Vintage shoot - I think I got it now!

[jetrim]

Taking into consideration all the advice from the previous thread (just like momma used to make) I think I've decided on the processing for this set. Seemed odd posting so many different shots that I've decided to start a new thread with this third processing formula and a new shot from the set:

[Frog]

Though I like her pose in the first best, this is the best shot.
Much prefer the background in this one and she still looks like she's had a few and very happy about it.

[draymorton]

Awesome. Nothing to critique.

Never understood the martini thing. I'd rather drink Brut by Faberge.

[jetrim]

Though I like her pose in the first best, this is the best shot.
Much prefer the background in this one and she still looks like she's had a few and very happy about it.

Here's a composite of 2 different images to fill in the gaps of the tight crop on the first, using the same processing as above:

[janicee]

nice shot and lighting...
like the post and catchy smiles.

[BlueRob]

Love the pose on both Jet....they go very well with the 50ish look.

My twisted mind thought B&W when I first saw that first shot...dunno why my mind works that way though :lol:
Selective coloring the olive? I know old fashioned...but again my mind see this shot on a page of a magazine B&W with a green olive and a 30 degree angle brand name and slogan in the bottom right corner.....boy! I need to stop smoking this and loosen the coffee

[Nicci]

Very nice with the arm back in play.

Love the wall colour. So very vintage!

[gahspidy]

Great, Jet. Love the wall color on these better than the yellow. They work best with the colors in the dress, I feel. Very 50's for sure.
I like both poses alot, but there are two things that seem to irk me about each.
The shadows on the wall look burned in or added in pp, and while they are pretty good i still feel its been added somehow. Especially the second one. Not sure if you really need the shadows anyway, if they were added.
The other issue is really with the first one. I immediately thought her arm looked very big. No one else seemed to address that, so maybe its just me, but it took me right away. It could be slimmed with the liquify tool pretty nicely, if you felt in agreeance with me about it.
All in all, really nice stuff, with great expression lighting and colors.

[Frog]

Here's a composite of 2 different images to fill in the gaps of the tight crop on the first, using the same processing as above:

That one really holds my attention. If I came home from work and found that look on my wife's face, I'd turn and run.
It could be a smile to welcome or smile to fear.
Just love the look.

[jetrim]

The shadows on the wall look burned in or added in pp, and while they are pretty good i still feel its been added somehow. Especially the second one. Not sure if you really need the shadows anyway, if they were added.

The shadows were original to the scene, in the second shot I had to rotate the composited arm about 5 degrees to get everything to line up at the sleeve and bracelet which left a wedge that needed to be painted back in at the top, as the very subtle color gradients are nearly impossible to clone and match up. Very observant, I'll work on smoothing everything out a bit more.

The other issue is really with the first one. I immediately thought her arm looked very big. No one else seemed to address that, so maybe its just me, but it took me right away. It could be slimmed with the liquify tool pretty nicely, if you felt in agreeance with me about it.
All in all, really nice stuff, with great expression lighting and colors.

Hehe, already done! I thought the same after posting the first shot so in the second, the arm has already been liquefied. That's why it doesn't stand out as much as in the first shot. (it's the same arm)

[jetrim]

Love the pose on both Jet....they go very well with the 50ish look.

My twisted mind thought B&W when I first saw that first shot...dunno why my mind works that way though :lol:
Selective coloring the olive? I know old fashioned...but again my mind see this shot on a page of a magazine B&W with a green olive and a 30 degree angle brand name and slogan in the bottom right corner.....boy! I need to stop smoking this and loosen the coffee

LOL, not exactly what you suggested, but fun to do...

[GB1]

Jim - It works on many levels. The only thing I think the picture really needs is a more sophisticated background. I took the liberty of pasting her onto another one I had.. Not sure if this is "it", but at least we can see other possibilities. I only spent about 5 min on this, so it isn't perfect, though only part that's bad is the wine glass.

g

[Nicci]

The other issue is really with the first one. I immediately thought her arm looked very big.

wow I thought it looked normal. Well I guess in the world of modeling it is super-sized hence why I don't like fashion photography. It is all smoke and mirrors, so to speak.

[jetrim]

Nicci,
To be fair, it's not about trying to deceive anyone. It's about correcting distortion caused by the limitations of shooting with a short lens. We had 2 full setups in a studio that is 15' x 40'. You generally need at least 8' between the model and the backdrop which left about 10' between the model and the lens (with photographers standing back to back). The parts of the model that are closer get magnified, not much you can do about it except adjust it with the liquify tool in post processing. Normally I would shoot this with a 200-300mm focal length from about 20' away, but it wasn't an option this time. The model was 37yrs old, 5'6" 120lb and I'm pretty sure I can't be accused of trying to make her look like something she wasn't - That's the make-up artist's job :lol:

[shootme]

Oh yea, just super love them all and it certainly takes me back (to movies I say as a kid), Rita Hayworth comes to mind straight away. The red lipstick and cocktail glass and the pastel backdrop and flowery outfit just make this all work wonderfully. OK my comments not from a trained eye at studio work, it's just what the shots says to me when I look at it. Great job.

[Nicci]

Nicci,
To be fair, it's not about trying to deceive anyone. It's about correcting distortion caused by the limitations of shooting with a short lens. We had 2 full setups in a studio that is 15' x 40'. You generally need at least 8' between the model and the backdrop which left about 10' between the model and the lens (with photographers standing back to back). The parts of the model that are closer get magnified, not much you can do about it except adjust it with the liquify tool in post processing. Normally I would shoot this with a 200-300mm focal length from about 20' away, but it wasn't an option this time. The model was 37yrs old, 5'6" 120lb and I'm pretty sure I can't be accused of trying to make her look like something she wasn't - That's the make-up artist's job :lol:

aaah okay THAT makes sense. lol I just get defensive about these models and their "shape" when I see young girls starving themselves to look like the unrealistic pictures in magazines. But that is a whole different thread and forum.

TBH I didn't even notice the arm was big.

AAAH, I remember 120lbs from high school. Those were the days. *heads to the gym*

"The parts of the model that are closer get magnified,"

I am going to use that as the reason why I look fat in pictures!!!! Thanks!!!!