I'm always trying to get weight into my photos.
That, and shadow.
This was originally a very sharp negative that I reworked in the darkroom many years ago with a technique that softened edge detail and areas in the frame. It spilled light into shadows and shadows into light areas. I made a print and stored it in a box.
Recently I pulled out the print and scanned it and then re-worked the
scan in Luminar imaging software.
I like the softer look of Lou's face in this now.
I wish I could have people in the studio now. I miss taking portraits
more than any privation so far in this crisis. I feel disconnected from my passion.
7 comments:
Set up the studio so you are not near the person being potographed. Maybe indoors - or maybe outdoors under a covered area. You are not close. You can set up lights, reflectors and whatever is needed while observing Social Distancing.
No need to give up on any work. You will find some who will like the idea of a portrait in these trying times.
I don't shoot with long, long lenses. I need to be close enough to use my 90mm and that makes the interpersonal distance to close to be safe. I also spend a lot of time getting a portrait just right and the added time adds to the danger in both directions. Sorry, no quick fix right now.
So, are you going to give us review of luminar in the coming weeks? Not the dial it to 11 parts, but the parts that the discerning portrait photographer finds useful.
Jay
There’s a favorite picture of my wife that I took years ago with a point-and-shoot camera. It’s a JPEG that’s got a lot of built-in sharpening. Too much sharpening. Some weeks ago, I worked it over with a nice Gaussian blur. I like it much better now. Never thought I’d be softening a picture, but it definitely works for this one.
Kirk,
a very rare portrait - that expression!
( - so well emphasized by your technique.)
Just lovely!
:-)
( And I can see why you wanted it softer.)
I love this picture, and I remember (I think) of seeing this before but this rendition is beautiful. I am enjoying Luminar for some of the same reasons you expressed, and I hope I get to take more portraits as well.
I like your mention of "interpersonal distance." There's plenty of discussion about the rendition of various focal lengths - 50, 60, 85, 105, 135, &c. Important, to be sure, but rarely mentioned is the individual matter of how close should the subject be to the photographer. I imagine that some photogs prefer to be closer than others; it's a psychological thing. I might feel I'm close enough to use a 135eq but you might feel what am I doing way out here, I can't relate to my subject from this far away, where's my 90. By the same token, I'm sure that subjects have their own individual - and cultural - feelings about how close is just right.
The subject and photographer preferences might not match. As a crazy hippie in 1969, I had a portrait assignment to photograph engineers at Bechtel in San Francisco. I was using a 150 on Hasselblad. But I had shoulder-length hair and a beard, and so I had the distinct impression that most of my subjects would have been a lot more relaxed if I'd brought the 300 instead.
Post a Comment