the item of photography next time).

Defeatist attitudes never helped anyone

Roundabout jury-rigged fixes never helped anyone, either. Not in the long term.

Instead of going on and on about 'practice', why not step back for a second and tackle the root of the problem? Autism is not an excuse, it does anything but make you incapable of feeling passion about a subject. Think about why you want to make portraits. I get the impression you do it because you feel it's something you should do and that's pretty much the worst way to start. What is special about your subject? What catches your eye? What's the emotion you want to portray? Don't think about light or lenses or any of that crap - think about the idea you want to see on paper and let the rest flow from there.

If you're just going through the motions, pretending you can approximate real emotion by overthinking and repetition, you may one day get technically perfect shots of dead eyes and discomfort. Just don't expect many people to want to see them.

I'm willing to bet that you will get far, far better pictures if you run out to a supermarket, get a $5 disposable, take your model out for a day in a park, have some fun, and shoot only when it feels right. Maybe your shots will be technically shitty, maybe you'll get nothing, but they'll have a lot more life in them if nothing else.

(by the way, this idea you can learn social skills through 'focus and practice'? That is seriously creepy and incredibly condescending)

Bounty wrote: (by the way, this idea you can learn social skills through 'focus and practice'? That is seriously creepy and incredibly condescending)

And I find it condescending and insulting that you think you can tell me how I've lived my life, gone through therapy and learned social skills over the past few years.
One of us is autistic, and one of us learned social skills. It's not you.

One of us is autistic, and one of us learned social skills. It's not you.

Play-acting at being a human being is not the same as 'learning social skills'. I can't tell what sort of progress you've made, I can only comment on what you say here, and the way you keep banging on about how you can solve every problem with repetition and mimicking doesn't give me much hope.

Bounty wrote:

One of us is autistic, and one of us learned social skills. It's not you.

Play-acting at being a human being is not the same as 'learning social skills'. I can't tell what sort of progress you've made

Progress in what? Your statement is unclear to me.

The Grim Squeaker wrote:True, bright morning light suited this girl more than warm golden late day light, but external constraints applied (I have studies in the evening).
Next shot will have the right light for the shot though, assuming the model in question ever has a free evening.

The other thing to keep in mind is that artificial lighting works outside as well as inside, so you woulds still benefit from reading up that that sort of thing. Fill flash, reflectors, etc. aren't going to compete with the sun but they will still let you work with multidirectional lighting.

The limits of my studio is a bunch of black fabric I bought from a seamstress last week. I'd rather work with constraints than not do anything, especially due to how lacking my portrait skills, techniques, repertoire and ideas are.

Yeah, I'm not saying "Don't bother unless you've got a studio." Just noting the importance of what a studio can offer in my general portrait photo spiel.

Keep your eyes out for studios that hire out time to photographers, kind of like how public darkrooms do. I think that's a great way for someone to get to practice real studio work without having to justify the expense of setting up a full one for one's self.

I lack a purpose other than practice, and trying to get better at this.

Purpose for the photos, I mean. Do you want your model to look fun? Sexy? Dignified? Beautiful? Bizarre? The model's pose, garb, and the background of the photo will shape a story - what story do you want to tell? This should be part of what you practice.

Why do you think that I was going for a candid look? (I wasn't).

I don't. I was speaking up in favor of assertive and purposeful direction, since some of these pictures looked like the direction was weak.

Link is broken.

Works fine for me. Try searching for "The Zeltsman Approach to Traditional Classic Portraiture." It's a 16-chapter web page by a career portrait photographer talking about his methods.

Simplicius wrote:

The Grim Squeaker wrote:True, bright morning light suited this girl more than warm golden late day light, but external constraints applied (I have studies in the evening).
Next shot will have the right light for the shot though, assuming the model in question ever has a free evening.

The other thing to keep in mind is that artificial lighting works outside as well as inside, so you woulds still benefit from reading up that that sort of thing. Fill flash, reflectors, etc. aren't going to compete with the sun but they will still let you work with multidirectional lighting.

I need to find a portable mirror and white foam board(s). Not as easy to find as one would think, oddly enough.
Damn non tool/DIY oriented Israeli culture!

The limits of my studio is a bunch of black fabric I bought from a seamstress last week. I'd rather work with constraints than not do anything, especially due to how lacking my portrait skills, techniques, repertoire and ideas are.

Yeah, I'm not saying "Don't bother unless you've got a studio." Just noting the importance of what a studio can offer in my general portrait photo spiel.

I did one shoot in astudio as part of the photo course I did. Fill flashes are fuuuun .

Keep your eyes out for studios that hire out time to photographers, kind of like how public darkrooms do.

It's quite an expense, and I can't really justify it or afford it (I'm not making money of this, I need a body of experience currently, if I manage to work for someone then real studio experience will follow).

I think that's a great way for someone to get to practice real studio work without having to justify the expense of setting up a full one for one's self.

Not just expense, also time, space and technical ability.

I lack a purpose other than practice, and trying to get better at this.

Purpose for the photos, I mean. Do you want your model to look fun? Sexy? Dignified? Beautiful? Bizarre? The model's pose, garb, and the background of the photo will shape a story - what story do you want to tell? This should be part of what you practice.

Thanks, that's a good tip for guiding the next time I work at it.

Why do you think that I was going for a candid look? (I wasn't).

I don't. I was speaking up in favor of assertive and purposeful direction, since some of these pictures looked like the direction was weak.

You're saying i'm not charismatic or forceful enough? . (I know, i'm not ).

Link is broken.

Works fine for me. Try searching for "The Zeltsman Approach to Traditional Classic Portraiture." It's a 16-chapter web page by a career portrait photographer talking about his methods.

Found it. reading it now, thanks!

The Grim Squeaker wrote:

Bounty wrote: (by the way, this idea you can learn social skills through 'focus and practice'? That is seriously creepy and incredibly condescending)

And I find it condescending and insulting that you think you can tell me how I've lived my life, gone through therapy and learned social skills over the past few years.
One of us is autistic, and one of us learned social skills. It's not you.

Fuck off bounty. Those of us with aspergers who actually have learned to be functional members of society all had to consciously learn social skills and behaviours until they came naturally.

As Simplicius said, you have no focus on this shoot, yes you told me it was practice, but even practice needs a focus or it is nothing more than playing around.

JointStrikeFighter wrote:

The Grim Squeaker wrote:

Bounty wrote: (by the way, this idea you can learn social skills through 'focus and practice'? That is seriously creepy and incredibly condescending)

And I find it condescending and insulting that you think you can tell me how I've lived my life, gone through therapy and learned social skills over the past few years.
One of us is autistic, and one of us learned social skills. It's not you.

Fuck off bounty. Those of us with aspergers who actually have learned to be functional members of society all had to consciously learn social skills and behaviours until they came naturally.

Oh boo-fucking-hoo. First off, 'those of us with aspergers' is a pretty fucking meaningless group considering any nerd who's afraid of people gets the label from the sympathy brigade these days, including yours truly.

Second, the ridiculous idea that you need to 'learn' social 'skills' that come 'naturally' to others is feel-good bullshit for people who just develop them late. Nobody is born with perfect social skills, everybody learns them through interaction and some are better at it than others. Do I have sympathy and patience for someone who is insecure around people and awkward but tries anyway? Sure. Do I have sympathy for self-aggrandising nerds who think they can milk respect from people by whining about how they are shit around people, pathetically trying to quantify and analyse social interaction with 'tricks' and 'systems'? Yeah, fuck that.

Take your world's smallest violin and shove it where the sun don't shine. I've been there, it's not easy, but whining about brute-forcing social skills just makes me want to punch you.

And this is all way off-topic. Sorry about the hijack.

Bounty wrote:(by the way, this idea you can learn social skills through 'focus and practice'? That is seriously creepy and incredibly condescending)

Because all those psychiatrists and councilors who spend their lives helping kids with that have completely the wrong idea!

That being said, I can't say I know your story, but that really is what it comes down to for a lot of people. Therapy's sure as hell helped me. The rest of your post is pretty much spot on though; using it as an excuse never helped anybody.

Bounty wrote:Think about why you want to make portraits. I get the impression you do it because you feel it's something you should do and that's pretty much the worst way to start. What is special about your subject? What catches your eye? What's the emotion you want to portray? Don't think about light or lenses or any of that crap - think about the idea you want to see on paper and let the rest flow from there.

I don't want this to get lost in the social-skills hijack. It's similar to what I said earlier about telling a story, but gets closer to the general reasons for making photographs (or any creative pastime) at all.

There is no reason to feel that to be a photographer you have to at least dabble in all possible genres of photography. To do so is to waste your time, since every minute you reluctantly struggle to grasp the fundamentals of landscape is a minute you are not out getting better at making the kinds of pictures you like to make. It's important to base your work off your own desires and interests. Not only will you cheerfully work hard at something you love to do, and therefore become better at it, but the self-satisfaction you derive from it will reward you in the absence of money and fame.

This is the other half of photography, the most important half, but it is also the half that cannot be learned. It's where creativity and artistic expression come from - learning the ins-and-outs of cameras, compositional techniques, darkroom/post-processing, and so on may teach you how to say, but it won't teach you what to say. You just have to know it, and that means knowing yourself. And being honest about it, too: should you draw a total blank, you might be happier in the long run finding some other pastime.

If you want to continue to learn and improve and are stuck on a plateau of mediocrity, it's time for you to focus. Sit down and complete this sentence: "I have a passion for ____________ and my goal is to _____________." Figure out what you love most or interests you the most and how you want to translate that into photographs, and spend your time working on that.

Simplicius wrote:There is no reason to feel that to be a photographer you have to at least dabble in all possible genres of photography. To do so is to waste your time, since every minute you reluctantly struggle to grasp the fundamentals of landscape is a minute you are not out getting better at making the kinds of pictures you like to make. It's important to base your work off your own desires and interests. Not only will you cheerfully work hard at something you love to do, and therefore become better at it, but the self-satisfaction you derive from it will reward you in the absence of money and fame.

I gotta emphasise this and add my own personal story of failure. In my case I've never been able to take good portraits or still life pictures, I've tried working on it a few times over the years but it never gets anywhere. My portraits today suck just as much as the ones I took 15 years ago, it just doesn't work and I've accepted it. It's futile and frustrating, I'm doing photography as a hobby not a job so if it's not fun then what the fuck am I doing it for? So I let me wife take them, because she can actually take decent ones while I focus on fun stuff like mountain bike action photos.

At the same time I do think you need to experiment with new stuff every now & then, especially now that we have digital cameras which makes it practically free. For instance I've never done architecture photography until this year, but now that I have I think it's pretty damn fun to bike around town and find cool buildings to takes pictures of.

aerius wrote:
I gotta emphasise this and add my own personal story of failure. In my case I've never been able to take good portraits or still life pictures, I've tried working on it a few times over the years but it never gets anywhere.

I've never done any good pictures of people that involved me moving/ordering them around, only spontaneous/candid shots work. (The model shoot I did in the photography course was CRAP. I stank at it, and that was with a studio set up and a professional model).
Still, I used to be really, really bad at taking ANY pictures with humans in them, crap as in "worse than the average doofus who bought a point and click from wallmart and doesn't know what a zoom is". I've improved, and I need to improve more if I want to make money off the side as a photographer (parties and conventions necessitate human photography). So I'll practice, and work at it, and we'll see where I am with it in a few months or a year before I decide I can't improve at it.

I'm a fast learner, 3 years ago I didn't know how to take pictures, 4 years ago I didn't have a clue what social skills were, 8 years ago I didn't know how to fence, 15 years ago I didn't know how to read. So maybe in 4 months I'll make decent portraits and people shots, if not then at least I tried and I will have improved slightly at it. (and I'll just switch back to candid stuff, street photography and the like).

My portraits today suck just as much as the ones I took 15 years ago

Goddamn you're old . I'll see if I suck as badly after 150 days.
My portraits today suck as badly as those of 1.5 years ago, but beat the crap out of those of 2+ years ago. :.

, it just doesn't work and I've accepted it.

That may be the case with me as well. (It certainly feels like it. I'm just really bad at it, from the artistic to the practical to the human aspects).

It's futile and frustrating, I'm doing photography as a hobby not a job so if it's not fun then what the fuck am I doing it for?

To be great at something you enjoy and love?

So I let me wife take them, because she can actually take decent ones while I focus on fun stuff like mountain bike action photos.

That, and hot girls find it easier to get random people to pose and relax for them. (sad but true).

At the same time I do think you need to experiment with new stuff every now & then, especially now that we have digital cameras which makes it practically free.

If it wasn't for digital's 0$ per shot expense, I wouldn't be where I am today in terms of ability or experience. If there was even a minimal cost, I wouldn't do a tenth of my photography, certainly not random small stuff or random experimentations.

For instance I've never done architecture photography until this year, but now that I have I think it's pretty damn fun to bike around town and find cool buildings to takes pictures of.

That's always awesome (and you live in Toronto you bastard, that's an Awesome place for building shots). I'd work more on improving sports photography in your place though, you have a lot of potential with that, and you have number of friends in it, talk to them, and make some promo shots that they can print for their friends and family.
And i'll take a 10% cut, as your career adviser .

RRoan wrote:

Bounty wrote:(by the way, this idea you can learn social skills through 'focus and practice'? That is seriously creepy and incredibly condescending)

Because all those psychiatrists and councilors who spend their lives helping kids with that have completely the wrong idea!

You're right! I've been conned! I could have done it anyway!

That being said, I can't say I know your story, but that really is what it comes down to for a lot of people. Therapy's sure as hell helped me.

The rest of your post is pretty much spot on though; using it as an excuse never helped anybody.

True. Realizing it and focusing on solving it has helped (me at least).

Bounty wrote:Oh boo-fucking-hoo. First off, 'those of us with aspergers' is a pretty fucking meaningless group considering any nerd who's afraid of people gets the label from the sympathy brigade these days, including yours truly.

Go fuck yourself, dipshit. There are plenty of people who have been professionally diagnosed, not just geeks on the Internet using the term as an excuse for poor social skills.

Second, the ridiculous idea that you need to 'learn' social 'skills' that come 'naturally' to others is feel-good bullshit for people who just develop them late. Nobody is born with perfect social skills, everybody learns them through interaction and some are better at it than others. Do I have sympathy and patience for someone who is insecure around people and awkward but tries anyway? Sure. Do I have sympathy for self-aggrandising nerds who think they can milk respect from people by whining about how they are shit around people, pathetically trying to quantify and analyse social interaction with 'tricks' and 'systems'? Yeah, fuck that.

You're a goddamned idiot. Did you know that there are children who don't even know to smile when they're happy? They have to be taught things like "smile when you're happy" and "frown when you're upset": things that come naturally to most of us. They have to practice these things. You're making broad declarations about how "nobody" legitimately has these serious developmental disorders and they're just whiners, based on ... what, exactly? Your personal opinion? And what is that worth, compared to case studies proving the exact opposite?

Take your world's smallest violin and shove it where the sun don't shine. I've been there, it's not easy, but whining about brute-forcing social skills just makes me want to punch you.

And this is all way off-topic. Sorry about the hijack.

You should be more sorry about being an idiot.

mike wrote:

Bounty wrote:Oh boo-fucking-hoo. First off, 'those of us with aspergers' is a pretty fucking meaningless group considering any nerd who's afraid of people gets the label from the sympathy brigade these days, including yours truly.

Go fuck yourself, dipshit. There are plenty of people who have been professionally diagnosed, not just geeks on the Internet using the term as an excuse for poor social skills.

It turns out that I was professionaly diagnosed by both a psychologist and then referral to a psychiatrist, with the whole process taking [IIRC] about 10 contact hours. Who knew that real psycho-analysis is complicated? WHY GO TO PROEFESSIONALS WHEN WE CAN JUST USE BOUNTY AND HIS ARMCHAIR INTERNET DEGREE OF PSYCHO-OLOGY.


PERSONAL ANECDOTE ALERT :

As for learning social skills, I am living proof that it is possible. When I was in high-school I was barely functional in a social sense, didn't have friends, having a GF was a unfullfilable fantasy and even going to the shops was an exercise in existential terror. Now I have dozens of friends, a girlfriend of 2 years and enjoy going out, socialising and meeting new people. And on the subject of professional diagnosis, I had a full workup done at the start of the year [took 5 hours] and it turns out my aspergers is now undetectable.

END ANNECDOTE

PERSONAL ANECDOTE ALERT :

Personal anecdote summary: guy gets diagnosed with Asperger's (ps not autism) which slows down his social development, gets better, has a normal life, proves my point.

Bounty wrote:

PERSONAL ANECDOTE ALERT :

Personal anecdote summary: guy gets diagnosed with Asperger's (ps not autism) which slows down his social development, gets better, has a normal life, proves my point.

Actual it proves my point; learns social skills through trial, error and observation; gains normal life. PS aspergers IS a kind of autism, but don't let the facts get in the way.