Female with giant hands & thighs - cc please?

[JimMcrae]

When I first looked at this i liked it, but on farther inspection, I noticed that I had broken virtually every rule regarding female hands. The fingers are intertwined, (taboo) she's showing the backs of her hands/knuckles, (masculine) and her hands are protruding away from her toward the camera giving them the appearance of being much bigger, (unflattering) as do her legs. Thing is, I still like the shot, irrespective of the fact she's got hands like a North sea trawlerman and thighs like a front row prop! :) And she likes it too. So what do others think? Do the hands/legs look ridiculously disproportionate and unfeminine, or is it just mildly irritating? All other cc welcome.

Cheers!

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4043/4341110313_d9acd66252_b.jpg

[lundgrenj]

No EXIF?

[gonzogolf]

Jim, I think your assessment of her hands and thighs might be perhaps a bit overstated. By that I mean, are you freakin nuts to put those words in print?! Actually you have a point about the perspective exaggerating proportions of things closer to the camera. I think the pose has potential, but would be better realized with a longer lens.

[JimMcrae]

No EXIF?

Exposure: 0.008 sec (1/125)
Aperture: f/4.0
Focal Length: 28 mm
ISO Speed: 200
Exposure Bias: 0 EV
Flash: On, Fired
File Size: 1354 kB
File Type: JPEG
MIME Type: image/jpeg
Image Width: 2759
Image Height: 4026
Encoding Process: Baseline DCT, Huffman coding
Bits Per Sample: 8
Color Components: 3
X-Resolution: 350 dpi
Y-Resolution: 350 dpi
Orientation: Horizontal (normal)
Software: GIMP 2.6.8
Date and Time (Modified): 2010:03:16 11:38:44
Exposure Program: Manual

[JimMcrae]

Jim, I think your assessment of her hands and thighs might be perhaps a bit overstated. By that I mean, are you freakin nuts to put those words in print?! Actually you have a point about the perspective exaggerating proportions of things closer to the camera. I think the pose has potential, but would be better realized with a longer lens.

Ah, she's a mate and would likely just punch me if she read it. :)

I'm seriously having problems deciding if the eye simply compensates for the disproportionate hands/thighs - as would be the case in real life - or not. What I mean by that is when I look at it without concentrating on the 'broken rules', it looks fine, but that could be due to lack of a trained eye? Which begs the question would it only be picked up by people with a trained eye or would it subconsciously have an impact on the untrained? If that makes sense? :confused:

I take the point about the lens, thanks.

Incidentally, I edited this with GIMP - it's good init'. :)

[gonzogolf]

I think the mind does play tricks with perception. But I know from experience that if you take a headshot with a 35mm lens, which is the "normal" equivalent on a crop body, and then take a shot framed the same of the same subject with a longer lens, like an 85mm, and showed them without any explanation side by side to people they would find the second shot more pleasing. They might not be able to identify why, but the flattened perspective of the longer lens is more flattering.

[JimMcrae]

I think the mind does play tricks with perception. But I know from experience that if you take a headshot with a 35mm lens, which is the "normal" equivalent on a crop body, and then take a shot framed the same of the same subject with a longer lens, like an 85mm, and showed them without any explanation side by side to people they would find the second shot more pleasing. They might not be able to identify why, but the flattened perspective of the longer lens is more flattering.

Yup, I assumed you were meaning that and it makes sense. It's really been bugging me as I just don't know if the hands bother me or not, but she loves the shot and wants it in print. :confused:

Cheers mate!

[vk2gwk]

May be if you had stepped another meter back (oh sorry 3 feet plus a bit... :) ) and used a slightly longer focal length it would have been right. Now, not the knees but, yes, the hands dominate the shot too much. I don't give a toss about "rules" for holding hands and putting knees up. The pose with the hands and the intertwined legs is just great and "rhytmic" from top to bottom. But the hands are just a bit too large.

[corkneyfonz]

I like the pose and the processing looks very good. I could never get my head around a wide angle 28mm lens miraculously turning into a distortion free 50mm standard lens equivalent on a crop body. Obviously it would appear that the distortion is still there and probably more noticeable than on a full frame where only noses appear pinnochio like with misuse of this focal length. As everyone else has stated the traditional portrait lens is 80mm and 135mm on full frame. However I can live with the distortion as it adds a 3d effect to the photo and some women do have construction worker sized hands.

[JimMcrae]

May be if you had stepped another meter back (oh sorry 3 feet plus a bit... :) ) and used a slightly longer focal length it would have been right. Now, not the knees but, yes, the hands dominate the shot too much. I don't give a toss about "rules" for holding hands and putting knees up. The pose with the hands and the intertwined legs is just great and "rhytmic" from top to bottom. But the hands are just a bit too large.

Yes, "meters", kilos and metric tonnes eh? You've got to love 'Johnny Foreigner' and his native ways old chap, what? ;)

Seriously, I know you and Gonzo are spot on and agree with the big hands, but I'm wondering if familiarity with the subject is a problem here? The big, macho hands are not consistent with the eloquent, sophisticated lady I've tried to portray, and although she is all that, she's also a highly accomplished and respected mountaineer who I've climbed with on numerous occasions over the years. Hence, the big, powerful hands may be appropriate in my eyes? Or maybe I think too much and am getting too deeply into the psyche of photography? :)

Appreciate the comments mate.

[JimMcrae]

I like the pose and the processing looks very good. I could never get my head around a wide angle 28mm lens miraculously turning into a distortion free 50mm standard lens equivalent on a crop body. Obviously it would appear that the distortion is still there and probably more noticeable than on a full frame where only noses appear pinnochio like with misuse of this focal length. As everyone else has stated the traditional portrait lens is 80mm and 135mm on full frame. However I can live with the distortion as it adds a 3d effect to the photo and some women do have construction worker sized hands.

Interesting points considering I was replying to Henk's comments (about big hands) when you submitted this.

Thanks mate, always appreciate your comments.

[deathcake]

First thing I noticed, and no one else seems to have mentioned - top of knee blends into left forearm. However, that's the only thing I find a bit problematic about the photo. I think the pose works, and has a bit of a 3D feel to it. I don't think it is unflattering at all, so I can see why your friend likes it. She is very photogenic, I also like the other photo of her you posted about a week ago testing editing software.

[JimMcrae]

First thing I noticed, and no one else seems to have mentioned - top of knee blends into left forearm. However, that's the only thing I find a bit problematic about the photo. I think the pose works, and has a bit of a 3D feel to it. I don't think it is unflattering at all, so I can see why your friend likes it. She is very photogenic, I also like the other photo of her you posted about a week ago testing editing software.

A very valid point as always, about the knee/forearm. I did notice that in pp but couldn't see any way around it. I considered painting a thin shadow in but with the light coming from above it probably would've looked out of place, and I'm not much good at that kind of thing anyway.

I appreciate the comments deathcake, thank you.

[Lars Daniel]

I am not so happy about the editing around her hair and shoulders. It looks like sloppy photoshopping to me.

[JimMcrae]

I am not so happy about the editing around her hair and shoulders. It looks like sloppy photoshopping to me.

Nahhh, definitely not sloppy photoshopping but possibly sloppy GIMPing :)

[puzzle]

I agree also noticed the knee, forearm blending issue first.

I have found the untrained eye to be rather useless and rather accepting to any failure of following the "rules". Normal people generally seem to be pleased with what I consider to be sub par work sometimes.

Although this could also be due to the fact that I do not yet charge for my work, perhaps people will become a lot more picky once I start asking them to part with their hard earned cash.

In general though, I really like the pose and certainly think the image has something. Keep the shots coming :) and happy gimping ;)

[JimMcrae]

I agree also noticed the knee, forearm blending issue first.

I have found the untrained eye to be rather useless and rather accepting to any failure of following the "rules". Normal people generally seem to be pleased with what I consider to be sub par work sometimes.

Although this could also be due to the fact that I do not yet charge for my work, perhaps people will become a lot more picky once I start asking them to part with their hard earned cash.

In general though, I really like the pose and certainly think the image has something. Keep the shots coming :) and happy gimping ;)

I only 'GIMP' through the day and at night I turn into 'Photoshopman'! :)

Thanks for the comments mate.

[gonzogolf]

I only 'GIMP' through the day and at night I turn into 'Photoshopman'! :)

Thanks for the comments mate.Does this transformation require a change in costume? From a blue cape to a red cape perhaps?

[JimMcrae]

Does this transformation require a change in costume? From a blue cape to a red cape perhaps?

Only the PS cape at night mate as GIMP doesn't have one yet, but I'm sure somebody is working on one as we speak! :)

[Flo]

Jim, for me, the pose is unflattering to be sure.but its the best I have seen of ( your wife?).Like the B&W...I think it would have been better to have her on the ground,.giving you the Come Hither sideways;)

[JimMcrae]

Jim, for me, the pose is unflattering to be sure.but its the best I have seen of ( your wife?).Like the B&W...I think it would have been better to have her on the ground,.giving you the Come Hither sideways;)

Ouch! That "w" word brings back scary memories... :) Not my wife Gail, a good friend. Just me and my 11 year old in my house and has been for over 10 years.

"unflatttering" but the best you've seen? The rest must REALLY suck! ;)

Good idea about the "come hither" though, I'll put it to her :lol:

Thanks for the comments, always appreciated.

[gonzogolf]

Ouch! That "w" word brings back scary memories... :) Not my wife Gail, a good friend. Just me and my 11 year old in my house and has been for over 10 years.

"unflatttering" but the best you've seen? The rest must REALLY suck! ;)

Good idea about the "come hither" though, I'll put it to her :lol:

Thanks for the comments, always appreciated.

"Come hither" and "I'll put it to her" in the same post.... Are we still talking photography here? :)

[JimMcrae]

"Come hither" and "I'll put it to her" in the same post.... Are we still talking photography here? :)

:lol: :lol: Not sure what we're 'talking, but I could not possibly comment on what I'm thinking!! :lol:

[Flo]

Egads.coffee all over my screen:eek:

Lol.just thought she was someone special as to the photos you had of her.and by the pose, I think something else would do her more justice, but the face and conversion are what sets this one from the rest, just me.

[JimMcrae]

Egads.coffee all over my screen:eek:

Lol.just thought she was someone special as to the photos you had of her.and by the pose, I think something else would do her more justice, but the face and conversion are what sets this one from the rest, just me.

Oh she certainly is special :) Thanks Gail.