Portrait with 5D + 135 mm f/2

In article ,
Alan Browne wrote:

Think of what's her name of "Sex and the City". What a honker of a
nose! And quite the ugly lump near her mouth. Yet a very pretty lady.

I never notice it on her! On Sara I never would see it- the bubbly
persona she has precludes it. I don't watch that show only commercials.
--
"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely,
the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great
and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire
at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
- H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920.


Reality-Is finding that perfect picture
and never looking back.

www.gregblankphoto.com

In article ,
"Skip" wrote:

I agree. Temporary blemishes are something I feel free to remove, or
permanent ones that the subject has mentioned as being bothersome, or asked
to have removed. Moles, freckles, etc. stay for fear of just what you
mention.

Its a tricky subject one of real value for this group, before putting
something that the model would not like perhaps the safe approach is
showing two examples to the client and asking which they would prefer,
and saying you really like their choice in the decision!
--
"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely,
the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great
and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire
at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
- H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920.


Reality-Is finding that perfect picture
and never looking back.

www.gregblankphoto.com

Greg "_" wrote:
In article ,
Alan Browne wrote:


Think of what's her name of "Sex and the City". What a honker of a
nose! And quite the ugly lump near her mouth. Yet a very pretty lady.


I never notice it on her! On Sara I never would see it- the bubbly
persona she has precludes it. I don't watch that show only commercials.

I watched about 20 minutes of an episode of "Sex and the city" and found
it to be one of the most insipid programs ever made. I'll never watch
it again. But what's-her-name does have a striking face!

Cheers,
Akan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Skip wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

http://forrestcroce.com/Photos/NallyBW.htmlThe black spot in the middle
of her upper lip is begging to be cloned out.

Sometimes one should opt for Beauty over Realism.

I dunno ... that's a touchy subject. I almost never clone unique
features like that out, unless asked. She's seen it in the mirror for
30 years; she'd notice it missing in a photo. And I'm nervous to do
anything that could be interpreted as "This makes you unattractive -
you would look much better without it."


I agree. Temporary blemishes are something I feel free to remove, or

Well stated distinction. I have often removed pimples or red-rash from
faces in photoshop.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Alan Browne wrote:

I have often removed pimples or red-rash
from faces in photoshop.

Perhaps after so much fuss I should explain my original beef with the
photo in question:

If the photo we all were invited to view was intended as a "portrait"
done FOR a particular person, I agree that person's characteristic
features should be respected.

OTOH, the photo was presented in this newsgroup in "look at what my lens
can do" fashion, and thus seemed to ask to be judged on its own merit as
a generalized work of work, not as a documentary depiction of a
particular person. My reaction on first seeing the photo was that the
blemish was an eye-stopping distraction in a photo which deserved some
cosmetic enhancement. The photographer saw a particular woman, I saw
"Woman" with a capital W.

My philosophy is that we should strive to create images more than merely
record reality... otherwise we are all copyists rather than artists.

Hope I haven't dug myself further into this hole :^)

--
Anti-Spam address: my last name at his dot com
Charles Gillen -- Reston, Virginia, USA

Charles Gillen wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:

I have often removed pimples or red-rash
from faces in photoshop.

Perhaps after so much fuss I should explain my original beef with the
photo in question:

If the photo we all were invited to view was intended as a "portrait"
done FOR a particular person, I agree that person's characteristic
features should be respected.

OTOH, the photo was presented in this newsgroup in "look at what my
lens can do" fashion, and thus seemed to ask to be judged on its own
merit as a generalized work of work, not as a documentary depiction
of a particular person. My reaction on first seeing the photo was
that the blemish was an eye-stopping distraction in a photo which
deserved some cosmetic enhancement. The photographer saw a
particular woman, I saw "Woman" with a capital W.

My philosophy is that we should strive to create images more than
merely record reality... otherwise we are all copyists rather than
artists.

Hope I haven't dug myself further into this hole :^)

He "created that image" most likely to capture a *person*, which is what
most portraits are.
Each person includes characteristics that make them unique. As soon as you
start removing permanent, unique characteristics, you reduce all your models
to some preconceived "norm." Once you start down that path, you've
cheapened your subjects in the same way an antique chest is cheapened when
you sand and repaint it.

If you want a "product" then go ahead and airbrush ever curve and remove
every double chin. But if you want a portrait, then I hope you's want to
preserve the person.

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

Charles Gillen wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:


I have often removed pimples or red-rash
from faces in photoshop.


Perhaps after so much fuss I should explain my original beef with the
photo in question:

If the photo we all were invited to view was intended as a "portrait"
done FOR a particular person, I agree that person's characteristic
features should be respected.

OTOH, the photo was presented in this newsgroup in "look at what my lens
can do" fashion, and thus seemed to ask to be judged on its own merit as
a generalized work of work, not as a documentary depiction of a
particular person. My reaction on first seeing the photo was that the
blemish was an eye-stopping distraction in a photo which deserved some
cosmetic enhancement. The photographer saw a particular woman, I saw
"Woman" with a capital W.

My philosophy is that we should strive to create images more than merely
record reality... otherwise we are all copyists rather than artists.

Hope I haven't dug myself further into this hole :^)

I'll throw in a ladder.

Occasionally I see images of women where the very fine hair on their
cheeks is visible, the very grain (if you will) of their skin shows,
very real and astonishingly beautiful.

Then I see images that have been photoshopped to death and the women
have plastic looking, ugly skin.

"For a person" means making a pleasing (usually) image of them. The
image referenced is quite beautiful. Not a formal portrait, more
spontaneous in look. Unless she asked for it to be removed I wouldn't
touch it. I suspect that the subject would never even think of such a
thing.

People know what their "permanent" blemishes are. They are part of
their makeup and they won't be offended by them. (If they weere they'd
have them removed).

We're talking "portraits" here, not advertisements in Vanity Fair.
There it is all "image" and to believe that those ladies are
consistently as perfect as presented is proof of dreams and the success
of illusion.

Cheers,
Alan
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Skip wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
http://forrestcroce.com/Photos/NallyBW.htmlThe black spot in the middle
of her upper lip is begging to be cloned out.
Sometimes one should opt for Beauty over Realism.
I dunno ... that's a touchy subject. I almost never clone unique
features like that out, unless asked. She's seen it in the mirror for
30 years; she'd notice it missing in a photo. And I'm nervous to do
anything that could be interpreted as "This makes you unattractive -
you would look much better without it."

I agree. Temporary blemishes are something I feel free to remove, or
permanent ones that the subject has mentioned as being bothersome, or asked
to have removed. Moles, freckles, etc. stay for fear of just what you
mention.

It hasn't slowed Cindy Crawford in any way. If the model asks me that's
another thing.

wrote:
I love the 135/2 L - it's the best lens I've ever used. Almost hurts
to take it off the camera, which happens pretty rarely.

http://forrestcroce.com/Photos/NallyBW.html

Nice.. but.. I would throw in an alternative view - I think you can
easily have too *little* depth of field, and I think this shot suffers
slightly from that. I find that such a portrait begins to look
unnatural when features that are very close in their distance from the
lens (and therefore their perceived distance from the viewer) show such
a different level of sharpness, especially eyes... In this case I
would have stopped down a little more so that the rearmost eye was only
just o-o-f. But that's just me.

(This also raises the issue of the accuracy of d-o-f preview - there
was an interesting thread recently pointing out that the viewfinder
d-o-f may differ quite markedly from the actual recorded result...)

I agree with all posters who say that 'blemishes' (aka 'beauty marks')
should only be altered if the issue is raised by the model, in this
type of portraiture...

I also particularly liked this one:
http://forrestcroce.com/Photos/LesliWithHummingbirdMoth.html
How big a burst did you have to shoot to get that one?

That was a "hail mary pass." A burst of two, and both of them by
manual focus - a few dozen hummingbird moths were having a go at all
the dandelions in a clearing, I'd been trying to track them and having
no luck with AF, and given up on it by the time I heard my name, turned
around, and saw a once in a lifetime opportunity. Well, I hope I'm
wrong on that last bit.