September 1, 2013 at 11:32 pm #12545AeveyParticipant
Hi there, it’s nice to meet you all!
I’m a photography diploma student, almost finished and need some critique on photos for a final assessment.
If anyone has a moment to take a look at my project folder on Behance and leave a few words in this forum it would be very much appreciated. The direct link is here http://www.behance.net/gallery/Portraiture-Weddings/10687589
Thanks and hope that members in the north are having a great Labor Day holiday!September 2, 2013 at 1:02 am #12547
Hi there, i am a new professional photog, here is me http://www.facebook.com/sarahspics. as i’m always still learning i get a lot out of critiquing.
I am happy to critique each image for you.
The first four are a nice series, they all need to be edited exactly the same so they fit together. 2 are more hazy then the others. the processing fits and my style is warm and bright so i like them.
Image one is good posing but composure is a little boring, i like their connection. You have used fill flash which was a good idea. but they seem a little shiny from it. There is haze on their face so im not sure if focus is crisp on their eyes or on her nail poilish.
Image 2 is nicely composed, they are shiny from the fiill flash and that bothers me, they lovely and connected and well posed. i am unsure if the focus is on their eyes again or the nailpolish.
Image 3 i know what you were getting at with the projector but i think your point is missed, i look at projector 2nd (which is good) but when i look at them i just think they are two silly people looking off into the distance. their posing seems stiff and uncomfortable and they aren’t as nicely connected as your other ones.
Image 4 This is really nice, focus seems good again well exposed. I would have shot it in landscape and taken a few steps back and have them on the side if that makes sense.
All those 4 images you need to have the subject further away from the foliage and use a shallower DOF.
First wedding detail shot of the dress is nice and well composed.
2nd wedding detail shot is a bit busy, don’t like the sepia type tones. and i don’t like that the perfume bottle isn’t straight.
Wedding couple 1, its a nice shot, well exposed, nice connection. odd place to take a photo though. i would have taken them some place else personally. not sure of him crouching down like that when there is a seat right behind them. overall back ground a bit to busy.
Wedding couple 2, the other is better, i like that you have capture a lovely moment but the back ground is hideous… is that a guest on the phone behind them? and i’d like to see some of his face.
hope i have helped 🙂September 2, 2013 at 11:44 pm #12554
You are attempting this look where you pull the shadows in. The problem is you do it too much and your images look horribly flat. The worst offender is this one, which I’ve made better, although not perfect b/c you’ve pulled too much color out of the image and I cannot bring it back without it looking weird.
The bigger problem is the concept, which really doesn’t make sense. Why would these two be watching films in broad daylight in a cornfield?
The greatest thing you could do avoid wasting time is to think before you act. The idea isn’t necessarily bad, but the execution isn’t well thought out.
You also oversharpen, don’t have control of the light and seem to have a profound lack of knowledge of photoshop. Also, get rid of the horrendous watermark. No one wants to steal your photos. Amateurs all over the world, listen to me now: STOP PUTTING FUCKING WHITE VIGNETTES ON YOUR PHOTOS. LEARN WHY PHOTOS VIGNETTE IN THE FIRST PLACE!September 3, 2013 at 12:10 am #12555milhouse41Participant
Wow Ebi, what a nasty little person you are. I thought she asked for Critique, which usually means constructive critique, not abusive comments. I am always amazed at some peoples Ego’s in photography forums. Surely if you are as brilliant as you suggest you are you would be working full time and have no time to comment in forums. I do not think your edit is as wonderful as you do.
Aevey don’t be discouraged by negative people. Some people bring a negative energy, some a positive energy.September 3, 2013 at 1:11 am #12557fstopper89Participant
In the first set, the photos mostly do flow together well. The backlighting is challenging, with it producing the hazy, flat skin tones. One way to improve that is to increase contrast in Photoshop, or adjust your curves in PS. The second image has a few harsh sun spots. It’s best to realize that when shooting, and either move to an area with good shade or have an assistant block the light with a blanket. The image where they are sitting on the blanket is a cute pose, but really lacking in contrast, again due to the lighting situation. However I do not think ebi’s edit was better at all. Yours has much better white balance, but it’s flat. Curves could help this too. I do agree though that the setting seems out of place. If it were an indoor studio shot, that video theme would fit better.
The wedding set definitely has a vintage haze feel to it, not necessarily bad, but I think it’s better to do clean edits and offer additional edits with more stylistic or trendy stuff like vintage hazes.
Ebi, you are consistently rude and pompous. Seriously.September 3, 2013 at 3:20 am #12558
Wowsers Ebi really needs to learn to critique. am i missing something? i dont see any images with white vignette?? which ones exactly have white vignette?
I think the OP is actually going for the hazy look which is currently in fashion… i think the lack of contrast is keeping in line with the actual theme of the images. personally i dont go for the haze look but lots of people do and its really popular at the moment, if you want to master it maybe think about doing some PS courses or maybe looking at the ask Damien FB group for some ideas.
The only part of Ebi’s critique i agree with is the projector idea being out of place.
hope Ive helped again 🙂September 3, 2013 at 3:40 am #12559
just adding something, i think Brown eyed has a very valid point. you really need to get technical stuff right before you start doing creative edits. also remember that creative edits date very very quickly.September 3, 2013 at 5:02 am #12560
I don’t think the projector is out of place, I think it’s a nice idea – but it would need to be dark for it to make sense.September 3, 2013 at 7:01 am #12561
Also I just wanted to add, I like the soft, warm light look too but I do agree with Ebi, I think you still need a more defined tonal contrast and for the colours to be less washed out, otherwise it does look flat. Photographs are 2 dimensional and therefore need some contrast, either with colour or tone, in order to make them appear 3-dimensional. I think the 3rd image down on the following link, is a good example of a hazy look image that retains contrast. I don’t have a technical eye so can’t tell if the haze is through PP or from shooting at that time, but I think the best way to achieve the look you are going for would be to practise shooting in soft, warm afternoon lighting rather than adding the look in post.September 3, 2013 at 8:09 am #12563cameraclickerParticipant
Wow! The second one at the link( http://foradaydreambeliever.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/september-vogue-2012-winter-blooms.html ) is hideous!
Anyway, to the OP. I’m not a fan of the low contrast look that is trendy at the moment. That you can get that look when you want it, is nice. I suppose the look is find for a school project with a shelf life of a term or two. If I saw that look in your portfolio while looking for a wedding photographer, I would move on to the next candidate immediately.
After years of being completely opposed to watermarks, I have been persuaded they have a place, if tastefully done, on Facebook photos. On other sites that retain EXIF data, I prefer not to see a watermark.
I share ebi’s view of white vignettes. I’m not very fond of vignettes generally. For those of you wondering where they are, look at the first photo again.
I don’t think I have time to get through everything in detail and what I saw in the comments was pretty good so just a couple of quick points.
In the projector photo, why is there a bright spot on her leg? Why is all the film on the take-up reel? Why is the projector’s lamp off? Why are they still watching the screen? Did they freeze in that position while the movie was playing last night, and the sun has not thawed them out yet? That pose looks like it would be uncomfortable by the end of a 30 minute reel. That projector table really reflects the fill flash.
Fireman carry photo. That has the pasty look of badly exposed Agfa film. The camera looks like it was cut out of a different magazine and pasted over whatever she had in her hand.
Perfume photo. What is the grey thing in front of the bottle? Why is it there? I’m not sure I like the camera tilt, I’m sure I don’t like the spot colour attempt. I think the grey thing might be a petal. The photo needs colour.
Last photo. The background is terrible. The pose makes the bride look anorexic. She needs to get her shoulders back.
Got to run.September 3, 2013 at 9:53 am #12565BrownieParticipant
They aren’t abuse comments that ebi made, people often confuse a critique of the work with a critique of the person and confuse a critique for only the positives.
I agree with everything ebi said. They are overly contrasty without shadows, and artificially too sharp.
it’s a completely valid, honest observation.
And for someone studying photography, I would expect more understanding in the way of basic technical skills.September 3, 2013 at 1:12 pm #12571cameraclickerParticipant
I agree with Brownie, ebi’s critique seems pretty accurate to me too. Not perhaps the most gentle, but if the “almost finished” photography student turned up looking for a job and showing those photos, the reaction might be even stronger. Being not a fan of the low-contrast-too-bright look, I prefer ebi’s edit.
A projector in a corn field is not bad. Sheridan College in Oakville puts on a couple of outdoor movie nights for their residence students. Toronto usually has a movie might in the park and this summer they put on a series of movie nights for sailors, you could tune your radio to the advertised station and get audio while floating around the harbour and watching a screen facing the water.
I took a few minutes to edit the projector photo and took it in a different direction. Since the projector’s light goes in front of them, the light should probably be solid instead of broken, if it were mine I would take the time to do it again properly… Or, abandon it.
Does it work as a moonlight shot?September 3, 2013 at 1:41 pm #12572
I’ll start with milhouse, b/c it’s first come first serve.
My entire critique was constructive. Every last bit of it was directed at her work and not trashing her. Just b/c I didn’t wrap it up in a tight little bow of bullshit and make it sound all pretty doesn’t make it less constructive. She’s in need of critique, not polite hand holding and if you had any clue what you were talking about you’d realize that, but you don’t so STFO.
Also, I’ve never suggested that I am brilliant. I am a working photographer. I work freelance and have plenty of time to jump in here for 10 minutes every now and then to offer some critique or advice or to simply tell you to STFO. Obviously you’d like to see less professional photographers in here giving critiques and would prefer that more amateur hacks continue to give meaningless critiques. You’re an idiot!
@Brown Eyed Girl
It is not the backlight producing haze, it is her doing it in post. If you cannot see that then you are an idiot. Haze is not consistent like that without flare. There is no flare. Also who the hell would stand between the sun and the subject with a blanket? That would totally kill the light. Instead you would want to scrim the light to bring the highlight down. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. I’d advise you to STFO b/c you are giving bad advise.
My adjustment was in contrast only and it is far better than the original. I don’t expect you do see that because I don’t think you really know what a good photo looks like.
@Sassy – Your critique was fluffed with bullshit, you take mundane photos of newborns. I’ve seen those photos a millions times before. Nothing original there.
I think the OP is actually going for the hazy look which is currently in fashion… i think the lack of contrast is keeping in line with the actual theme of the images.
And you have no idea what you are talking about. Hazy backlit images have been around for a long time. It’s not “currently in fashion”. The theme of the images are that they are over processed in a manner that implies the person doesn’t know what they are doing.
The recurring theme of this thread seems to be that the three posters who seem most annoyed by my critique don’t know what they are talking about when it comes to lighting. I laugh at their critique of my critique b/c I was seriously holding back this time. It doesn’t seem to matter how I critique, I always get mauled by a mob of you for whatever I say. Perhaps, I should just not censor myself at all?September 3, 2013 at 1:51 pm #12576
@CC: This was kind of what I was alluding to. Actually more of a dusk shot. so that you don’t completely lose the corn. Dark enough so that the projector can become a highlight source and a little fill in to fill in the people a little bit. That would be a shot that makes more sense.September 3, 2013 at 4:34 pm #12578
I thought it was a good crit too and learnt a lot, so thank you.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.