View Single Post
Good glam, bad glam?
Old 02-08-2007, 08:48 PM   #1 (permalink)
nakins
Free Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Member GG#: 55362
Location: Benton
Posts: 242
Comments: 0

nakins is offline IP: 70.232.119.184
  Reply With Quote

Hello campers,
I'm trying to study a number of pictures to learn what seperates good glam from bad glam. Having a good looking woman as a model makes a lot of so so photos worth looking at. And I'm sure one could take pictures of (enter your favorite model's name here) with a p&s and have a great picture. Then there are those of us who could take $20,000.00 worth of equipment, and a model like Tara Patrick, and end up with a load of crap. Another exxample is the recent pictures posted by JimmyD of Tara. JimmyD could have taken just about any girl off the street, seat her where Tara was, and have a good picture.

So, discounting the model for a moment, what is it that makes a good glam photo?

You got to have good lighting, right? But, there a number of shooters here who can take one or two lights and make magic that pops off the paper. So, lets discount the lighting for a bit too.

So, the only things I can think of that are left is composition and lens/settings.

As far as lens and setting go, I've seen good pictures where the dof was very short and very long. I'm sure that a slightly blurred background is better then a background where everthing is in sharp focus, but again, I've seen that this alone doesn't make or break a picture, depends if there is enough seperation between subject and background. So, here, I think focal lenght is really the only thing that might be an issue. This I'm unsure of. But 85mm seems to be favored for head shots, but some like to use 135mm for head shots. Is it due to the so called compression at these lenghts that makes for a better picture? and, as a general rule for any type of shot, either head to full, is longer better?

Composition is the last on my list and I won't go long on this subject, just to say that is seems there are some relationships between posing and composing/framing that work better then others. Non standing, full lenght body shots seem to be the hardest to pull off. And I guess it is because of the space or emptiness in those types of photos that makes them less likely to be good or likeable shots.

Anyone care to pitch in their 5 cents worth?
Thanks
  View Public Profile Send a private message to nakins Find More Posts by nakins