Home › Forums › Am I a Fauxtog? › Looking for opinions :)
- This topic has 8 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 2 months ago by
CoastalTog.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 21, 2013 at 6:50 pm #7014
KPanz85
ParticipantSo I have been working on my photography for a year now and I’am by no means a professional and I have been doing alot of no-charge shoots to gain experience. I would just like to know if there are some things I should work on in my photos as I don’t have many photographer friends to give good critiques. I will attach a few photos for you to see. Thanks again 🙂
and this was my very first try at a studio shoot http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=450683174985210&set=pb.345992698787592.-2207520000.1361490612&type=3&theater
February 21, 2013 at 10:22 pm #7027Gerbles
ParticipantYou are well on your way to becoming a great photographer! But there are little things like missed focus in a couple of them, the one with the girl in the field has her face hidden by the grass, which ruins an otherwise great shot; the placement of the hand on the B&W portrait is distracting, and the one with the girl on the bridge was shot in very harsh light. You definitely have a good eye for catching your subjects emotion and interaction with one another, but there are little things here and there that hold the shots back from being really great. Keep at it!
February 21, 2013 at 10:23 pm #7028ParticipantAlso, I would pull back a little on the vintagy editing- a little goes a long way 🙂
February 21, 2013 at 11:09 pm #7029fstopper89
ParticipantI also agree you are on the right track. The first image was the strongest, but maybe a bit overexposed. I love the framing on the two with the tree branch, but the focus is off on the girls’ faces. Are you using autofocus and selecting an autofocus point? That may help if not. The images on the bridge had way too direct sunlight. In some situations like that, try having an assistant block the sun with a large blanket. It doesn’t always work but I did that for some outdoor newborn shots and it worked like a charm. I liked the first black and white portrait because of the artistic lighting pattern. The last one however had an odd expression. You’re better though than those fauxtogs who are charging! And yeah, minimize the editing. Or if you do like that, do a more “clean” edit, and make the vintage edit an additional option, and show both.
February 22, 2013 at 5:37 am #7034OctoberMoon
ParticipantAll of those look oddly blurry to me, as if the focus is off.
February 22, 2013 at 10:21 am #7037KeyAndFill
ParticipantThe baby with the Santa hat – Where does the white fuzz end and begin in that photo? You’ve lost the detail in your highlights and you cannot see a defining line between the white parts of the hat and the background. There are also edges along the baby’s arms that are not tack sharp, the right arm fades into the background. Did you light the background? The white balance seems to be off as well.
Just a personal preference, I don’t like big fancy watermarks either, but like I said, that’s a personal preference. The font isn’t that hard to read but you do have to look at it to see that it says grinz. The font isn’t consistent either. In the first several photos you use one font, but with the baby you use a different font.
February 22, 2013 at 11:27 am #7038ParticipantThank you so much everyone for your polite and awesome critiques, I really appreciate it. One question, how can you upload photos to face book without them looking blurry? On my computer the photos look tack sharp but when I upload them for the clients they look blurry. Any advice would be awesome, thanks again! 🙂
February 22, 2013 at 12:00 pm #7044ParticipantFacebook has been known for botching some photos and letting some look good. Even some of the super well-known professional photogs I follow on FB occasionally post a photo and complain about how soft or grainy it looks. Someone once told me to upload to FB in 2000 pixels, so I downsize my watermarked versions to that, but then again I’ve heard other sizes that are supposed to be better, so I’ve all about given up. Facebook has not perfected their photo-hosting abilities. Flickr is much better. I often direct people from my Facebook page to my Flickr stream to see higher-quality images. Facebook is a good marketing tool though.
February 24, 2013 at 9:51 am #7134CoastalTog
Participant@ KPanz- be mindful of getting the exposure correct in camera before adding vintage effects. You have quite a few blown out whites and blown skin on your images. If your camera is capable of showing “blinkies” in the preview, I’d recommend that. Basically, once you take an image and preview it, all the portions that are overexposed or underexposed will blink. You have an instant on the spot indicator that you need to make adjustments. There are caveats, of course. If you’re photographing something with a pure white background outside, that will blink. What you should be looking for is blinking on white clothing and skin. Even white shirts and dresses should show detail and not be washed out.
@browneyedgirl 2000 on the long end is way too big. Nothing more than 1000 on the long for FB. I’ll see if I can dig up the article that addresses proper image sizing for FB that came from the FB folks themselves. Remember, you have to size for the majority of computer users. Your pro friend probably has a huge monitor and 2000 on the long looks good to him.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.