Recent Professional Works

[Jeremy Roussak]

Not a job this time, but an experiment on how close I can get with my extension tubes  (Here was 60mm tube on 80mm f2.8 PQS at f11)

Obviously, pretty close! Wouldn't it have looked better focussed on the eye rather than the lashes? Just a thought.

Jremy

[Graham Mitchell]

Obviously, pretty close! Wouldn't it have looked better focussed on the eye rather than the lashes? Just a thought.

Jremy

I like the lashes sharp, and secondly I can see every little blood vessel in the eyeball but for some reason the iris is not so detailed (is the iris set back a bit from the surface of the eye?) I looked at other shots with more focus on the iris and still not much detail. I will have to look more closely into this girl's eyes next time I see her to figure it out

[Snook]

Obviously, pretty close! Wouldn't it have looked better focussed on the eye rather than the lashes? Just a thought.

Jremy

agree, It was probably an accident as with macro so close , if the model or photographer moves even a millimeter that will happen often.
Snook

[pixjohn]

Frank, If I may ask. How much is makeup, how much retouching. Very nice and clean shots

With thanks to Twins Dalen hairdressers.

1.

[dustblue]

some still-life shots for a cosmetic magazine

[Frank Doorhof]

@Pixjohn,

They worked for 1-2 hours on the different hairstyles and makeup.
Photos took app 10 minutes per hairstyle, much more time is not available due to the ammount of styles you have to capture during a day.
Photoshop work was done on the spot and is mostly skinsmoothing and some small changes to the hair if necessary, but most of the time the hair was very well done.

[Jeremy Roussak]

is the iris set back a bit from the surface of the eye?

Yes. The transparent part of the eye in front of the iris is the cornea, which does most of the focussing and is convex forwards: it's the continuation of the white part (the sclera). Behind the cornea is the anterior chamber, which contains fluid, then the iris, then the lens, posterior chamber and retina.

Here endeth the lesson.

I will have to look more closely into this girl's eyes next time I see her to figure it out

Mixing business and pleasure again. Enviable.

Jeremy

[Snook]

some still-life shots for a cosmetic magazine

Looks pretty good except I do not fancy the fake water, takes away from the image a bit.
Snook

[TMARK]

]Test with a new Ford girl.  The scan doesn't do the print justice, much less the jpg. Shot on the fly, hauling ass through the crowds of brokers crying in their Starbucks.

Leica M4, 50 f2 CZ, Delta 3200.  Underexposed by a stop, pushed 30 seconds in Xtol.

[E_Edwards]

some still-life shots for a cosmetic magazine

Dustblue,


Nicely arranged and lit product shots. I like your stuff.

Edward

[jmvdigital]

Looks pretty good except I do not fancy the fake water, takes away from the image a bit.
Snook

I have to agree. The water and the mirror reflection in the last one are far to contrasty and prominent. It makes the whole shot rather "busy."

[dustblue]

Thank you guys~ I can always get good and professional advices here, I love ya all  
Dustblue

[haefnerphoto]

Dustblue, I liked the shots alot, nicely designed and very clean.  The reflections could have been played back a bit but I certainly don't think they're objectionable.  Actually, I'd like to know how you did them.  Jim

[dustblue]

Jim:

I'm glad you like them. The method is really easy: first I shot everything separately, including every product and plants; and then composited them together, made a reflection. To make them feel like real stuff (I mean like they are set together, not PS work), I need to add shadows to every product(the water dew one), or use strong side lights to make it feels like there is a back light behind the "set"(and for these I don't add shadows).

Infact I would really like to set them together (because it's just a editorial work) and then just press the shutter, much more easier. But my own still-life "studio" is too small to do that, so I have to use PS a lot..  

Oh and two of them are not final works yet (the two without water), I still didn't retouch them, just simply composite them together. So there are very obious bugs  

Dustblue

Dustblue, I liked the shots alot, nicely designed and very clean.  The reflections could have been played back a bit but I certainly don't think they're objectionable.  Actually, I'd like to know how you did them.  Jim

[sanjaynarayan]

Jim:

I'm glad you like them. The method is really easy: first I shot everything separately, including every product and plants; and then composited them together, made a reflection. To make them feel like real stuff (I mean like they are set together, not PS work), I need to add shadows to every product(the water dew one), or use strong side lights to make it feels like there is a back light behind the "set"(and for these I don't add shadows).

Infact I would really like to set them together (because it's just a editorial work) and then just press the shutter, much more easier. But my own still-life "studio" is too small to do that, so I have to use PS a lot..  

Oh and two of them are not final works yet (the two without water), I still didn't retouch them, just simply composite them together. So there are very obious bugs  

Dustblue

dustblue
i too was wondering about the lighting on the composites!...and like the way the compositions have turned out...would it be better if the plants showed  through  some of the transparent packs/caps?

sanjaynarayan

[dustblue]

sanjaynarayan:
Yes you are absolutely right! And that's why I try not to put things behind those transparent parts(to avoid more retouching  ). For those already there,  I think I can give them more retouching to make them look better, but since refraction come in here ,  it should  be a litter hard to do it (I've never done this before).
Dustblue

dustblue
i too was wondering about the lighting on the composites!...and like the way the compositions have turned out...would it be better if the plants showed  through  some of the transparent packs/caps?

sanjaynarayan

[haefnerphoto]

Dustblue, I was interested in the method of creating the water effect, any hints would be appreciated.  Thanks, Jim

[Snook]

Dustblue, I was interested in the method of creating the water effect, any hints would be appreciated.  Thanks, Jim

Looks like the photoshop plug in Flood...:+]
by flaming pear..
Snook

[dustblue]

It's just a plugin, for photoshop. I think there should be lots of methods, and mine is the most lazy one  
Have a look at this:
http://www.flamingpear.com/flood.html

Dustblue, I was interested in the method of creating the water effect, any hints would be appreciated.  Thanks, Jim

[haefnerphoto]

Guys, Many thanks!  Jim