March 2, 2014 at 2:04 pm #17570
I’ve uploaded a few images I thought I’d like you all to take a look at. Positive critique please.March 2, 2014 at 2:07 pm #17571
I forgot to mention that I have sense revised the watermark.March 2, 2014 at 4:04 pm #17573cameraclickerParticipant
Positive critique, not so much. Helpful, perhaps.
http://s822.photobucket.com/user/AbionaKatia/media/Shared/DSC_0393.jpg.html?sort=3&o=0 : I like that it is in focus. I’m not crazy about what either of them are wearing. She looks like she is having major wardrobe malfunctions. Also, you can barely see any of her face. Great photo if she is in the witness protection program! A rim light would help. His jeans and her hair blend into the dark background so you can’t tell where they end and background begins.
http://s822.photobucket.com/user/AbionaKatia/media/Shared/DSC_0204.jpg.html?sort=3&o=1 : A couple of nice Canada Geese by the pool. Why are there people in the photo? The background is covered up by your watermark, which is good because it is pretty busy. This is a good example of why so many photos are taken with a really big aperture to blur the background. If the photo is supposed to be about those people instead of the geese, then the composition should change somehow so they are really the focus. Presently, her dress is burned out and they are way over at the edge, they look like they are intruding on a photo of birds.
http://s822.photobucket.com/user/AbionaKatia/media/Shared/DSC_0150.jpg.html?sort=3&o=2 : I bet she is a really cute kid. Too bad she has been over processed until she looks like plastic. If you are shooting for journalism, editing is limited to noise reduction, white-balance, brightness, contrast and cropping. Someone her age should not need skin smoothing, and no one needs the amount of smoothing she received.
http://s822.photobucket.com/user/AbionaKatia/media/Shared/DSC_0224.jpg.html?sort=3&o=3 : Is it me or is there a green tint? You need to get a lens hood, and use it. She looks pretty, it would be nice if we could see her clearly.
http://s822.photobucket.com/user/AbionaKatia/media/Shared/DSC_0087-2.jpg.html?sort=3&o=4 : It would be nicer if they were away from the wall so there was no background shadow. The watermark really messes up the image. I understand you have redesigned it. I hope the redesign is some unobtrusive text stuck in a corner where it doesn’t detract from the image.
http://s822.photobucket.com/user/AbionaKatia/media/Shared/BC1of1-46.jpg.html?sort=3&o=5 : The exposure is weird. Her face is too bright, too smoothed. She is featureless. Her clothing is over exposed. The vest, or what ever the white thing is, is burned out. So is her hair, and the strap at her belt buckle. The wrinkles in her brown shirt make her look fat, and also make it appear her belly button has slipped well below her belt! How much of this is post processing? How much is wardrobe choice/execution? Pose matters. You make her look like a Plus size girl.
http://s822.photobucket.com/user/AbionaKatia/media/Shared/DSC_0592-Edit.jpg.html?sort=3&o=6 : I like the high key. I don’t like the smoothing/lighting. Where is the line between her nose and right cheek? Her head is turned too far to her right, there is no skin between her right eye and the background. She should turn her head a few degrees toward the camera and possibly look at the photographer’s left shoulder, or a little past it, to get the eyes right. You don’t want to show her right ear, but you want to show skin beside her eye. Keep the notch.
http://s822.photobucket.com/user/AbionaKatia/media/Shared/DSC_0006.jpg.html?sort=3&o=7 : Not nearly the best turtle photo I have seen. Unless you are also shooting pets, it does not belong with your portraits. Same for the cat photo.
http://s822.photobucket.com/user/AbionaKatia/media/Shared/BC1of1-4.jpg.html?sort=3&o=9 : Way over processed.
http://s822.photobucket.com/user/AbionaKatia/media/Shared/DSC_0212.jpg.html?sort=3&o=10 : It could stand some rim lighting. The hot spots should be dealt with.
http://s822.photobucket.com/user/AbionaKatia/media/Shared/DSC_0237.jpg.html?sort=3&o=11 : This could be cropped to bring her closer. Try cropping half or two thirds through the rock at left, and take some off the top to keep the same height to width ratio. See how it looks. It would be better if the background had softer focus because it is busy. If you are really good at editing, you can apply blur and get it looking like the lens did it, but it is time consuming to get it right. Her knees are dirty. I would dodge a little to brighten her face.
I have seen better flower and bird photos. These should not be in your portraits portfolio.
Sorry I’m not gushing over your photos. Hopefully there are a few ideas that will help improve future photos.March 2, 2014 at 4:23 pm #17574
I’m actually grateful for the suggestions you gave. I haven’t chosen any of the clothing in any of the pictures. A lot of what you see are errors on my part in post processing. I want the skin to be smooth, how much blemish is okay how much should I smooth out the skin? I have a difficult time with editing, no doubt about it, but I don’t know how much is too much.. simply because when I finish with it, I think it looks good.
Thank you for looking at the pictures, any help is welcomed.March 2, 2014 at 4:40 pm #17577
The album is only a shared album for this site, not a portfolio.March 2, 2014 at 6:57 pm #17581
“The exposure is weird. Her face is too bright, too smoothed. She is featureless. Her clothing is over exposed. The vest, or what ever the white thing is, is burned out. So is her hair, and the strap at her belt buckle. The wrinkles in her brown shirt make her look fat, and also make it appear her belly button has slipped well below her belt! How much of this is post processing? How much is wardrobe choice/execution? Pose matters. You make her look like a Plus size girl.”
I just uploaded a different version of this picture for you to look at. The poses were all her own as well as the attire.March 2, 2014 at 7:44 pm #17582cameraclickerParticipant
Sometimes you have a lot of control. Sometimes you have none. When you have control, you can ask for suitable clothing, position lights, choose the background and the pose. When you don’t, you can sometimes stand in the best spot to get a desirable photo. There is a continuum between the two extremes.
The new photo looks much better, more natural. I wonder if her eyes have been over sharpened, though. The photo is too small to tell for sure, red eye may have been partly fixed? The whites seem very white and the blue is very blue. You can still see the folds in her shirt, but they are much less pronounced. You can see the texture of her white wrap. There is a very slight reflection from her belt. Her face does not need smoothing. In post, sometimes, less is more.March 2, 2014 at 9:10 pm #17584
No red eye was fixed and what I thought was subtle sharpening to the eyes isn’t. I’m trying a medium, but nothing really looks good when it looks “as shot.” I don’t know if it’s because I see the flaws and want to cover them up and in turn end up messing it up or what.. but nonetheless, I’ll remember less is more for sure.March 3, 2014 at 3:31 am #17592nesgranParticipant
I’m afraid positive critique is not what you need, you have a watermark indicating a professional outfit yet you are looking for the critique of a mom with a camera. You need to start getting proper critiques to progress anywhere with your photography which is still lacking at the moment. Getting a proper critique will sting but you will benefit from it in the long run.
Your biggest problem is your editing. All editing has to be subtle for it to work unless you go bananas but that is hardly journalistic style. For journalistic style event shooting it is ok to clone stamp a few spots away or small distracting elements in the photo. Sure, it wouldn’t stand for a newspaper but it needs to be done for this kind of use. The reuploaded version of the girl looks a lot better but the eyes look disturbing. You can now see that the flash you used (shoe mounted or pop-up?) has helped with the look but also that her waist is now where your eyes are drawn as her face is darker. A few seconds with the burn and dodge tools would sort it out.
Second would be your technique and/or gear. I can’t say for certain what your settings and gear are since there is no exif left but it looks like you may want to consider using longer focal lengths for portraits which would help both in terms of subject isolation and giving a creamier bokeh but also in compressing the scene. Apertures used aren’t that inspiring either, I don’t see the backgrounds melting away like I’d expectMarch 3, 2014 at 9:48 am #17596Worst Case ScenarioParticipant
Well if we have to positive………….
I like the watermark (it hides some of the pic)March 3, 2014 at 12:47 pm #17599
“I’m afraid positive critique is not what you need, you have a watermark indicating a professional outfit yet you are looking for the critique of a mom with a camera.”
I have my reasons for asking for a critique.
“Well if we have to positive………….
I like the watermark (it hides some of the pic)”
Thanks for the “positivity.”March 3, 2014 at 1:56 pm #17600emfParticipant
I agree with most things said but just wanted to add this. I think you need to learn more about posing, and lighting in direct relation to how it can flatter your subjects or make them look bad. The above image is a good example of how by not posing the woman properly, her neck looks really big and unflattering. A slight change to the angle her head is pointing (as CC said) and also by getting her to push out her chin and down (elongating her neck) would have helped here.
There are some really good posing tutorials on you tube. Good luck.March 3, 2014 at 2:06 pm #17602
Thanks EmfMarch 4, 2014 at 2:55 am #17609nesgranParticipant
I have my reasons for asking for a critique.
Sure, but if you are asking for critiques I would assume you are asking for constructive critique rather than empty praise. If it is the latter you want just post them on facebook and enter a couple of like laddersMarch 4, 2014 at 10:55 am #17613IHFParticipant
Woe! I think you are putting the cart WAY ahead of the horse here. “Photojournalistic Wedding Photography”?! I know I’m sort of beating a dead horse here, but you have to try to understand how shocking it is to see a statement like that on the photographs you have shown us. Go ahead and do some googling, and learn what good photojournalistic wedding photography is. You need much more practice first before you start soliciting your services. Give yourself some time to be an amateur and just enjoy yourself and the learning process. Having a good watermark should be the very last thing on your mind right now.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.