# 'Straight' Portrait of a Young Woman



## Ivan Muller (Aug 8, 2013)

Made with a Eos M & EF 50mm f1.8. More images from this portrait session here at...http://thelazytravelphotographer.blogspot.com/2013/08/canon-eos-m-ef-50mm-f18-short-review.html


----------



## sleepnever (Oct 14, 2013)

Very interesting setup. I never would have thought of an EOS-M w/ a 50mm 1.4 or 1.8 like that. Hrmmm. Nice shots btw.


----------



## distant.star (Oct 14, 2013)

.
Thanks, Ivan.

I always enjoy seeing your work.


----------



## kirillica (Oct 21, 2013)

hm... looks over-exposed to me and skin texture is just gone


----------



## Northstar (Oct 21, 2013)

Nice shot...pretty girl.


----------



## Ivan Muller (Oct 22, 2013)

Northstar, thanks!


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 22, 2013)

kirillica said:


> hm... looks over-exposed to me and skin texture is just gone



I think that's the idea; ancient technique to produce more flattering image of someone who's not perfect. 

If someone is taking a picture of me I like it to be overexposed to the point of being just white


----------



## kirillica (Oct 22, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> kirillica said:
> 
> 
> > hm... looks over-exposed to me and skin texture is just gone
> ...


Do you mean photographer wanted to say she is not good enough to be properly exposed?


----------



## docholliday (Oct 22, 2013)

Yeah, looks a bit blow on her right side and the lighting ratio's a bit harsh - the left side nose shadow is a bit distracting.


----------



## PavelR (Oct 22, 2013)

kirillica said:


> hm... looks over-exposed to me and skin texture is just gone


+1


----------



## BL (Oct 22, 2013)

i think it looks great to me. the pp looks very intentional.


----------



## bseitz234 (Oct 22, 2013)

I'm always curious about people's monitors- to me, it looks very dramatic and contrasty, but with just enough skin texture remaining that I wouldn't call it 'blown'. I could see how a slightly differently calibrated monitor in this situation would make it look blown or texture-less, but it looks great to me!


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Oct 22, 2013)

Ivan, very beautiful, superbly composed ... great shot.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Oct 22, 2013)

kirillica said:


> hm... looks over-exposed to me and skin texture is just gone


... and it is still a *fantastic* image, worthy of praise!


----------



## kirillica (Oct 22, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> kirillica said:
> 
> 
> > hm... looks over-exposed to me and skin texture is just gone
> ...


really? ok.


----------



## 7enderbender (Oct 22, 2013)

kirillica said:


> hm... looks over-exposed to me and skin texture is just gone



And why is that a bad thing? I like it.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 22, 2013)

Some of the comments here remind me of the way a photographer I used to work with described some editors: "the only taste they have is in their mouth."

This is a very nice, evocative portrait. The lighting and treatment are excellent for the subject. You've given the portrait some drama but also made it subtle and appropriate for the subject. It's very Irving Penn-esque. Which is pretty good company to be in. 

Ivan, more details please on lighting, backdrop, etc.


----------



## Chosenbydestiny (Oct 22, 2013)

It seems to only be overexposed by a little bit, obviously a flattering look for the skin. Most importantly, the details that show the shape of her head, hair, and indicate she has all of the basic features of a human face are all still there. I wouldn't cry over it, it's still a good image and I'm using both calibrated and uncalibrated screens to view it. As someone said previously the contrasts look via post processing does looks intentional.


----------



## Chosenbydestiny (Oct 22, 2013)

Contrasty* <- I know, that's not a real word either, lol


----------



## kirillica (Oct 22, 2013)

7enderbender said:


> kirillica said:
> 
> 
> > hm... looks over-exposed to me and skin texture is just gone
> ...


I don't say it is bad. I would prefer nicely exposed picture in this case. And it's not like I say: only properly exposed picture is a good one.


----------



## ykn123 (Oct 22, 2013)

bseitz234 said:


> I'm always curious about people's monitors- to me, it looks very dramatic and contrasty, but with just enough skin texture remaining that I wouldn't call it 'blown'. I could see how a slightly differently calibrated monitor in this situation would make it look blown or texture-less, but it looks great to me!



+1 - on my hw calibrated eizo it looks perfect. very nice work.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Oct 22, 2013)

kirillica said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > kirillica said:
> ...


*Yes!*


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Oct 22, 2013)

kirillica said:


> 7enderbender said:
> 
> 
> > kirillica said:
> ...


 : : :


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Oct 22, 2013)

unfocused said:


> Some of the comments here remind me of the way a photographer I used to work with described some editors: "the only taste they have is in their mouth."
> 
> This is a very nice, evocative portrait. The lighting and treatment are excellent for the subject. You've given the portrait some drama but also made it subtle and appropriate for the subject. It's very Irving Penn-esque. Which is pretty good company to be in.
> 
> Ivan, more details please on lighting, backdrop, etc.


+1


----------



## Northstar (Oct 23, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Some of the comments here remind me of the way a photographer I used to work with described some editors: "the only taste they have is in their mouth."
> ...



+2


----------



## dppaskewitz (Oct 23, 2013)

Northstar said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



Check Ivan's link in the OP. You will see more photos that may be more to individual tastes, learn that he probably likes the model well enough (his daughter), learn that the PP was very intentional and learn about his setup and software used in PP. Ivan, thanks for showing what the little M can do in portrait work.


----------



## BrettS (Oct 23, 2013)

dppaskewitz said:


> Northstar said:
> 
> 
> > Rienzphotoz said:
> ...



+1


----------



## dave (Oct 23, 2013)

I like the exposure and pp as well.

Now, this is not a criticism but simply an observation about how I viewed the image. For some reason I find the white singlet/bra strap edge repeatedly catches the eye. Whether this is a good or bad thing is subjective I suppose. For me I would probably have covered it up, but this doesn't mean you should have.


----------



## docholliday (Oct 23, 2013)

ykn123 said:


> bseitz234 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm always curious about people's monitors- to me, it looks very dramatic and contrasty, but with just enough skin texture remaining that I wouldn't call it 'blown'. I could see how a slightly differently calibrated monitor in this situation would make it look blown or texture-less, but it looks great to me!
> ...



-1 - on my hw calibrated Eizo, it looks blown out a bit, plasticy. And that lighting ratio still is showing a harsh ratio on the left side of her nose


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Oct 23, 2013)

docholliday said:


> -1 - on my hw calibrated Eizo, it looks blown out a bit, plasticy. And that lighting ratio still is showing a harsh ratio on the left side of her nose


-1


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Oct 23, 2013)

dave said:


> For some reason I find the white singlet/bra strap edge repeatedly catches the eye. For me I would probably have covered it up, but this doesn't mean you should have.


I didn't notice it until you brought it up ... damn, now it is bugging me. ;D ... for the record I would've edited out the distraction ... but the image is awesome.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 23, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> dave said:
> 
> 
> > For some reason I find the white singlet/bra strap edge repeatedly catches the eye. For me I would probably have covered it up, but this doesn't mean you should have.
> ...


Looks like you guys have found your punctum.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Oct 23, 2013)

;D ;D ;D


unfocused said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > dave said:
> ...


 ;D ;D ;D


----------

