RJ and Andrea (engagement shots, feel free to C&C)

r3t1awr3yd · February 7, 2011

Thoughts? I need to know what I could have done better :scratch

1

2

3

4

5

Some things I learned this time out:
a) The sun is still stupid powerful at 5pm right now. lol
b) It's difficult to find poses that are comfortable for a 5'4" girl and a 6'4" guy.
c) I am in love with this stupid vintage action I found.
d) When you tell the couple to get lovey dovey or make out, expect it to continue beyond the time you say "okay, you can stop now".

r3t1awr3yd · February 7, 2011

Bump for the night owls who know they wanna C/C the piss out of these pics!

Darren Troy C · February 8, 2011

Really like 3, 4, and 5.

studio1972 · February 8, 2011

I like number 1, but would prefer a bit more head room, and more fill light to reduce the blown background. Number 5, the faces look kind of flat, not sure if they are slightly over exposed, or if it's the angle of the light source?

Flowerman · February 8, 2011

Hi:
I am not a pro by any strech of the imagination - just a viewer enjoying what I see. I don't even do People portraits, only Flower ones. I think what applies to people portraits follows for flower portraits and vice versa. Have a look if you are so inclined. www.photoman74.smugmug.com
Here goes my C&C.

#1. Great capture of therir expression. Square crop to his elbow would keep the viewer's eye from wandering.
#2. Beautiful portrait - wish she showed more of the ring.
#3. Another great shot - why isn't she showing off the ring?
#4. Beautiful - great light capture - nicely done in B&W.
#5. I would drop it from the series.
My overall comment is that if this shoot is billed as an Engagement shoot - need to show off the ring more - more relative purchase.
EDD
Photoman74.smugmug.com

r3t1awr3yd · February 8, 2011

Flowerman wrote: »

Hi:
I am not a pro by any strech of the imagination - just a viewer enjoying what I see. I don't even do People portraits, only Flower ones. I think what applies to people portraits follows for flower portraits and vice versa. Have a look if you are so inclined. www.photoman74.smugmug.com
Here goes my C&C.

#1. Great capture of therir expression. Square crop to his elbow would keep the viewer's eye from wandering.
#2. Beautiful portrait - wish she showed more of the ring.
#3. Another great shot - why isn't she showing off the ring?
#4. Beautiful - great light capture - nicely done in B&W.
#5. I would drop it from the series.
My overall comment is that if this shoot is billed as an Engagement shoot - need to show off the ring more - more relative purchase.
EDD
Photoman74.smugmug.com

#1: Yeah, I couldn't make up my mind about the hand in the pocket. lol.
#2-3: Rings are overrated, love is in

#4: Thank you. I really didn't like it as much in color.

#5: It's just a jokey joke picture but it makes me laugh. I'll ask the couple what they think but you're probably right.

studio1972 wrote: »

I like number 1, but would prefer a bit more head room, and more fill light to reduce the blown background. Number 5, the faces look kind of flat, not sure if they are slightly over exposed, or if it's the angle of the light source?

Directly above the heads was the nasty metal of a gazebo.

I actually did process it once with the sun toned down some (I shot it and needed almost no recovery in raw but the vintage processing action bumps stuff).

Number 5 has the same lighting as two but again, the highlights get bumped in the vintage action. I'll try to tone it down and maybe post later with the highlights a little more controlled.

Darren Troy C wrote: »

Really like 3, 4, and 5.

Gratzi!

Shima · February 8, 2011

Great set, here's my feedback

2 - I'd prefer a shallow depth of field on this one personally I find everything (all the branches behind them etc) in focus to be a bit distracting from them as the subject of the photo
3 - Like it but I think it might be a touch over-saturated.
5 - Cute but again a little too much overall in focus, would prefer more shallow depth of field here again.

I agree on previous statements that the ring should be shown off a bit more since it is an engagement session.

r3t1awr3yd · February 8, 2011

Shima wrote: »

Great set, here's my feedback

2 - I'd prefer a shallow depth of field on this one personally I find everything (all the branches behind them etc) in focus to be a bit distracting from them as the subject of the photo
3 - Like it but I think it might be a touch over-saturated.
5 - Cute but again a little too much overall in focus, would prefer more shallow depth of field here again.

I agree on previous statements that the ring should be shown off a bit more since it is an engagement session.

I would have loved to have cranked the aperture open even further but I haven't been able to figure out high speed syncing at all. It makes me feel retarded. I just shoot @ 1/200, otherwise, yes, I'd open it up and crank the speed down to bring the background in bokehland.

Qarik · February 8, 2011

it's one setting in your camera. check page 195 of the manual.

r3t1awr3yd · February 8, 2011

Qarik wrote: »

it's one setting in your camera. check page 195 of the manual.

Yeah, tried it once. I really don't get it lol

Maybe I'll give it another shot. Does it work with manual flash?

r3t1awr3yd · February 8, 2011

Scratch that. Just tried it again.

CAMERA MOUNTED FLASH: Yes, works great. Just tried it. Very cool.
YONGNUO RF602 MOUNTED FLASH: Nope. Same as the way I tried it before. I even had the camera already set for auto FP too.

dawssvt · February 8, 2011

Nice work. I like the post work!

laurenornot · July 18, 2011

For shoots that have to happen on a really bright day or time, an assistant (or a stand) holding up a reflector to make a shadow is a must-have! I disagree about leaving #5 out, I think it's great! My only nitpick with it is that you lose his nose a little to the brightness. Maybe lower it a tiny bit.

Bakko · July 18, 2011

love the turnout.
where did you get that action by the way?

RJ and Andrea (engagement shots, feel free to C&C)

Comments