File :-(, x, )
pskaught
whatsup /p/ I'm here so you can senselessly pick this shit apart and still come out with the same thing.

and whats the only way I could spend a day with a woman this beautiful?
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 5DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution100 dpiVertical Resolution100 dpiImage Created2007:07:23 21:38:47Exposure Time1/80 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating160Lens Aperturef/2.8Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length105.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width665Image Height1000RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>> N.C.F.
I like it. Good angle, could use a little light work but other than that most excellent.

I'll have to use this pose.
>> a few more. pskaught
     File :-(, x)
If interested I also shot about 6 rolls of film, 120 & 35, if we all want to get into a film versus digital debate. I should have those developed by tomorrow.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 5DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution100 dpiVertical Resolution100 dpiImage Created2007:07:23 21:43:28Exposure Time1/60 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating160Lens Aperturef/2.8Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length85.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width665Image Height1000RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
damn, thats film? thats fucking crazy

good shit

and chick is really hot too
>> Anonymous
>>64366
Those images weren't film if you check the EXIF. I'm looking forward to the 120 stuff though.
>> Anonymous
This girl an acquaintance of yours? In any case, more pics from this shoot would definitely be nice.
>> pskaught
     File :-(, x)
film comes tomorrow. gonna be great, hopefully, took some risks on exposure, so we'll see.

this is a girl I shot in the past, and she was looking for a little something for her book. She's so ungodly beautiful that any picture of her turns out great.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 5DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution100 dpiVertical Resolution100 dpiImage Created2007:07:23 22:09:26Exposure Time1/160 secF-Numberf/13.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating160Lens Aperturef/12.9Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length33.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width638Image Height1000RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
>>64368
*smack to the face* sry, im retarded
>> pskaught
     File :-(, x)
I didn't know I could delete my posts.. thats great here it is again.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 5DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution90 dpiVertical Resolution90 dpiImage Created2007:07:23 22:31:19Exposure Time1/40 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating160Lens Aperturef/2.8Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length98.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width598Image Height900RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
Care to share some of your techniques here pskaught? I'm pretty much an amateur here and you seem to know a little more about lighting and focus than I do.
>> pskaught
     File :-(, x)
all but this one:>>64372
were natural light. I've been house sitting for a friend who just happens to have the nicest place. different rooms had certain times of the day where the light looked best. I just found those spots. I usually had a bounce, either silver or silver/gold just barely returning a little light in some cases.
as far as the quality of light, just keeping it really soft works with all women.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 5DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution90 dpiVertical Resolution90 dpiImage Created2007:07:23 23:12:01Exposure Time1/400 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating160Lens Aperturef/2.8Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length70.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width598Image Height900RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
Very nice shots! Model's beautiful too, only>>64372looks a little out of place... long dress plus bike look too idyllic for her hot face.
>> Anonymous
Amazing photos, would love to see some more and also looking forward to the film ones!
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
Wow dude, this is the first stuff of yours that I have literally no complaints with.

>>64376
What the butt is in the bottom right hand corner though? Distracting element. But not -that- distracting. Damn good portraits here.

Almost-anon approves!
>> Anonymous
>>64359
rawr you wanna have your pics torn apart well then lets go!

>>64359
the focus is a lil off (just a lil) I think you hit the shoulder instead of her eyes

>>64361
I think you hit her arm again instead of the eyes and the eyes could use a lil catch light or something they're kinda dark

>>64372
The car on the left needs to go, possibly the metal wire on the floor in the bottom left as well and it looks like she moved the bike handlebars when you took the pic because they are blurry and so is her hand. perhaps if you stood a lil farther back and used a longer lens it would have left the car out but still given you the green bushes to the edge of the frame?

>>64376
Nice ^_^ but wtf is that thing in the bottom right and the bottom left that little slice of her left leg is a lil distracting. Also maybe clean up the stray hairs on her face and next time clean up the harder to edit out of place hair like on her back and her leg?

>>64387
Great but the lighting on the right side of her face could have been a lil better, her hair gets a lil too dark and you lost the highlight in her eye as well

hows that for senseless picking <3?

really awesome pics tho btw ^_^ the best shit i've seen on /p/ imo
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>64359
beautiful, my favorite shot.
>> elf_man !fBgo7jDjms
These are beautiful.
I do think>>64361is a little too dark, though, at least around the face. The natural light is nice, but the lower half of the frame really overpowers the top.
But yeah, absolutely gorgeous.
>> ami(go)
all of them are fantastic

she's prettier than the girls i've photographed, that's for damn sure
>> pskaught
     File :-(, x)
I'm back with film. you tell me this shit isn't better than digital.
I'll start with the 120mm version
( KODAK 160VC)
Hassleblad(1st time using this camera)

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeAgfaPhoto GmbHCamera Modeld-lab.2/3Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS MacintoshPhotographerOnly the Best :-))Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution90 dpiVertical Resolution90 dpiImage Created2007:07:24 17:32:21Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width893Image Height900
>> pskaught
     File :-(, x)
35mm
KODAK 400VC
Same lens as the 5D version.
these have not been touched by the way, straight off the scan.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeAgfaPhoto GmbHCamera Modeld-lab.2/3Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS MacintoshPhotographerOnly the Best :-))Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution90 dpiVertical Resolution90 dpiImage Created2007:07:24 17:33:03Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width602Image Height900
>> Anonymous
Daaaamn. WAY better than digital! I love it!
>> pskaught
     File :-(, x)
my favorite so far, no fill in this one, btw.
still going trough all the pictures.
120mm KODAK 160VC

all the shadow information is still in there, but I love the contrast.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeAgfaPhoto GmbHCamera Modeld-lab.2/3Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS MacintoshPhotographerOnly the Best :-))Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution90 dpiVertical Resolution90 dpiImage Created2007:07:24 17:40:11Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width893Image Height900
>> Anonymous
tits or gtfo
>> Anonymous
I'm actually more a fan of the Digital shots here, The film looks like its lacking dynamic range (which is unusual), And the colors on them seem a bit drabber.

post some more film ones so I can see more, cause this chick is hot!
>> Anonymous
This style works better for you than all the strobes you usually go with. Great work in>>64359and>>64508.>>64372was a good idea, but it didn't work out.

The rest are too simple. That's not quite the right word, but it's the closet I can think of. Also, the little blue shorts have to go. They just don't work with the rest of the scene. (And no, before some /b/tard passes by with a "fukkin' signed," I don't mean get her naked.)

I agree the stronger blacks that come with film look better- but otherwise digitial does, and boosting the blacks and constrast is easy. Digital files are nowhere close to being finished out-of-camera, even if you count the minimal in-camera JPEG processing as being "finished."

Do you shoot RAW or JPEG, pskaught?
>> pskaught
     File :-(, x)
dynamic range, from highlights to shadows, there's always information in it.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeAgfaPhoto GmbHCamera Modeld-lab.2/3Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS MacintoshPhotographerOnly the Best :-))Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution90 dpiVertical Resolution90 dpiImage Created2007:07:24 18:06:38Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width893Image Height900
>> pskaught
     File :-(, x)
>>64520
only raw. Jpeg is for chumps.
>>64372and>>64387were both strobe work, and granted they're not my favorites either. But the whole point of the natural light ones were to be simple and as real as possible, I used some bounce and silks to make the natural light even better.

>>64372didn't turn out the way I wanted and the Closeups sold a lot better than the wide ones. because they just ended up looking like studio work, that and it was the first set-up of the day, so she wasn't really in a grove yet. Here's a closeup of fun and great justice.

120 cropped, my 35 sucks with strobes, I've been testing and the flash sync is like 1/100 or less.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeAgfaPhoto GmbHCamera Modeld-lab.2/3Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS MacintoshPhotographerOnly the Best :-))Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution90 dpiVertical Resolution90 dpiImage Created2007:07:24 18:23:10Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width711Image Height900
>> Anonymous
>>64524
>only raw. Jpeg is for chumps.
Good man.

Both the new shots you posted are quite win.

>dynamic range, from highlights to shadows, there's always information in it.
Since you shoot RAW, you might want to look into this little trick. Solves the dynamic range problem quite nicely.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml
>> Anonymous
Oh, and one more thing: even though the pic is great,>>64524could've been vastly improved by taking that distracting band off her her head.
>> Ren Kockwell !!y74dwT8WYfm
I really don't get why pskaught's pictures tend to attract so much criticism when they're superior to the vast majority of the stuff on /p/.

Or is that why?
>> Anonymous
>>64549
It is. Most bad photographs posted to /p/ are bad enough that all one can really say about them is that "they suck." His, on the other hand, are good enough that a genuine detailed critique can be made.
>> pskaught
>>64546
okay, thanks for the link, thats kind of how I shoot when I can, I usually underexpose so my highlights still have info, then slide all that shit up, but this doesn't apply to film, which was what the comment was about. That is a bad ass link through and everyone should see it, that and the guy is working with a 1ds.

>>64549
HA.. yes. it toughens my skin.
>> Anonymous
>>64551
qft
>> Anonymous
>>64552
I think you have it backwards the link is talking about exposing so that your highlights are just about to clip and then moving the exposure down in your raw program which results better quality pictures because digital sensors capture data best in the lighter areas (so long as there's no clipping)

also if you want to be daring you can clip a little because the histogram on your camera isn't totally accurate when you shoot in raw and cuts off a little early on either side
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>64551
QFT s'more
>> pskaught
>>64549
oh yeah, where the hell is choamsky anyway?
>> Anonymous
>>64657
Don't know. But I'm sure he'd say something like "Try something more original. I've seen a girl before."
>> Rook !HRaWxBruFs
I like pretty much all of them, but for some reason>>64359is my favorite, it is just sweet. Also, in case she doesn't hear it enough, tell your model she is gorgeous.