Home › Forums › Photography Showcase › Critique
- This topic has 55 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 10 months ago by
none.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 4, 2014 at 8:10 pm #17615
none
ParticipantWoe! 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.
I know I didn’t post photojournalistic wedding photography on this site. I didn’t because I am looking at other forms of photography to really explore. It’s quite amazing that people can begin their assumptions on a topic that I didn’t bring up to begin with. I asked for a critique on these photos specifically to determine this other side of creativity I wanted to explore. Sure I know it’s not that great according to other people, but also exploring different styles and the styles I posted aren’t to be directly related to the photojournalistic side.
The photojournalistic watermark was one I had already made in illustrator, so I used it. I have a completely different watermark now that I have for other styles of photography that don’t directly relate to photojournalism. I understand I’ve misrepresented the photos by having the watermark on those specific pictures and I appreciate all of the suggestions I’ve received thus far.
March 4, 2014 at 8:35 pm #17618Bill
Participantd4 – I think you may have jumped the gun here, but please hear me out, not trying to jump on any photo-critiquing bandwagon.
To be clear, you asked for “Positive Critique,” which is what you ask friends and family for moral support, not a web site where people like myself offer advice and suggestions on your work. The better statement would be, “Honest and Constructive Critique” which is primarily what you got from CC.
I know that you stated that this is not a portfolio, but rather a selection of photos that you were looking for some feedback.
I think you got the feedback, but may I offer a suggestion? No matter if the selection of photos is a portfolio or not, they should be fairly consistent in theme or subject, i.e. wedding, portrait, landscapes, product or birthday, event, and so on. The photos that you gave were scattered and had no underlying theme or subject that tied them together, kind of like my flickr page, lol.You also stated that you re-designed the watermark, but it went against the very nature of the selected photos presented. It was like having a logo that states “Intimate Portrait Photography” and then showing nothing but HDR landscapes.
Don’t take this the wrong way, but you have to be consistent even when it comes down to a logo or watermark. Attention to detail and knowing when to stop are also very crucial.
I hope this helps and good luck.March 4, 2014 at 9:05 pm #17621ParticipantBill, that makes a lot of sense, I apologize for not making it very clear in regards to what I was asking for. I didn’t mean to insinuate that I only wanted people to respond with positivity, I just didn’t want a lot of rude comments lol.
As far as the album goes, I didn’t think far enough ahead, my fault. I was simply putting them up together as a means for people to see them when I share them, I’ll remember your advice from now on.
My laziness is the reason for the watermark issue, I honestly did not think about it when I uploaded them. I didn’t want to have to go back into my program and change the picture, reupload etc. I’ll remember that from now on though, it makes a lot of sense now that you put it that way.
March 4, 2014 at 10:58 pm #17623IHF
ParticipantI don’t really see it (photojournalistic wedding photography) here on your business page either,
https://www.facebook.com/DianaKMillerPhotography
other than some of the links you share.
I look through your photos and I don’t see any sort of consistancy. It’s like 4 or 5 or more different photographers are sharing a page or something.
Some quickly pop out to me like these
They look so good compared to others. They look to be done with completely different equipment, and well thought out lighting, and clean nice editing. Then I think why didn’t she show her best to us? There are quite a few really good photos on your page, but we get an album with shots taken/shared all the way back in 2011 that seem very low quality compared to the above linked. Why is that?
March 4, 2014 at 11:24 pm #17625ParticipantThank you for the compliments on the pictures. Believe it or not, it’s all the same equipment, but I edited completely different. I don’t know why I am pulled to over edit at times, but I am. I wish I had a better answer, but I don’t. I guess I’ll just keep them in raw and adjust here and there. I’ve been trying to fix everything within every picture and I really think I’m trying to fix a lot of what isn’t needed and not enough of what is.
March 4, 2014 at 11:30 pm #17626ParticipantIHF, I show the older work because that style is what I love, but it’s not “right.” Sure the work I’ve done recently is a lot better I know. I’m self taught and to be honest I have a long way to go in the style I began with. I would love to get into magazines like Vogue, really any sort of fashion photography, I’m working on a few things now with hiring models, make up artists etc, but as far as editing goes.. I know I have to learn how to edit properly and pose.
March 5, 2014 at 1:14 am #17627Participantso you prefer this
over this
This one
over this one
and this interior shot
over this one
JMO but blurry, noisy, badly color managed and/or converted, badly posed and set up isn’t a “style”. Looks like “style” wise you are duplicating, but quality wise it’s a toss up. It’s as though your clients are playing the lotto when/if they hire you.
Just saying from an outsiders point of view, it looks more like you are trying to emulate/recreate the better shots and not quite achieving it. I think perhaps you might be compelled to over edit sometimes because the image doesn’t quite cut it (missed focus,low contrast, bad exposure etc), and in an attempt to try to make it better you over do it?
There’s not much progression from your very first shot that you shared
and your newest
They are both badly focused, noisy, and badly edited.
The “progression” strangely seems to happen randomly throughout your port instead. hmmmmmmmm
March 5, 2014 at 1:43 am #17628ParticipantI’ve had a lot of clients in the few years I’ve been doing this. I’ve not had a complaint thus far, I’m using great editing software and equipment. The problem is the editing and how I’m editing. I know it shows that I go back and forth with it and the editing isn’t consistent – bad even according to some.
What would you suggest I read up on?
March 5, 2014 at 1:47 am #17629ParticipantIHF, The only reason I can say there would be a difference in some of the pictures is because the monitor I was using before was HP and older. I did not have the great display I have now. I know that isn’t a great excuse, but it’s true. I was using an older computer (Windows based), now I’m using a new iMac.
March 5, 2014 at 1:52 am #17630Participantlol This one is just a picture of me.. and was is from 2011 also. It wasn’t supposed to be up there, glad you saw that. I went ahead and took it down.
This one isn’t new either, I am always adding content. I believe this is from 2011 or 2012. It is however a recent upload.
March 5, 2014 at 8:21 am #17636cameraclicker
Participanthas a couple of things I would change. The first things your eyes are drawn to are text and bright spots. I don’t see any text but the bright spots are her empty hand and the plants behind her. This can be fixed in editing, but it is easier to notice it at the time and shoot it differently. The other thing I see is the edge that is just inside the left edge of your frame, which is a distraction. I would spend a couple of minutes and do something like this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/54048679@N07/12948499424/
Click on it to see it full size.
has some barrel distortion and is just slightly off square.
These, and the others IHF said popped out, are much better than what I saw previously.
If you use Photoshop, Scott Kelby has good cookbooks for editing. Basically, a list of steps to accomplish a specific task. If you prefer to watch video, PHLearn has some good ones. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=phlearn%20photoshop&sm=1
I don’t know of any book/video that will help you with deciding how much editing is too much. It comes with practice. The best advice I have seen for that is to simply walk away. Get a coffee, read a newspaper article, whatever. Come back in 30 or 45 minutes and look at it with fresh eyes. On a Mac or PC, calibrate your monitor — there are several tools that can do that for you, choose one, if you haven’t already.
March 5, 2014 at 10:46 am #17638ParticipantI read up on calibration last night and have more to do this afternoon on that. Thank you 🙂
March 5, 2014 at 11:47 am #17642ParticipantThe first things your eyes are drawn to are text and bright spots. I don’t see any text but the bright spots are her empty hand and the plants behind her.
I don’t see any bright spots at all, weird.
March 5, 2014 at 11:48 am #17643Participant“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”
emf, she’s already got it, and is willing to share her knowledge
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1491072202/ref=rdr_ext_tmb#reader_1491072202
March 5, 2014 at 12:00 pm #17645ParticipantAlso, my iMac has different calibration tools inside the display settings, however I’ve read that it’s smart to not use them, but to buy specific calibration software instead.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.