Options

Candids.

LiveLikeLizPhotosLiveLikeLizPhotos Registered Users Posts: 57 Big grins
edited December 7, 2011 in People
Hello all :) My boyfriend and I were just out on a walk this morning, I had gotten some candids of him. I know these aren't really worthy, but I was hoping for opinions anyways...? I'm trying to expand my profile a bit. I don't know. :scratch
Please and thank you.

bw-6836-S.jpg


bw-6832-S.jpg

Comments

  • Options
    watchmenwatchmen Registered Users Posts: 32 Big grins
    edited December 1, 2011
    I personally like #2. In my opinion it's a little tight on the crop. But I could be wrong, prob best to let someone a little more experienced chime in. The processing on #1 is good but to me the expression is a little "off". Just my lowely opinion so take it with a grain of salt.
    https://www.facebook.com/brandon.reid3

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/64855132@N08/

    www.brandonreidphotography.com
  • Options
    HackboneHackbone Registered Users Posts: 4,027 Major grins
    edited December 2, 2011
    #1 never show just a piece of the far eye, do a profile or bring the face back some toward the camera. #2 is a little tight but don't see a purpose.....sort of like the flare.
    Charles
    www.cameraone.biz
  • Options
    LiveLikeLizPhotosLiveLikeLizPhotos Registered Users Posts: 57 Big grins
    edited December 5, 2011
    Thank you for the input, guys!
    What do you think of this one?

    rain-6984-L.jpg

    I'm going through a phase of going a bit too overboard with the processing. I think.
  • Options
    PupatorPupator Registered Users Posts: 2,322 Major grins
    edited December 5, 2011
    Processing seems fine on that last one but you're going way overboard with the watermark. I highly doubt someone is going to steal your candid portrait of your boyfriend and make millions at your expense. mwink.gif
  • Options
    Quincy TQuincy T Registered Users Posts: 1,090 Major grins
    edited December 6, 2011
    Pupator wrote: »
    Processing seems fine on that last one but you're going way overboard with the watermark. I highly doubt someone is going to steal your candid portrait of your boyfriend and make millions at your expense. mwink.gif

    I didn't think it was pretentious at all. Not one bit. Nope.
  • Options
    PupatorPupator Registered Users Posts: 2,322 Major grins
    edited December 6, 2011
    I don't think it's pretentious. I think it's over-kill in trying to protect a photo that doesn't need all that protection.
  • Options
    LiveLikeLizPhotosLiveLikeLizPhotos Registered Users Posts: 57 Big grins
    edited December 6, 2011
    BAHA. It's not pretentious at all. I just have the watermark on all of my photos. I'm too lazy to go through and take it off just to post in a forum for opinions.
    Although... look at that face. It wouldn't be hard to make millions off of it, aye ;D
  • Options
    Quincy TQuincy T Registered Users Posts: 1,090 Major grins
    edited December 7, 2011
    Pupator wrote: »
    Processing seems fine on that last one but you're going way overboard with the watermark. I highly doubt someone is going to steal your candid portrait of your boyfriend and make millions at your expense. mwink.gif
    Pupator wrote: »
    I don't think it's pretentious. I think it's over-kill in trying to protect a photo that doesn't need all that protection.

    I was just being sarcastic and I agree.
  • Options
    PupatorPupator Registered Users Posts: 2,322 Major grins
    edited December 7, 2011
    LiveLikeLizPhotos wrote: »
    BAHA. It's not pretentious at all. I just have the watermark on all of my photos. I'm too lazy to go through and take it off just to post in a forum for opinions.
    Although... look at that face. It wouldn't be hard to make millions off of it, aye ;D

    In all seriousness, the point is that we can't look at his face because we are too distracted by the watermark. Take the 60 seconds to post a version without it and I bet you'll get feedback.
Sign In or Register to comment.