[Thom]

I can email you the “before”…(don’t have a link)

here’s the after:

[Thom]

I like your images. One thing though (and I have this same issue with my own work) you have to whittle it down to just the very best for your portfolio. The hardest part is to let go of your favorite that lends to consistency of your work. As of now, your portfolio has baby photos, it has lingerie, tattoo’d rockers, etc…

If you eventually intend on doing it professionally, the only suggestion I would make is to separate them into different categories on your site.

Looks great though.

Best,

Thom

[Thom]

Great video. This illustrates another HUGE problem with fauxtographers – that really chip-on-the-shoulder defensiveness. If the customer wasn’t happy…shouldn’t a business do whatever it can to fix the problem? Wedding shoots are mostly word of mouth.

[Thom]

Looks great Jeremy. Seems you have a natural gift for nice family photos (without the dreaded Olan Mills look).

Sorry, I’m mostly motion picture imaging so I can’t give you the skinny on the business end. But…I read a really great article here about the amount it would take to sustain a photography business (courtesy of another member):

http://www.mcpactions.com/blog/2009/10/12/how-should-i-price-my-photography-words-of-advice-from-jodie-otte/

 

Best wishes…

Thom

[Thom]

Hey, my home town is Ohio…good to hear from another Buckeye and I hope people will accept your apology. I never read the original post, but you seem very sincere.

Cheers,

Thom

[Thom]

Film was infinitely easier for me than digital. I think because I thought digital to be TOO clean. Also I could never afford the newest bells & whistles, so I slapped together whatever I could to get an image. Which was whatever Uni had to offer. The reason why I suggested film to you is because it is organic, much like your subject matter.

[Thom]

It looks good. But one thing I would suggest is to be really critical of what you post publicly. Shave your images down to the VERY best. Right now, it just looks like you wallpapered your portfolio. Also, I argue with my friend about this a lot…I NEVER put people in front of graffiti. It’s just way too busy and your eye gets distracted. He (being a D.J.) likes having his photo taken in front of graffiti. I told him if that’s the case, it better be your own graffiti art.

Cheers,

Thom

[Thom]

Hey!

The photo with the couple looks much better. Nice tones. Very much softer. It’s funny, applying a black & white effect…there’s more choices than people realize. There’s “warmer” grey black and white and there is “colder” black and white.

Nice adjustment. Love it.

The senior picture..I’m not sure what I’d do with it, since it already looks really nice. I like her expression. If anything maybe bring up the exposure a little.

Cheers, Thom

[Thom]

Hey Kairee,

No, it looks great! I’m sure they’re happy with it, and by no means falls into the “fauxtog” label. Light years away =). Facebook compresses images, so I’m sure the original raw is superior. Great work. Especially with capturing the expressions.

Thom

[Thom]

Hey again,

Hope you don’t mind, but I took one of your photos and putter’d around with it (it’s a really compressed image):

[http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomaskuo/8662863377/in/photostream]

The pose you caught them in, is spot on. The light is a bit flat. I gave it more black. Probably would scale back on the vignette as well. but this is just my take on how I would adjust quickly.

[Thom]

Hi Sarah,

Surprised no one has commented yet. So here goes…

I see what you’re going for.

The first image you have with them on the branch. I can do without the foreground leaves. It seems really voyeuristic. I feel it would’ve been perfectly fine at the angle you’re at without having anything in front.

The 2nd photo has nice DOF, it seems like there has to be context to it too. And I feel maybe the wardrobe is throwing me off.

The 3rd is too contrasty for my taste. For a sweet scene, I feel it should be smoother. A nicer softer light. If you want to go b&w like Jan’s portfolio:

http://www.micmojo.com/

Shoot more, I’d be interested in seeing more of your work. I think you’re on a good path.

Best,

Thom

 

[Thom]

IH8Faux: Great article!

BoleJack: In this field, there are some real d-bags. I work in movies and you couldn’t believe the stuff I read online about the projects I work on. I’ve been involved in two…TWO Best Picture winners (“Argo” & “The Hurt Locker”) and countless demanding directors and I STILL get shit for being a hack, or that people question what I do constantly. So my advice, if I may be as bold as to give it, is to keep shooting and learning. Because if people are here criticizing, that means they’re not “out there” doing it. But you are.

A dream stands as strong as the person who is willing to endure the sacrifices.

Best of luck

Thom

[Thom]

I understand what you’re saying. But, I can’t help but think what the images that are in display on this site would be, if they’ve actually studied the process (digital or film). I wasn’t even allowed to shoot a frame until I could draw it on paper! Talk about taking it back to the basics. Thanks for the discussion.

Thom

[Thom]

Hi again,

Mike Henry seems to be a really great example: http://www.mikehenryphoto.com/index.php#mi=23&pt=1&pi=10000&s=2&p=1&a=0&at=0

His work seems to not mind some kick. He builds a lot of contrast in his shots. And mixes in a lot of natural light as you do.

Cheers

Thom

[Thom]

One last point, I live and work in Los Angeles, so I have the benefit of world class labs and a support system that doesn’t start a sentence with “why are you still shooting film?” I hope people have access as well, but if you don’t…I forget that as film is dwindling, this is a difficult option to go with. I just hope most who want to do it professionally would love the what and why they do it enough to research voraciously the craft. As the OP has.

Again, even in my 30’s (and 15 years of developing my own neg), I am still learning the characteristics of film. And the magic that seems absent in digital.

I love it.

[Author]

Posts