When I do this it's a mistake --
Full Version: Shadows under around eyes
When I do this it's a mistake --
QUOTE(cakeys @ September 13 2007, 04:06 PM) 
When I do this it's a mistake --
Yes. You have to have it on the cover of W for it to be genius.
if all your models wore wet white shirts, no one would look at their eyes either. 
QUOTE(cakeys @ September 13 2007, 04:06 PM)
When I do this it's a mistake --
Not anymore!
QUOTE(Jillian Kay @ September 13 2007, 04:12 PM)
if all your models wore wet white shirts, no one would look at their eyes either.
Oh, yeah! That's what I thought you were talking about... the eyes. No really, I knew that.
QUOTE(Jillian Kay @ September 13 2007, 05:12 PM)
if all your models wore wet white shirts, no one would look at their eyes either.
I didnt even notice the wet shirt, I was looking at the eye's going "those look like my natural light or ceiling bounced shots"
QUOTE(MikeWarren @ September 13 2007, 05:23 PM)
I didnt even notice the wet shirt, I was looking at the eye's going "those look like my natural light or ceiling bounced shots"
I really did not notice the wet shirt at first. Just the shadows!
It's the nose shadow that bugs me most.
It looks like a Groucho (sp?) stache
...shrug ....
It looks like a Groucho (sp?) stache
...shrug ....
Eyes? What eyes?
Seriously! hahaha
QUOTE(cakeys @ September 13 2007, 10:06 PM)
When I do this it's a mistake --
EXACTLY! I keep finding publicity inserts in a few magazines I've bought recently from a Model Agency and you'd be shocked at how hideous the lighting (or blatant lack of) is on the shots. I've actually got a good mind to write to them and question why they chose to put such sub-standard material into a huge amount of advertising.
QUOTE(amorphia @ September 13 2007, 04:43 PM)
EXACTLY! I keep finding publicity inserts in a few magazines I've bought recently from a Model Agency and you'd be shocked at how hideous the lighting (or blatant lack of) is on the shots. I've actually got a good mind to write to them and question why they chose to put such sub-standard material into a huge amount of advertising.
Wait for it.... ... ...
Yup, there it is. W mag has defined the new look of fashion photography. We'll all be copying that style soon. Weddings, Bridals, Family Portraiture. Sunken Chic.
LEAVE MY CATE ALONE! She is perfect! And one day she will be MINE!!!!!
Did you see that she is doing a sequel to Elizabeth?!!!! Woohooo!!!!!!
Mmmmm....Blanchett...
Oh and when you are shooting a famous person, you get a TON of flexibility because all you need to do is keep them recognizable as the celebrity. You can have only an EYE showing....
Who is the guy who does the closeup ring lightish "warts and all" stuff of the celebrities which is SO not flattering, but REALLY interesting???? I have a friend who did an internship with him/her but I can't recall the name.
Did you see that she is doing a sequel to Elizabeth?!!!! Woohooo!!!!!!
Mmmmm....Blanchett...
Oh and when you are shooting a famous person, you get a TON of flexibility because all you need to do is keep them recognizable as the celebrity. You can have only an EYE showing....
Who is the guy who does the closeup ring lightish "warts and all" stuff of the celebrities which is SO not flattering, but REALLY interesting???? I have a friend who did an internship with him/her but I can't recall the name.
don't you know dark eyes = moody and sexy now??
She really is gorgeous - I'm curious what kind of photoshopping was done...After seeing some of the before and afters, especially with Faith Hill and a recent shoot with America Ferrara (of Ugly Betty fame), I'm just so darn skeptical...and it makes me sad because so many of these women are stunning...exquisite...and a ton of other very flattering words, and somehow they're still not "right" on their own (of course, having seen some of the before shots, I keep thinking - well, shoot, if they had just adjusted this lighting or that, they wouldn't HAVE to make some of the changes...)
She really is gorgeous - I'm curious what kind of photoshopping was done...After seeing some of the before and afters, especially with Faith Hill and a recent shoot with America Ferrara (of Ugly Betty fame), I'm just so darn skeptical...and it makes me sad because so many of these women are stunning...exquisite...and a ton of other very flattering words, and somehow they're still not "right" on their own (of course, having seen some of the before shots, I keep thinking - well, shoot, if they had just adjusted this lighting or that, they wouldn't HAVE to make some of the changes...)
didn't notice the shirt either until it was mentioned, I was stunned at how much the shadows reminded me of the old masks villains would wear.
I've thought that so many times too. Have you all seen all the Chloe ads lately with the terrible flash exposure?
Photography is art, and art is always subjective anyway. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, yadda, yadda, yadda.
Now when photography is business, you have to think about what sells. Do your CLIENTS want shadows under their eyes? Maybe not.
But fashion photography definitely has major impact on portrait photography, so shadows under the eyes might just become mainstream soon.
It's all a matter of style and preference. There are too many arbitrary factors in deciding what makes a good photo.
Now when photography is business, you have to think about what sells. Do your CLIENTS want shadows under their eyes? Maybe not.
But fashion photography definitely has major impact on portrait photography, so shadows under the eyes might just become mainstream soon.
It's all a matter of style and preference. There are too many arbitrary factors in deciding what makes a good photo.
fashion photographers will always push boundaries.
that's why most get $1000+/hr.
that's why most get $1000+/hr.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.