DSLRUsers.com

The BK117 is probably my favourite helicopter, one the few that I do not get too nervous about flying in.

Recently got this session tee'ed up with some local guys at the airport (plug for Kareela Aviation here) on a rotorcraft that I was doing some work on - it was alot of fun, it provided me with some much needed destressing from work that day, Amanda the model (MUA Beccy Sedgman) was too easy to work with, made me look good

Anyway, I did have some creative vision before hand, even if it was a simple fleeting thought, this was to try and incorporate a model into a helicpoter so that both subjects complimented one another, in hindsight this is pretty hard to do.

Anyway I am keen for some thoughts on these images and also advice on how to improve, how would you approach these two subjects? different processing techniques? more skin, less skin, pilots overalls and helmut?

I really like #1 - the compo (environmental instead of just her), her gaze, the eyes - it's all good - although that reflection that goes right across her face is dissappointing for me - the other reflections don't bother me and in fact probably add to the shot but that one which goes across he mouth, nose and eye...

Prefer 1 and 2 however the reflection in 1 is a little distracting and the lighting on her swimsuit is unflattering. It accentuates a belly that may not be there if you know what I mean.

ALS, her skin looks oveprocessed - too orange and smooth.

They are all very nice! #4 is my pick because
the subject is so natural and at ease. #1 has the
glass reflection, but somehow I think it adds
to the image putting it into context. The other
two images are also very nicely done, but they
say more of the model than the machine.

Remorhaz wrote:I really like #1 - the compo (environmental instead of just her), her gaze, the eyes - it's all good - although that reflection that goes right across her face is dissappointing for me - the other reflections don't bother me and in fact probably add to the shot but that one which goes across he mouth, nose and eye...

yeah not much i can do about the reflections, i have a few similiar ones but this one came up the best -could have ploarized it but no reflections would look weird imo and you often get some bizarre crosspolarisation with aircrfat windows.

Reschsmooth wrote:Prefer 1 and 2 however the reflection in 1 is a little distracting and the lighting on her swimsuit is unflattering. It accentuates a belly that may not be there if you know what I mean.

ALS, her skin looks oveprocessed - too orange and smooth.

yep good point about the belly - got no idea how to light it differently to remove however a quick PP will sort that out.

Regarding the skin and processing - i should have mentioned I was going for that cliche glamour look (not everyones cup of tea i know), however the orange tone is definitely a issue.

whats ALS mean?

zafra52 wrote:They are all very nice! #4 is my pick because
the subject is so natural and at ease. #1 has the
glass reflection, but somehow I think it adds
to the image putting it into context. The other
two images are also very nicely done, but they
say more of the model than the machine.

yeah i hear what your saying - in hindsight its really hard to get an interaction between the model and machine - the only one in this set that I reckon I have come close is the cocpkit shot thru the window.

Gerry I am sure "ALS" refers to fat fingers typing on an iPhone and missing the 'o' at the end. Predictive text converts 'als' to 'ALS'

Gerry,
Apart from #1, these don't really work for me.
Why? Because there is no thread connecting the model to the location. The context is just not right.
While a pretty girl in leather/plastic may work on a motorbike, I don't think the same look works with a helicopter.
Either on their own, but not in combination.

#1 works because the context fits.
#3 also works to a lesser extent but in this case because there is no context to speak of. It becomes a lovely headshot of a pretty girl
I can look at these two for ages (or at least until Pam springs me )

I've looked at this a few times to try and give some critique. Not sure whether I qualify as I don't know anything about models and aircraft!

I guess one needs to figure out the mood, the intended use etc for these images. If it's flightsuits that you are modelling, then this setting would be great!

Overall, the model 'complements' the aircraft because infact this helicopter looks feminine in my eyes. It's got some curves etc. If you wanted a contrasting effect between the two, then an 'apache like' squarish battle copter maybe the go. this effect is especially prominent in #2 and perhaps #3.

Skin hues are notoriously difficult to get right and this may be a combination of factors including makeup, your lights, ambient, WB and your screen calibration. The last one is very important to get things constant at least as a starting point.

Perhaps consider BW or Sepia for others except #1. #1 is quite tidy and I don't mind those reflections too much. You could try and do some local touchup to reduce their effect though. Have added some glow in this one?

Mr Darcy wrote:Apart from #1, these don't really work for me.

thats cool greg, honest opinions are good.

Mr Darcy wrote:Why? Because there is no thread connecting the model to the location. The context is just not right.

agreed, its a pretty tricky thing to link a model who essentially will never have any connection to a helicopter, i agree the first is probably the best in this regard. I think the best of what I could achieve was to use the chopper as a backdrop, give the the scene something else than a standard model scene - it's also for my own benefit, i like helicopters (sometimes).

I have thought about other ways to do this, maybe next time a theme incorporating a male pilot might work, anyway next time..

surenj wrote:Not sure whether I qualify as I don't know anything about models and aircraft!

i am only half qualified then...and it certainly aint the model side...

surenj wrote:Skin hues are notoriously difficult to get right and this may be a combination of factors including makeup, your lights, ambient, WB and your screen calibration. The last one is very important to get things constant at least as a starting point.

yeah and I am now considering gettign a calibration device for my monitor as much as i loathe having to burn more money on this darn hobby..

surenj wrote:Perhaps consider BW or Sepia for others except #1. #1 is quite tidy and I don't mind those reflections too much. You could try and do some local touchup to reduce their effect though. Have added some glow in this one?

I am working on BW conversions, somethign that I am not crash hot at but will give it a crack. just a touch of glow added


Reworked version of the second, virtually no skin work, lighting adjusted to give belly a more flattering feel and auto levels to try and get the correct 'warmth.

how do these to images look from a skin tone and colour point of view?



this is SOOC file (cropped and resized) thoughts on the skin tone and warmth here?

biggerry wrote:yeah and I am now considering gettign a calibration device for my monitor as much as i loathe having to burn more money on this darn hobby..

What type of monitor do you have? If it's old (or low gamut), then calibration won't help that much. If you have a nice monitor, just borrow my Spyder. I reckon you only need to calibrate once a year or so. I haven't noticed much difference in my DELL even though I calibrate every 3 months or so. You are obviously not doing color critical work so don't have to be too obscessive; just close enough. It's obviously different if you are a professional.

surenj wrote:

biggerry wrote:yeah and I am now considering gettign a calibration device for my monitor as much as i loathe having to burn more money on this darn hobby..

What type of monitor do you have? If it's old (or low gamut), then calibration won't help that much. If you have a nice monitor, just borrow my Spyder. I reckon you only need to calibrate once a year or so. I haven't noticed much difference in my DELL even though I calibrate every 3 months or so. You are obviously not doing color critical work so don't have to be too obscessive; just close enough. It's obviously different if you are a professional.

i have two different LCD samsungs, neither what i would call photography class monitors, originally chosen more for fps then anything else...I may hit you up on that calibration device