Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > People Photos

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 21, 2010, 4:47 AM   #11
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,397
Default

Hi FP, here we go again with a whirlwind run through of how I see them.

Firstly, I'm still envious of you having the family to model and I really like this location

Overall things to consider in the set. WB is the main aspect that jumps out as we range from pretty cold in the first to very warm in 4 and 7. The other element is exposure, again there is a large variation in the series.

#1 Like the use of the wall, the head tilt, her happy smile. I would get her out of the centre and also straighten the vertical. If you are tilting a shot make it look like a tilt otherwise it looks like it is just not straight. So either tilt quite a bit or no tilt. I hope you don't mind, below would be my vision for this shot. I've stuck to the rule of thirds but I think pushing her even more to the edge would make it better still. Again, it depends on the taste.

#2 I would have changed your location as there is a connection with her and the dog but we've lost the eyes and also you are shooting from the side which has meant her nose broke the line of the side of the face. This isn't generally the most flattering for any lady.

#3 Love this, if I was being fussy (which I am) then the loss of the fingers is a shame, however when we look at a photo as normal people and not photographer what we will see is a fun, happy, great shot

#4 This doesn't work for me. Looks a little out of focus and also it is straight on. Again like the nose breaking the side of the face, straight on isn't the best for a lady. Also under exposed.

#5 I like that she is side on. The main things I would change is the symmetry. The legs are what stick out to me most, just tucking one foot in behind would have made it look much more comfortable. I would also put the hand onto the leg as that straight arm is also not as flowing as a bent one. Two rules here, if there are two of something make them different and if it bends bend it.

#6 I like this one too. Possibly the pose looks a little closed with the hands clasped but we all know hands are the toughest thing. Have a play with putting them in different positions rather than together.

#7 Under exposed and with the arms folded, unless you are going for a strong "keep away from me" look then it doesn't work. If you have folded arms then you need the serious face to match so the whole body is telling the same story.

Something else to consider is the direction of the pose to your composition. Usually (not always) it is best to have them facing into the space rather than away from it. Most of yours face out so mix it up a little more.

I'm honestly enjoying your photos and that you are getting out and experimenting. Many people are happy to sit back with the same old same old level of photography, but I admire anyone trying to learn so keep it up.
Attached Images
 
__________________
Any problems with a post or thread please use the report button at the bottom left of the post and the team will help sort it out.

Have fun everyone!


See what I'm up to visit my Plymouth Wedding Photography
site or go to my blog.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 21, 2010, 7:08 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 627
Default

Thanks Selvin!
FaithfulPastor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 21, 2010, 7:31 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Eetu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Jyväskylä, Finland
Posts: 2,212
Default

Absolutely wonderful series!!! I like the last the most! But, they are all very good. Thanks for sharing these. Ned
Eetu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 21, 2010, 7:46 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 627
Default

Thank you, Ned! You are so very kind.

FP
FaithfulPastor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 21, 2010, 7:53 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 627
Default 1616 a

Mark, again, thank you for your critique of my work.

And again, as you read my comment, you know I am not disagreeing with you. Only a the fool argues with the expert.

Let's see if I'm learning anything....

I sort of liked this shot 1616A because of the angle of the shoulders.

But her arms being so straight, to me it make the shot look tense. And as you would point out, both arms are doing the same thing so the shot becomes less interesting.

If I really liked the entire photo, I'd photoshop out the white spray painted snake that appears on the wood to the left of Mikki.

Also, I'm not convinced the angle from which I took the shot is good. I think I'm shooting upward too much. I should have stood taller. I fight the height/angle a lot, I'm 2 meters tall. That's much taller than my daughter, so I'm trying to get that right as well.
Attached Images
 
FaithfulPastor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 21, 2010, 8:01 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 627
Default 1616 b

What I liked about this shot was the sunlight on her hair on the left side. Her arms are less tense, but the hands are still, blah.

I also don't like the crop at her knees and as you would say, the wickedly straight arm on the right side of the photo is not good.

My big question is the background. I was shooting in a gazebo. A gazebo is a basically a stand alone structure that is about the size of a large living room of a house. They are often round or 8 sided in shape. All the walls are open and there's a roof overhead.

The roof supplied me with shade from the early afternoon sun, so that helped the shots to not washout. But I also got this really bright/hazy background in a shot like this. In later shots, I moved the subject and myself so I had a green tree for a background rather than open space.

Is the background, under these conditions so useless that moving is the correct answer? When I moved, I lost the sun on the hair highlights.

FP
Attached Images
 
FaithfulPastor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 21, 2010, 8:18 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 473
Default

pastor,

Mark's comments are going to be way more educated than my own but in that situation where I'm in the shade with a bright background I would try metering the bright part, locking the exposure and then stepping back and snapping the shot. Then later you can bring up the brightness of the underexposed foreground in PP. I might also try some fill flash. I probably would do all of the above and see which came out best.

brad
DigMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 21, 2010, 8:19 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 627
Default 1616 c

Well, Frankenstein was an experiment gone wrong. And I think I may have gone too far on this one.

The upward angle work and the tilt of the camera make me dizzy.

FP
Attached Images
 
FaithfulPastor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 21, 2010, 8:22 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 627
Default 1616 d

While trying to help my daughter figure out we wanted her to do, in the shot, my bride jumped up to the light pole and struck a pose as an example for our daughter to see.

I was ready and I took this shot of her.

If you've ever read the story about the frog who felt like a prince because the princess kissed him, you've read my biography.

FP
Attached Images
 
FaithfulPastor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 21, 2010, 10:30 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
Wingman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hebron, Kentucky (northern Kentucky/Greater Cincinnati):KCVG
Posts: 4,322
Default

#4 and #7 (in that order) appeal to me the most. Nice lighting in both and nice bokeh in #4.
Wingman is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:58 PM.