Model in Studio - Photo Critique Please

theNOIZ

Hey DGrinners,

It's been a long time since I've posted anything. I shot this image last month, put it up on Facebook and received some nice comments. However, I want some honest feedback from photographers. Kdog and Nikolai, I'm specifically seeking your critiques. Tear it up, but give me some direction on improvement. There are certain things I like and dislike about this image.



Details: f/6.3, 1/250 sec, ISO 200, beauty dish lighting, processed in CS5 with Silver Efex Pro.

chuckinsocal

But, where's the image?

theNOIZ

chuckinsocal wrote: »

But, where's the image?

Hey Chuck!

Sorry. I had external links turned off in the gallery for this image. It's fixed now.

zoomer

She blends into the background, dark eyesockets, awkward pose (arms and angle to camera) crop is tight.

I like the conversion, she is a cute girl. Find a lighter background or blast it with a light...although I expect you would have fly away hair problems at that point. Move her a bit away from the background use a thinner depth of field F4 maybe.
Turn her at a bit of an angle from the camera, leave a little breathing room in the frame or crop tighter, this is caught in the middle made more so by having her arms in that awkward position. Try to catch her in a natural position...have you ever seen anyone standing around in that pose?

Adjust the lighting so the dark shadows in and under her eyes go away. A hair light or back light probably won't help due to fly away hairs.
The lighting setup you used is pretty close to working, except for the shadows.

I'm not kdog or nikolai so take it for what it's worth .

theNOIZ

zoomer wrote: »

I'm not kdog or nikolai so take it for what it's worth .

Thanks for the critique, Mike. I don't disagree with anything you stated. And I appreciate the suggestions. I guess I could make excuses for the background, arms, etc., and second guess everything I did, but it is what it is. Going forward, I know what I would and would not do.

BrettDeutsch

I thin it's a nice portrait. I don't agree with zoomer that the eye sockets or the background are too dark -- both look fine to me. But she does blend into the background, so a little rim light on her shoulders and perhaps on her hair would help. I do agree with zoomer that the pose is a bit awkward -- I don't like her shoulders square to the camera and her hands feel posed. I also agree that a slightly more shallow DOF would probably look nicer -- throwing the BG OOF a bit more.

Nikolai

Hey Shaun,
Zoomer beat me to it and effectively said everything I'd say, only I think she's also been overlit as there are no skin texture details on her forehear and nose.
My biggest gripe, however, is her messy hair and the hands position. This type of lighting (and especially beauty dish) is - typically - used for so called "high fashion" look, which implies attention to the tiniest of the subject's details: makeup, accessories, etc. On this image I can see no such details :-(
In general portraits/headshots/upper body shots look better if taken from above of the subject's eye level (sometimes quite above) rather than below her chest. You really only wanna go low only for the full height body shots (notable exception: so called "plus size" female subjects; on them you better go high no matter what) or for some special effects.
HTH

zoomer

Taking good portraits is not easy....the only way to take good portraits is through taking A LOT of crappy then bad then mediocre then average then not bad then decent then nice then kick ass portraits.
It is a path...we are all at different spots on the path...some people take it further than others....you have a good start.

Nikolai

zoomer wrote: »

Taking good portraits is not easy....the only way to take good portraits is through taking A LOT of crappy then bad then mediocre then average then not bad then decent then nice then kick ass portraits.
It is a path...we are all at different spots on the path...some people take it further than others....you have a good start.

+1

Paraphrasing Mr. Edison, "I didn't fail, I found 10,000 ways to make a lousy image" :-)

Hackbone

Cute gal but.........shooting a lady straight on is not flattering as it shows her at her widest, great if she is thin but watch out for the right cross if she's not. I always try not to shoot up into the nostrils as again not flattering. Lastly never show the backs of the hands again as that is their widest point and not flattering. The bright hands/arms compete with the face for attention, you need one or the other as your focal point. Hope that helps.

TomHarmon

Good looking model and the pose is good. I think the exposure is a little hot, but not too bad. I'd like to see the background get darkened a bit to create a little more drama, but thats just me.

theNOIZ

All great comments. Keep 'em coming. I'm taking notes.

eL eSs Vee

Except for the hands, this photo reminds me of a 1965 David Bailey photo of model Jean Shrimpton. This one: http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/ra-magazine/winter2006/preview/artful-shopper,41,RAMA.html

In your photo, the hands add to your model's facial expression which, without them, would mean nothing. But because of her hands, I see a woman who has been holding in months of aggravation and is about an hour away from an emotional breakdown. In the next few photos after this one, her hands would be increasingly clenched tighter and tighter and her face a bit harder. The last photo would have been damaged by light when your camera hit the wall.

Now look at the background: Either a darker or pure white one would have improved this image, but one that looks more like the inside of a disheveled room would look much better than what looks like a blanket clamped to a pole.

I like the out-of-the-norm pose and lighting: breaking the rules will bring negative critiques from pretty much everyone, but will also separate you from the masses. Just know which rules to break and how to break them. In my opinion, you broke a couple in a bad way and a few in a good way. I'll let you discover which were which on your own.

I like the overexposure, but I also think it's a little too overexposed. Aside from that and my concerns mentioned above, I think this is a wonderful image.

eL eSs Vee

Look at this one, too: http://fashion.telegraph.co.uk/news-features/TMG8704734/Back-to-the-Shrimpton-Sixties.html