Tara

kevingeary

Would love C&C.

If you're a good photog I respect your thoughts if you want to completely tear them apart.

P.S. I'm aware of the highlight issue in #5.

1...


2...


3...


4...


5...


6...

kevingeary

Anybody?

kdog

I didn't think I qualified as a "good photog" which is what you requested in your first post, but now that you changed that to "anybody", I guess I qualify.

Ok, here goes.

1 - Lighting is too flat. A beauty look is one thing, but there's no depth at all here. The eye area looks oversharpened too. I like the crop, but don't like the background. Those two dark bars framing her head don't add anything.

2 and 3 are rocking shots!

4 looks a bit porcelain. Maybe too much flash and/or processing? Background is great, composition ok. You cropped pretty close to her wrist, and her arms are pinned at her side. Those a minor nits though.

5 is really cool. With a super-wide angle, you were right to center her in the shot to avoid distortion, but you might play around with different crops to offset her to one side or the other to see how that looks.

6 is a home-run.

Just my non-pro, unedumacted 2 cents.

-joel

Nikolai

Well, you have asked for it :-)
#1 Don't like this one. Flat lighting, bland expression, busy bg
#2 Better, but still too umch of a porcelain doll efffect
#3 Much better. Tilt works nice. I wich camera was a tad (~ 1 foot) higheir. My #2 in this series.
#4 Full frontal poses rarely work for females. The short is too bright and steals all the attention from the face. Hands adjacent to the body lead to "fat hands" effect.
#5 Worst of the series. Unfinished and unattractive pose, no clear idea of the setting,visible hozion skew. And WTH that chair is doing in the middle of the park? o_0
#6 Clear winner. Can easily imagine this as a Nike ad. I don't even mind the slight skew. I only wish for shallower DOF to blur the BG more.
HTH
Nikolai

kevingeary

kdog wrote: »

I didn't think I qualified as a "good photog" which is what you requested in your first post, but now that you changed that to "anybody", I guess I qualify.

Ok, here goes.

1 - Lighting is too flat. A beauty look is one thing, but there's no depth at all here. The eye area looks oversharpened too. I like the crop, but don't like the background. Those two dark bars framing her head don't add anything.

2 and 3 are rocking shots!

4 looks a bit porcelain. Maybe too much flash and/or processing? Background is great, composition ok. You cropped pretty close to her wrist, and her arms are pinned at her side. Those a minor nits though.

5 is really cool. With a super-wide angle, you were right to center her in the shot to avoid distortion, but you might play around with different crops to offset her to one side or the other to see how that looks.

6 is a home-run.

Just my non-pro, unedumacted 2 cents.

-joel

Thanks. I happen to be a fan of flat lighting so #1 appeals to my style. I've placed the BD at all different heights and I'm starting to like flatter better. In magazines (which is what girls look at), they're going to see very flat lighting so they're subconsciously attracted to it. I will try to move it just slightly higher next time to at least get a hint of a butterfly under the nose.

5 actually was shot with a 50mm lens at f1.4. It's a 17 image pano.

Thanks for your thoughts. It's good to hear you like #6...I was iffy on that one because of the BG.

kevingeary

Nikolai wrote: »

Well, you have asked for it :-)
#1 Don't like this one. Flat lighting, bland expression, busy bg
#2 Better, but still too umch of a porcelain doll efffect
#3 Much better. Tilt works nice. I wich camera was a tad (~ 1 foot) higheir. My #2 in this series.
#4 Full frontal poses rarely work for females. The short is too bright and steals all the attention from the face. Hands adjacent to the body lead to "fat hands" effect.
#5 Worst of the series. Unfinished and unattractive pose, no clear idea of the setting,visible hozion skew. And WTH that chair is doing in the middle of the park? o_0
#6 Clear winner. Can easily imagine this as a Nike ad. I don't even mind the slight skew. I only wish for shallower DOF to blur the BG more.
HTH
Nikolai

Thanks. Just one question. Have you never seen the portraits with the sofa in the middle of a field? I like that style but didn't want to completely jack it so I used a sort of rustic chair instead.

#4 was just a toss-in. I liked the lighting but agree with you on the pose.

Nikolai

kevingeary wrote: »

Thanks. Just one question. Have you never seen the portraits with the sofa in the middle of a field? I like that style but didn't want to completely jack it so I used a sort of rustic chair instead.

I sure did. But those are usually a part of some elaborate phantasy/horror plot, complete with the elements of grotrsque and certain surrealism. One doesn't get any browny points for simply throwing a chair in the middle of a well lit park, even with an unsuspecting modle sitting on it
I can see where you were going with this, but it's very under-developped concept. Different lighting, different pose, different outfit, maybe different angle and different vantage point - sure it could work eventually. This one, unfortunately, doesn't, at least for me.

divamum

Dissenting voice here: I absolutely love #1 and it's my favorite of the set, followed by #6.

#2 is ok, but that one dark line of buidling kind of crashes into her breast and I find it distracting .

3&4 are ok, but I don't like the tilt on 3 and find 4 oversaturated; they're ok shots and nothing's actually "wrong" with them, but don't have the "wow" factor for me like 1/6.

I'm not crazy about the X-processing on 5, and because the trees on the left are leaning inwards, the centered comp doesn't quite work for me; I feel like both subjetc and viewer are going to slide out of the frame to the right....

Overall, however, a good set with some excellent images

kevingeary

Just to be clear, 5 shot was shot 99% for practicing the pano technique and not really for the end result itself.

kevingeary

divamum wrote: »

Dissenting voice here: I absolutely love #1 and it's my favorite of the set, followed by #6.

#2 is ok, but that one dark line of buidling kind of crashes into her breast and I find it distracting .

3&4 are ok, but I don't like the tilt on 3 and find 4 oversaturated; they're ok shots and nothing's actually "wrong" with them, but don't have the "wow" factor for me like 1/6.

I'm not crazy about the X-processing on 5, and because the trees on the left are leaning inwards, the centered comp doesn't quite work for me; I feel like both subjetc and viewer are going to slide out of the frame to the right....

Overall, however, a good set with some excellent images

Thanks. I didn't shoot 3 with a tilt (almost never shoot a tilt) but I DID crop it that way. Are you not a fan of tilt in general or just not on this particular image?

divamum

Just not on this particular image - I think with strong verticals as in this location it's much harder to make a tilt work. Just my opinion; YMMV.

FlyNavy

I love number 1 and 6.

Hackbone

I really like 1-2-3 & 6. Lighting I think is really nice but that is a personal choice. The school I come from loves the tilt look as seniors love that. Personally I would drop the exposures down a tad on the first three. I see alot of "sofa in the field" but this one is way out in left field and there are too many competiting light areas with the subject. I like the texture on the jogger also.

cj99si

Im going to go against the grain a bit.

I would rather see her eyes more open on 1, looks like shes mid blink.

I like the exposures as they are.

5 is cool for sure, put it to mono and you will have it.

6 obviously is awesome!

kevingeary

cj99si wrote: »

Im going to go against the grain a bit.

I would rather see her eyes more open on 1, looks like shes mid blink.

I like the exposures as they are.

5 is cool for sure, put it to mono and you will have it.

6 obviously is awesome!

Thanks, you can see her eyes match her eyes in #2 -- that's just the way her eyes look.

I'll try #5 in B/W.

kevingeary

Hackbone wrote: »

I really like 1-2-3 & 6. Lighting I think is really nice but that is a personal choice. The school I come from loves the tilt look as seniors love that. Personally I would drop the exposures down a tad on the first three. I see alot of "sofa in the field" but this one is way out in left field and there are too many competiting light areas with the subject. I like the texture on the jogger also.

Thanks. I tried dropping the exposure a little bit and they just don't pop as well. I like skin to be overexposed by about 1/3 stop anyway -- just my style.

I agree with you on the competing light areas in the field. The way the pano technique works it's like shooting with film, you don't really see what you get until you get home. Just have to be more careful setting up the shot next time.

Mike J

#1 and #6 are great. The lighting in #1 does not bother me and I think the texture in #6 works. For me, I would have probably cropped both a little bit differently though. #1 I would have cropped more off the left side and on #6, I would have cropped more from the right.
#4 and #5 don't work for me for what that's worth.

Sam

Here is my 2 cents worth. It's really easy to defend or make excuses when someone makes a negative or what is perceived as a negative comment we all are subject to doing this, (me too) but remember you asked for a critique. I assume your asking for peoples honest opinion from their point of view and their eyes.

I think rather then being defensive perhaps carefully consider each comment. You will not agree with all of them but it gives you an opportunity to get a glimpse of how others see your image. Thank them and move on.

Sam

zoomer

Of these 2 3 and 6 in that order had the most potential.
Post processing choices didn't help these. I have a hard time getting past the fairly extreme oversharpening in all but 6 would probably have been nice before all the post processing work.
These shots have potential but need a little "less" fine tuning. Less sharpening, more shadows for depth, less tilt.
Pretty young lady.

kevingeary

Sam wrote: »

Here is my 2 cents worth. It's really easy to defend or make excuses when someone makes a negative or what is perceived as a negative comment we all are subject to doing this, (me too) but remember you asked for a critique. I assume your asking for peoples honest opinion from their point of view and their eyes.

I think rather then being defensive perhaps carefully consider each comment. You will not agree with all of them but it gives you an opportunity to get a glimpse of how others see your image. Thank them and move on.

Sam

I think you misunderstood me if you thought I was being defensive. I just like to interact with people's comments rather than say, "great thanks."

kevingeary

zoomer wrote: »

Of these 2 3 and 6 in that order had the most potential.
Post processing choices didn't help these. I have a hard time getting past the fairly extreme oversharpening in all but 6 would probably have been nice before all the post processing work.
These shots have potential but need a little "less" fine tuning. Less sharpening, more shadows for depth, less tilt.
Pretty young lady.

I think the problem is that I sharpen them in photoshop to a good level for print and then my lightroom export preset also sharpens them. Sometimes I forget to turn that off. But any prints would come out correct because they wouldn't pass through the second sharpening session.