That Hollywood Look

[OlyPaul]

Another outdoor portrait of Chelsea my Granddaughter.

Taken with the E-PL3 and 45mm f1.8, processed in CO6.

[gregles]

Re: That Hollywood Look

And looking every bit the film star too Paul

Lovely shot

Greg

[David Morison]

Re: That Hollywood Look

Lovely subject, lovely pose and superb processing.

David

[Grumpy Hec]

Re: That Hollywood Look

Ineed - very nicely done

Hec

[Zuiko]

Re: That Hollywood Look

She's certainly a little star!

[Nickf1]

Re: That Hollywood Look

What a cutie ! and she is a natural in pose

[Seonnaidh]

Re: That Hollywood Look

Exquisite, really does remind you of that golden age of Hollywood when lighting was everything.

[Ian]

Re: That Hollywood Look

The tonality is simply superb, Paul. Did you do anything special with the lighting?

Ian

[OlyPaul]

Re: That Hollywood Look

Thanks to eveyone for the kind comments, and yes she is cutie (I'm biased) and a natural in front of the camera.

The tonality is simply superb, Paul. Did you do anything special with the lighting?

Ian

Thank you Ian, just natural light, no fill flash or reflector just the use of open shade light and subject positioning.

Those catchlights that look like they could be large softboxes are just the result of natural shade and light, I seem to have developed a eye for natural lighting, which I should have after 20+ years of doing portraits.

[Phill D]

Re: That Hollywood Look

That's a lovely shot Paul of a delightful model. You are right you've definitely got a way with natural light.

[Seonnaidh]

Re: That Hollywood Look

IIRC Jane Bown who used to work for the Observer/Guardian group took all her very beautiful portraits using nothing but available light.
I have one of her books here and every single portrait is mesmerising in its use of natural light.
I think she used both Olympus OM1n's and a Hasselblad.

[kidslateinlife]

Re: That Hollywood Look

Fantastic shot as confirmed by all, the separation from the backround is fantastic, as are the eyes.
Natural posing model help's, but a great (stunning) shot none the less.

[OlyPaul]

Re: That Hollywood Look

Thank you Phill.

Seonnaidh I also have a book of Jane Brown's Portraits along with many others.

Thank you Alan.

[Seonnaidh]

Re: That Hollywood Look

Paul I have just come across the following quote by Jane Bown



"I'm not very particular about equipment: I use Olympus OM1s and have about a dozen, all purchased secondhand more than 40 years ago, and while I have many lenses, I really only use either an 85mm or 50mm one now. In the same way, I'm not all that particular about film or paper.... Rather than use a light meter, I have a setting I like - 1/60sec at f/2.8 - and usually make the picture work around this... I think I timed it perfectly, really: at the Guildford School of Art I learnt how to prepare glass-plate negatives. Now, film is almost obsolete. I could no more contemplate using a digital camera than travel to the moon."

My type of photographer. it's about the image not the fripparies.

[OlyPaul]

Re: That Hollywood Look

Paul I have just come across the following quote by Jane Bown



"I'm not very particular about equipment: I use Olympus OM1s and have about a dozen, all purchased secondhand more than 40 years ago, and while I have many lenses, I really only use either an 85mm or 50mm one now. In the same way, I'm not all that particular about film or paper.... Rather than use a light meter, I have a setting I like - 1/60sec at f/2.8 - and usually make the picture work around this... I think I timed it perfectly, really: at the Guildford School of Art I learnt how to prepare glass-plate negatives. Now, film is almost obsolete. I could no more contemplate using a digital camera than travel to the moon."

My type of photographer. it's about the image not the fripparies.

I could not agree more.

It may be rose coloured glasses but in my film days no one cared about the brand of equipment you used just the images, the only arguments in those days was 35mm V medium format.

Now it seems equipment is everything and images come a poor second.