First attempt at Senior Portraits

du8diedu8die Registered Users Posts: 358 Major grins
edited September 18, 2008 in People
My first attempt. C&C Welcome. (Be gentle... :wink)

1.
2864687186_a59b8440fa_o.jpg

2.
2863855235_e8a52cdc8e_o.jpg

3.
2863854387_969cf6f942_o.jpg

4.
2863855109_af3c88c0ca_o.jpg

5.
2864698036_a02d8d83a7_o.jpg

6.
2863854555_113708f078_o.jpg
H2 Photography - Blog - Facebook - Twitter

Despite the high cost of living, it remains popular.

Why do people post their equipment in their sig. Isn't it kind of like bragging? That having been said...

Canon 40d Gripped (x2), Rebel (Original), Canon 70-200 f/2.8 USM L, Canon 300 f/4, Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, Canon 50mm f/1.8, Canon 17-55 f/3.5-5.6, ThinkTank Airport TakeOff

Comments

  • SwartzySwartzy Registered Users Posts: 3,293 Major grins
    edited September 16, 2008
    Personally, I think you did very well. The last one has too many distracting elements but that's how that goes at times. Overall, I like your perspectives and compositions. A little soft (trick.....keep everything about your subject sharp except for skin when skin softening). #4 for a larger girl, it is better to shoot at same hight or higher....than down beneath her as it typically will make them look larger yet.....a good example is #5 which is much better....and I really like the pose with the wall. Nice job overall...and really good for first time out.thumb.gif
    Swartzy:
    NAPP Member | Canon Shooter
    Weddings/Portraits and anything else that catches my eye.
    www.daveswartz.com
    Model Mayhem site http://www.modelmayhem.com/686552
  • du8diedu8die Registered Users Posts: 358 Major grins
    edited September 17, 2008
    Thanks!
    Thanks for the feedback.

    I agree about #6 - too many distracting elements. Though, that's the look I was going for, it might be too much. I was trying to create a frame within the frame with the rocks, and then throw it a little off balance with the out of focus reeds in the front. Back to the drawing board. :)

    #4 - Yeah, I agree too about the angle. I had an 18-55 wide open there, hoping for some lens distortion around the peripherals that I didn't get. Oh well.

    I appreciate the feedback!
    d8
    H2 Photography - Blog - Facebook - Twitter

    Despite the high cost of living, it remains popular.

    Why do people post their equipment in their sig. Isn't it kind of like bragging? That having been said...

    Canon 40d Gripped (x2), Rebel (Original), Canon 70-200 f/2.8 USM L, Canon 300 f/4, Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, Canon 50mm f/1.8, Canon 17-55 f/3.5-5.6, ThinkTank Airport TakeOff
  • PaulcaoPaulcao Registered Users Posts: 202 Major grins
    edited September 17, 2008
    1, 2 and 5 are my favorites, well executed imothumb.gif. When it comes to #3, I think the oof foot is distracting. It doesn't kill the photo or anything, but personally I might try cropping it tighter(but then again, you loose the arms if you do that). Maybe a try centered selective focus?(like if you have a lensbaby on) It's not too big a deal though. I also agree about 4 and 6. As far as 6 goes, the foreground stuff just isn't doing it for me. Hope this helps.ne_nau.gif
  • QarikQarik Registered Users Posts: 4,959 Major grins
    edited September 17, 2008
    over all very nice.
    D700, D600
    14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
    85 and 50 1.4
    45 PC and sb910 x2
    http://www.danielkimphotography.com
  • GJMPhotoGJMPhoto Registered Users Posts: 372 Major grins
    edited September 18, 2008
    The eyes have it
    Both of these girls have beautiful eyes. They should be the first things you see when you look at their portraits. So ditch the locket on the first girl...or find a way to tone down the reflections. Then, open up the eyes to their natural color in Photoshop for both girls.

    There are several ways to direct the eyes...The book Welcome to Oz by Versace does a great job of describing how to use gradients of light, contrast, and focus to bring the eye wherever you want (and away from places you don't want). I strongly recommend that one.

    Also, as lovely as her foot may seem to some :) I'd prefer to have my eye go to hers (photos 3 and 4).

    The second girl is looking a bit heavier than I suspect she is. The 'No's in this case are critical: No flats of thighs, no straight-on full-figure shots, no flat lighting, no tops of feet or backs of hands, and no full-figure low angles (as already pointed out).

    The closer shots are clearly better - I suspect because it brings attention to her face. When shooting her in full length, the idea of using her surroundings to frame her is excellent...just be careful to tone down the distractions (or crop them out) again, so the viewer's eye goes to her first.

    One last nit-picky thing...the hand poses on photos 1 and 2 are pressing into her face a bit too much and distorting them. Tell her to barely touch her hand to her face, but not to rest her head there. This will give her hand a lighter feeling and also avoid smushing (it's a technical term) her face.
Sign In or Register to comment.