New to the site..critiques are welcome!

[shphotography]

https://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Sarah-Harter-Photography/172049399493936

SHPhotography

[JLiu]

Overall, nice work – especially with focus being tack on the eyes.  If I may, there are a couple areas where I would suggest strengthening:

–  Personal opinions about the “vintage” look aside, I would caution a more discerning eye towards highlights.  There are a couple portrait shots where the face blends almost completely into the background, only to have it broken up again by a feature of the face.  There’s one shot in particular where it’s really difficult to make out the bunny ears that the child is wearing. White on white is very hard to master – play around with contrast and shadows.

–  Composition seems to be centered on the subject for a lot of the shots.  While this isn’t always bad, it’s also not the most ‘exciting.’  Play around a bit and use the rule of thirds to your advantage.

–  Always be wary of the limbs when shooting or cropping down.  There are a lot of cut off fingers/hands/feet.

You seem to have a very solid grasp on photography – keep shooting!

[cameraclicker]

Very low rates and lots of photos with lighting issues.

This one is extremely high key:  https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=491658280866378&set=pb.172049399493936.-2207520000.1366381954.&type=3&theater, and it looks like focus may have been achieved just to the camera side of the child’s nose.  I can make out eyelashes but they are not really sharp and the ears are out of focus.  Most of the face detail is burned out!  The hair band makes me think a lot that is wrong with the photo may be due to post processing, but it may have been over exposed to start with.

 

This one, I like:  https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=510660692299470&set=pb.172049399493936.-2207520000.1366381954.&type=3&theater.  I would use an editor to blur the detail in the brown fabric at the bottom of the photo but otherwise I think it is pretty good.

 

This one is funny:  https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=511456035553269&set=pb.172049399493936.-2207520000.1366381954.&type=3&theater.  Depending upon who they are, it could be good or bad, but as a disinterested party I think it is hilarious.  The guys all look uncomfortable and expressions range from “Do I really have to stand here?” to “What the heck are you doing?”  You got pretty good exposure of the background.  Their white shirts are just slightly dark.  The black outfits are way too dark, there is no detail in the JPEG at all.  The skin of the folks in the middle has burned out areas.

 

In https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=516544371711102&set=pb.172049399493936.-2207520000.1366381954.&type=3&theater, you’ve got split lighting with the Rembrandt triangle on her dark cheek, but the ratio might be a bit high between the bright and dark sides.  The bright side is right at the point of being burned out with a lot of little burned out specs, and the dark side is fairly strong shadow.  It depends on what you were trying for.  I think there could be a stop less light on the bright side and a stop or two more light on the dark side which would still give the split light but it would be more subtle and she would have better definition.  Your beautiful cousin would look more beautiful in photos if the lighting were better.

In https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=516545121711027&set=pb.172049399493936.-2207520000.1366381954.&type=3&theater, I would clean up her blemishes and the white streak on her jacket, otherwise I think that one is good as is.

Here is another totally burned out photo:  https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=529068190458720&set=pb.172049399493936.-2207520000.1366381954.&type=3&theater.  I’m pretty sure you are doing this on purpose, but I have no idea why.

Another one I like:  https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=536390969726442&set=pb.172049399493936.-2207520000.1366381954.&type=3&theater.  Her back is pretty burned out but I think it works.  My eye is drawn to her face, which is where it should go.  This might be one of your best photos.

The one at the top of your gallery, https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=569167039782168&set=pb.172049399493936.-2207520000.1366381954.&type=3&theater, has a low contrast look I am not fond of, but some people like it and I think you nailed that look with this shot.

I love the expression in this one:  https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=496214560410750&set=pb.172049399493936.-2207520000.1366381954.&type=3&theater.  I wish the depth of field was deeper so her whole body was in focus, the roses on her belt are just off and I find it distracting.

 

When you shoot rings, like https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=487461211286085&set=pb.172049399493936.-2207520000.1366381954.&type=3&theater, a macro lens or adding an extension tube or two to your regular lens might help.  You are too far from the rings and they have too much stuff around them.  If you copied your watermark and put it in front of the watermark, I would like to see this frame about that wide, and cropped from about the top of the watermark, down to about the top third of the flower, which would get those sticks out of the photo.  Then the rings should all be in the same plane and focus should be on the detail of the rings.  All the detail should be in sharp focus.

 

[JLiu]

^^ This is why I don’t critique portraits…much more in depth than my own garbling.  Listen to what he has to say instead.

[junebug]

http://lenapetersonphotography.com/

Here is a link to photographer in my area who has a style that I think you are striving for, which is a kind of soft, pastel vintage look. Hope it helps.

[Author]

Posts