Beauty Portraits: SiSi @ Reflection Rooms (Sexiness From Within!)

[Zeckson Chow]

master zeckson...your explanation on why you are pissed sounds quite chim. I need to read up more to understand it. However, your work is really great :thumbsup::thumbsup:

Hmm. Here are some keywords that you can search in Google. "Bit Depth", "JPEG Compression", "RAW Format" and "sRGB vs Adobe RGB 1998". Hope you will be able to understand more.

 

[Zeckson Chow]

Can i ask where the location

Sure. These shots were taken inside a boutique hotel named Reflection Rooms Bangkok. It is under renovation now. When the renovation is done, it will be renamed as Mystic Place. In order to shoot inside, you need to physically travel over to Bangkok ah.

 

[Zeckson Chow]

So why didn't you shoot in RAW? Why didn't you shoot in AdobeRGB 1998 if you know that you are going to get this kind of results.

It is because of size of each file and the extended post processing workflow that follows when done in RAW format. We are not talking about just 1 image. We are talking about close to 200 images in RAW format. Even if you pick up a few images to keep, try processing them and see how much time you take.

Shooting in Adobe RGB 1998 color space will not help either. In Adobe RGB 1998 color space, you get some extra shades over at the green-cyan area and a little in the magenta area, which is not going to help much. Afterall, JPEGs shot in Adobe RGB 1998 color space is still a JPEG file, which means they only have 256 levels of shade in each color channel. What makes it worse is that because of Adobe RGB 1998 color space has an "extended" color gamut over sRGB, in order to fit everything in the color gamut with only 256 levels of shade levels, these color gamut will needed to be compressed to fit. So when displaying images on the Internet, the images look duller than sRGB. Sure, you can always convert the image back to sRGB at the end of your workflow but why would you want to go through all these unnecessary steps of managing and converting where you can get everything right in sRGB? Your monitor may not even has the ability of displaying the full Adobe RGB 1998 color gamut.

In future, kindly do not ask questions like why never do this or why never do that. Such questions contribute nothing to helping to improving the image. Just accept the fact that I shot these images in sRGB and that's it. No need to ask why. I'll be glad if I can help you get the lighting or the post processing methods out but your question to me is deemed unproductive. Sorry for being too direct because I have seen an exact question like yours somewhere else. I wonder if you are the same person...? No hard feelings.

Thanks for your comments.

 

[Zeckson Chow]

...never mind about posterisation..

a lot of the faces here are bloated. why? shoot too close for the focal length you are using....

if that is your idea of sexy... well, whatever floats your boat.

So let me rephrase your comment so that I am getting the right meaning. You said that a lot of faces in my images are bloated because I shot my images too close under wide angle, and such bloated faces are not deem as sexy to you. Did I get this correct?

Assuming that I got it correct:

Really? A LOT of face are bloated? May I ask you to point out which are the ones you see the face as bloated? I would like to see it myself and know it and recognize it as bloated. All my images were shot mainly using 24mm on my Nikon D80, with occassionally at 18mm for some wide angle shots. The closest distance between my model and my lens is no less than 1.5 metres. I would like to see which are the ones you deem as bloated.

Let me try to do a comparison. I have taken 1 image from the lot, shot at 18mm on my Nikon D80 with a distance of 1.5 metres as illustration. The first image is exactly what you had seen on this thread. The second next to it has been adjusted in Photoshop using the Lens Correction filter with a value of +5.00 at the Distortion slider and scaled to match the size of the first image. So here are the comparison:

Does it make a difference? Which part of it that you see is not sexy to you? Is the difference very significant? So my model is not sexy because to you, her face is bloated? You make judgement just based on face being bloated?

You are just nitpicking. Not that I cannot accept negetive comments, I will bow my head down and swallow them down my throat if those comments can help me improve on my images. Your comment does nothing except adding a post count to your nick and my thread views. Kindly show me and englighten me with some of your works so that I can see the ways you see things and see how I can improve on my future works.

Of course, if I have misunderstood from your comment, I apologize for it and would kindly request you to clarify your statement so that it is clear to me what you are trying to tell me.

Thanks.

 

[Zeckson Chow]

Hi Zeck,

Thanks very much for your explanation, learned a lot from this.

This is probably one of the best series that I really enjoyed. Thank you for sharing your work as well as an explanation of how you shoot, the process behind it and some technical aspects of your shots. Looking forward to see more of your work.

Always bring out the freshness! great photographer! :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

Thank you all for your comments.

 

[night86mare]

barrel distortion has nothing to do with using an inappropriate focal length.

if i use a 10mm in a landscape, go close to any element, it empahsizes that element, it appears larger in relation to what it actually is.

take for example, this image of mine here. do you really think the rock in the picture is as tall as the sky?

look at the example where you have happily adjusted +5 distortion. that proves nothing, if you didn't get what i was saying. it just proves that your picture didn't have any very significant "stretch" effects because there is no significant element placed at the edge, therefore not so affected by BARREL DISTORTION.

i don't like quoting ken rockwell usually, but he wrote something about this before here. he touches on it here and there, not much in detail.

back up a little with your WA lens, 18mm, 24mm, whatever. do you not find that her face shape changes? becomes closer to what we see in real life, what we are used to seeing? yes, everyone's faces are different. but look at your last post in reply to me. that face there, the left side facing the camera is WAY out of proportion to the right, beyond any human possibility.

i hope i don't come across as nitpicky here. this is a detailed enough explanation i hope? i thought, as a portrait shooter, you would have realised what i was talking about right from the start.

the best defense in this case, is perhaps to claim that you intended it that way, that you don't mind. not to +5 distortion filter!

 

[night86mare]

and as to which ones are bloated, i think it is easier to declare the ones that look more "normalised" to me.

#1, #4, #9, #10, #12, #13 to name a few quick ones. these are purely in relation to face. it doesn't mean that i think they are fine overall, but since i spoke of faces first, i continue to focus on face only.

as for limbs, etc... that's another story. but the face is what a person looks at first, when he looks at a picture. and therefore, for me, any form of "bloating" is unacceptable.

if you want to know which ones it is really bad in, compare the ones i mentioned, to #25, #20.

 

[Zeckson Chow]

barrel distortion has nothing to do with using an inappropriate focal length.

if i use a 10mm in a landscape, go close to any element, it empahsizes that element, it appears larger in relation to what it actually is.

take for example, this image of mine here. do you really think the rock in the picture is as tall as the sky?

look at the example where you have happily adjusted +5 distortion. that proves nothing, if you didn't get what i was saying. it just proves that your picture didn't have any very significant "stretch" effects because there is no significant element placed at the edge, therefore not so affected by BARREL DISTORTION.

i don't like quoting ken rockwell usually, but he wrote something about this before here. he touches on it here and there, not much in detail.

back up a little with your WA lens, 18mm, 24mm, whatever. do you not find that her face shape changes? becomes closer to what we see in real life, what we are used to seeing? yes, everyone's faces are different. but look at your last post in reply to me. that face there, the left side facing the camera is WAY out of proportion to the right, beyond any human possibility.

i hope i don't come across as nitpicky here. this is a detailed enough explanation i hope? i thought, as a portrait shooter, you would have realised what i was talking about right from the start.

the best defense in this case, is perhaps to claim that you intended it that way, that you don't mind. not to +5 distortion filter!

and as to which ones are bloated, i think it is easier to declare the ones that look more "normalised" to me.

#1, #4, #9, #10, #12, #13 to name a few quick ones. these are purely in relation to face. it doesn't mean that i think they are fine overall, but since i spoke of faces first, i continue to focus on face only.

as for limbs, etc... that's another story. but the face is what a person looks at first, when he looks at a picture. and therefore, for me, any form of "bloating" is unacceptable.

if you want to know which ones it is really bad in, compare the ones i mentioned, to #25, #20.

Thank you writing such long posts. While I say you are not wrong, do remember that you are applying your "what you see" and assuming that things look right to you. Question is, you are not with me during the shoot. You have not seen SiSi in real person. How do you know that her face is proportions? Every person has different facial features. To you, you look for perfection in perspectives. You are correct technically. I am not the person who looks too much into that aspects. I look at the feel the images. I am shooting humans. You are shooting things. We are of a different genre here.

Sure, going close to a subject in wide angle does accentuates the features. Now, take a step back. Does that accentuation really make the image bad? For a rock, maybe. For a person, it may not. Go ask around. Can the majority accept it? I am sure they can. As for you, you cannot. That is you. So just take it as it is and accept it and be glad these images are not from you. No need to say sacarstic things like "Whatever floats your boat" thing which you have done similar things to other posts.

When you wanna say things, say it but also put it some effort to tell people how you can help to improve the image. Making nonsense like these does not help at all.

And... You don't know SiSi. She could have went through some operation to enhance her features? Can you be sure? Try not to always see things in your light but instead, learn to see things in the light of others and think about it why he/she is making things this way and not always to stick to your rule book. While technically I should say you are not wrong, you are missing the feel in life. Don't live too perfect and you'll see things more colorful. Get real man.

 

[sk2004]

Hmm. Here are some keywords that you can search in Google. "Bit Depth", "JPEG Compression", "RAW Format" and "sRGB vs Adobe RGB 1998". Hope you will be able to understand more.

Thanks, have done that

 

[night86mare]

rofl..

did you even read what i wrote?

it doesn't matter, keep shooting what you want to shoot. my wish was merely to convey that i do not think much of these shots for the reasons i gave, and i guess that is done.

btw, you miss the whole point. that sort of distortion is favoured in landscapes. so have you even read what i wrote? i don't think so. unfortunately, these pictures will only serve to excite and make gwcs happy. :bsmilie: anyways, if you're into that sort of thing, then be happy with the good comments, and you can just ignore mine. after all, one man's meat is another man's poison. if the show of cleavage is more than enough to overcome the fact that these are very bad pictures indeed.. then hey, that's also their choice.

why do i know that sisi's face is getting bloated? because there are pictures where she looks normal. there are also pictures where she looks bloated. simple as that.

i never said anything about her getting any operations or what not. don't get me wrong. i am attacking your pictures, not your model, nor you.. so don't try to give that impression.

 

[mattlock]

personally I like bloated faces.
it's a personal preference. long lenses flatten people out, that's not so nice sometimes either.
I like round things.

 

[GeonSG]

rofl..

did you even read what i wrote?

it doesn't matter, keep shooting what you want to shoot. my wish was merely to convey that i do not think much of these shots for the reasons i gave, and i guess that is done.

btw, you miss the whole point. that sort of distortion is favoured in landscapes. so have you even read what i wrote? i don't think so. unfortunately, these pictures will only serve to excite and make gwcs happy. :bsmilie: anyways, if you're into that sort of thing, then be happy with the good comments, and you can just ignore mine. after all, one man's meat is another man's poison. if the show of cleavage is more than enough to overcome the fact that these are very bad pictures indeed.. then hey, that's also their choice.

why do i know that sisi's face is getting bloated? because there are pictures where she looks normal. there are also pictures where she looks bloated. simple as that.

i never said anything about her getting any operations or what not. don't get me wrong. i am attacking your pictures, not your model, nor you.. so don't try to give that impression.

I think you maybe right technically if you are talking about the constraints of zoom lens that might cause that marginal distortion. But on the contrary, the face does not takes the shape of the ball, thus looking at various photos posted by TS is really not acceptable. At the end, a photo is two dimensional, so nobody is able to give a firm conclusion whether the face looks distort.

But if you really wish to provide constructively on your points, I think you should really start your own thread and showcase your photos of a lady which can portray the similar mood which TS has effectively brought in his picture.

By the way, photos are not just meant for the eyes of professional photographer only. It existed because of appreciation and many other reasons. Magazines are doing well, because "man on the street" are paying to see them. So whether they are "GWC", "Pros" or whoever is really not your choice of opinion.

Anyway no offends, but I think you really got to try and offer from a better approach.

TS, it is really good efforts that I see from your photos and I fully comprehend the mood which you are trying to protray. Hope to see more of your photos.

 

[ManWearPants]

It is woman that look bloated in the right places that makes men become better photographers. This series swells. The model swells. So does the photographer.

 

[night86mare]

So does the photographer.

so do viewers? :bsmilie:

 

[johnlim]

Our brains recall people's facial features as they appear to be from about 15 feet (5 meters) away.

Ask a human visual system researcher for the details, but our eyes don't actually see anything by themselves. All our eyes do is send signals to our brains which are then interpreted in ways about which we're still learning.

In the case of facial recognition, when our eyes see a familiar face, it triggers our brain to reconstruct an image of those features as they appear from about 15 feet.

If we see someone from only inches away, we don't see them distorted as a camera would; our brain perceives and reconstructs their features in proportions similar to a distant view.

Therefore we want to be at least about 15 feet away when photographing people in order to achieve realistic proportions.


© 2008 KenRockwell.com. All rights reserved.

That's crazy. 5 meters away for "realistic proportion"? That's in theory, but if everything were to be in exact proportion, that will limit creativity. You can only shoot up-close and yet get a sense of the surrounding with a wide-angle lens; no other ways.

It is all about taste and style. In fashion, as long as the feature of the model is not overly distorted, it is acceptable to most people. And, that slight exageration in size and distance are what makes wide angle so appealing. Try shooting only with a 50mm lens which produces the supposed "right relative sizes & distances" of objects in a photo, and everything looks just normal & correct which some photographers label it as "dull".

Wide-angle gives the photo a sense of "space & distance". The old "theory" that you can't shoot a portrait with a wide-angle is forgotten long ago. And what looks exagerated in a small print will look more acceptable & realistic in a larger print; Print size does play a role somehow.


The last thing I want to see is an uninteresting but "realistic" portrait that was shot from at least 5 meters away with normal lens. That kind of shots you can get from a traditional photo studio. :bsmilie:

 

[soeypixels]

So let me rephrase your comment so that I am getting the right meaning. You said that a lot of faces in my images are bloated because I shot my images too close under wide angle, and such bloated faces are not deem as sexy to you. Did I get this correct?

Assuming that I got it correct:

Really? A LOT of face are bloated? May I ask you to point out which are the ones you see the face as bloated? I would like to see it myself and know it and recognize it as bloated. All my images were shot mainly using 24mm on my Nikon D80, with occassionally at 18mm for some wide angle shots. The closest distance between my model and my lens is no less than 1.5 metres. I would like to see which are the ones you deem as bloated.

Let me try to do a comparison. I have taken 1 image from the lot, shot at 18mm on my Nikon D80 with a distance of 1.5 metres as illustration. The first image is exactly what you had seen on this thread. The second next to it has been adjusted in Photoshop using the Lens Correction filter with a value of +5.00 at the Distortion slider and scaled to match the size of the first image. So here are the comparison:

Does it make a difference? Which part of it that you see is not sexy to you? Is the difference very significant? So my model is not sexy because to you, her face is bloated? You make judgement just based on face being bloated?

You are just nitpicking. Not that I cannot accept negetive comments, I will bow my head down and swallow them down my throat if those comments can help me improve on my images. Your comment does nothing except adding a post count to your nick and my thread views. Kindly show me and englighten me with some of your works so that I can see the ways you see things and see how I can improve on my future works.

Of course, if I have misunderstood from your comment, I apologize for it and would kindly request you to clarify your statement so that it is clear to me what you are trying to tell me.

Thanks.

can u post the original unedited jpeg?

 

[Zeckson Chow]

can u post the original unedited jpeg?

Posted in the unedited image in my upper posts. Unedited. Only resized. How is it going to help by posting the original unedited version?

 

[Zeckson Chow]

Night86mare, I am getting confused by you now. I don't understand what are you trying to drive now. This argument started when you posted this:

"...never mind about posterisation..

a lot of the faces here are bloated. why? shoot too close for the focal length you are using....

if that is your idea of sexy... well, whatever floats your boat."

So the reason why you post this is because you don't think this is sexy because face is bloated. That's your original post right? So I replied you addressing your concern here. Remember your point: Bloat face = Not sexy. This should be the main point of discussion here. I don't understand when you started going into lens distortions and things in your later posts which does not help in explaining why bloated faces is not sexy. Later you mentioned that you cannot accept any distortions in portraits as an ideal. Still you did not address the issue of bloated face = not sexy.

While I replied you again asking you not to always stick to your rule book, you started asking me if I had read your post and I had missed your point. What is your point here? From your original first post, you were driving bloated face = not sexy. Now you were insisting on lens distortions and sort. Hey, I know all these technical stuffs for your information. No need to tell me that. My question is still: Why bloated face = Not Sexy?

Yes, I had also asked you to show me images that you think the faces are bloated. I looked at them again. I am sorry to say although there could be some distortions in the images, it is not to the extend that my subject is unrecognizable. I find them very acceptable instead. If you cannot accept those images, then that is your business. Please don't come writing comments like "If that's your idea of sexy, well... whatever floats your boat". I personally find this statement extremely sarcastic and rude. You like commenting on other members' images in this way?

I have also noticed that you have been pretty active here in this sub-forum. While I have no right to stop you from commenting, I am requesting you to stay off my thread. I don't welcome you here. I find that whatever you say are all just empty talks. You have nothing to convince me that you can do all whatever you said. I see almost no portraits done by you here. For me to accept your unwelcomed comments, you have to convince me first with your portrait works. If you can show me that you can achieve whatever you mentioned before in this sub-forum and can be better than my images, I believe you and respect you for that. Else, you are just empty talk.

I am sorry that we do not see eye-to-eye on this. I have said this before and I shall say it again. If you don't like the images, you can just close the window and get lost. No need to always stick your nose into my threads and write some unconstructive, unpleasant, unwelcomed and sarcastic comments. Do it somewhere else please. I don't need you here and I certainly no need to listen to any of your words.

Have browsed through the portrait section in your PBase. I must say I am not impressed at all! And you talk as if you know lots of things here... You are one pathetic person. :thumbsd:

By the way, stop quoting from other people's website. Quote yourself. Why always live by the book of others? Live your own way.

And please don't try to start another pigeon thread or pig thread somewhere. It only emphasizes your pettiness. Don't deny it. I know what you did last time.

 

[night86mare]

my dear zeckson,

read all my posts. have i mentioned lens distortion ANYWHERE?

the bloated face is to do with perspective distortion, i.e. your lens is too close to the subject, causing some form of "bloaty face syndrome" because just like in landscapes, wide angles close up to elements, emphasize the elements closest to the lens. meaning, if her left cheek is close to the camera, and you are VERY CLOSE INDEED, then the left cheek is going to be LARGE. LARGER than it's supposed to be, out of proportion. THAT, leads to bloatedness.

not lens distortion! why do you keep insisting that i'm talking about lens distortion? :bsmilie:

you have missed my point from the very beginning. all because your technical knowledge is limited to lens distortion, and your mind is closed to the fact that there is any form of "distortion" to be referred to other than lens distortion.

i already said this a few times, why are you drumming on lens distortion? wide angle lens distortion is called barrel distortion. back in post #66, i already said that.

oh, so now you are asking for street cred to provide critique? so when you look at any other genre other than portraiture, which is what you seem to do primarily, you don't feel anything, you have no opinions? come on, let's be less hypocritical than that. i would not begrudge anyone their right to speak up. it seems that you are only open and receptive to "good", "pro" comments. so defensive when people pass less than good comments! :bsmilie:

anyways, i already made my point. from this discussion it is clear to me that:

a) your technical knowledge in photography is so limited that you have no idea what i'm talking about
b) your mind is so filled with thumbs up comments that you don't want to have any idea what i'm talking about

in which case, i am wasting my time here. if by quoting someone else's website i have become someone who doesn't live his own way, then pardon me if i fail to see your enormous leap in logic.

have a nice time shooting more of these, and getting more good comments. after all, you live your own way.

on another international forum, this landscape photographer called marc adamus (which you undoubtedly probably have not heard of), who is really good - he posted his works. people who clearly were less competent than him made remarks, some of which were unfair. i remember this for life, because i remember he replied to them with humility, he explained it to them clearly what was going on. that should be the way it should be. not challenging another person to a "portfolio showdown", when you cannot take comments. :bsmilie:

 

[Zeckson Chow]

my dear zeckson,

read all my posts. have i mentioned lens distortion ANYWHERE?

the bloated face is to do with perspective distortion, i.e. your lens is too close to the subject, causing some form of "bloaty face syndrome" because just like in landscapes, wide angles close up to elements, emphasize the elements closest to the lens. meaning, if her left cheek is close to the camera, and you are VERY CLOSE INDEED, then the left cheek is going to be LARGE. LARGER than it's supposed to be, out of proportion.

you have missed my point from the very beginning. all because your technical knowledge is limited to lens distortion, and your mind is closed to the fact that there is any form of "distortion" to be referred to other than lens distortion.

i already said this a few times, why are you drumming on lens distortion? wide angle lens distortion is called barrel distortion. back in post #66, i already said that.

oh, so now you are asking for street cred to provide critique? so when you look at any other genre other than portraiture, which is what you seem to do primarily, you don't feel anything, you have no opinions? come on, let's be less hypocritical than that. i would not begrudge anyone their right to speak up. it seems that you are only open and receptive to "good", "pro" comments. so defensive when people pass less than good comments! :bsmilie:

anyways, i already made my point. from this discussion it is clear to me that:

a) your technical knowledge in photography is so limited that you have no idea what i'm talking about
b) your mind is so filled with thumbs up comments that you don't want to have any idea what i'm talking about

in which case, i am wasting my time here. if by quoting someone else's website i have become someone who doesn't live his own way, then pardon me if i fail to see your enormous leap in logic.

have a nice time shooting more of these, and getting more good comments. after all, you live your own way.

Sure, whatever that makes you fly.