Learning from Smuggers

B Joyner

Hi,

Here is a more recent pic from Sunday actually. I hope that I am getting better.
I sure feel like I am learning quite a bit from this forum. Thanks and hit me with some more advice on this one.

Mark Dickinson

My thought.

Her feet are up but seem to poke from her head.

Tilt the feet to camera left to show whats sticking up there and try head adjustments to match the playful feet.

Lines... oh look at them use tat railroad as a leading line to her. Shoot it a little left and let the track vanish off in the horozion. Basically move left 1 foot and turn the camera back to you subject to center her or offset in the frame

Very cute pic. Thosetrestles might fill the frame nice too.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

B Joyner

Mark Dickinson wrote: »

My thought.

Her feet are up but seem to poke from her head.

Tilt the feet to camera left to show whats sticking up there and try head adjustments to match the playful feet.

Lines... oh look at them use tat railroad as a leading line to her. Shoot it a little left and let the track vanish off in the horozion. Basically move left 1 foot and turn the camera back to you subject to center her or offset in the frame

Very cute pic. Thosetrestles might fill the frame nice too.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

Thanks Mark. That all makes perfect sense to me. I actually think I have a few like what you are describing.

Albert Dickson

Very cute. I have to agree, another angle would make better use of the track for leading the eye. I would lose the feet altogether. All in all a very pleasing image.

Icebear

I think it's a bit "flashy" for my taste. It almost looks like you posed her in front of a printed background. This is way beyond fill flash. The feet up behind the head don't bother me that much, 'cause they are of similar value to the cliffside behind her.

I like the image, and I'll bet she will too, but the flash is too harsh for me to "reeally like" it.

coldclimb

Icebear wrote: »

I think it's a bit "flashy" for my taste. It almost looks like you posed her in front of a printed background. This is way beyond fill flash. The feet up behind the head don't bother me that much, 'cause they are of similar value to the cliffside behind her.

I like the image, and I'll bet she will too, but the flash is too harsh for me to "reeally like" it.

I agree, the pose is almost spot-on and the smile and location are great, but I want the light to be softer and slightly more mild. An umbrella or a softbox would do that, along with turning it down just a touch. Great shot!

anonymouscuban

Agree with the two above... everything works but the flash. Tone that down and you got a winning shot.

Andee

Would love to see a few more!

B Joyner

Thanks for all the honest advice. I thought it was to bright also,but everyone else here loved it. Maybe they are afraid they will hurt my feelings.
The funny thing is if you look on the right side where her hair meets the trestle. That white spot is my umbrella and stand. Lot of good it did me over there.
Anyway here is an attempt to tone it down. Does this save it or is it too far gone. Also here is another one from the same day. Any advice on it would also
be appreciated.

Thanks

Qarik

I am not sure what you mean about the umbrella..what is it doing behind her? The light looks like bare flash and really nothing you can do to save the shot.

B Joyner

Sorry I meant if I had used the umbrella instead of the straight flash it would have been better.
I lugged it down the hill and didn't even use it.
So you think it is still to much flash??

anonymouscuban

B Joyner wrote: »

Sorry I meant if I had used the umbrella instead of the straight flash it would have been better.
I lugged it down the hill and didn't even use it.

Yes. The problem with bare flash is that it is a small, concentrated light source. The smaller the light source, the harsher the light on your subject will be and the stronger the shadows. The umbrella takes your small flash and turns it (modifies) into a large light source. The light bounced or shot through the umbrella will be softer and will result in more pleasingly soft shadows. The bigger the umbrella, the softer the light will be.

angevin1

B Joyner wrote: »

Sorry I meant if I had used the umbrella instead of the straight flash it would have been better.
I lugged it down the hill and didn't even use it.
So you think it is still to much flash??

Sorta..But it is really a taste-thing. I think I am with the majority in I would have toned it down. And I am more of a Shadowy person versus spot-fashion which is kinda how this is lit: In other words positioning light to the side/down Shadow~Still, Very nice looking gal, great locale!

Icebear

I do think you improved the image. It's certainly appealing, but this is a tough crowd.

Qarik

B Joyner wrote: »

Sorry I meant if I had used the umbrella instead of the straight flash it would have been better.
I lugged it down the hill and didn't even use it.
So you think it is still to much flash??

lol..oh man, I get you now.
the "fix" is better but you can't fix hard flash in post unless you wanna spend hours blending and grading and cloning etc. look at how flat the light looks on her face and the very harsh shadow on her neck. bare flash can look okay but almost never straight on. the only time you may want to use staright on bare flash outdoors is for fill flash.