portraits

this is m first portrait shoot, but despite that please, be brutal. i can take it.

#1

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s-photographs/5097295164​/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s-photographs/5096698041​/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s-photographs/5096697659​/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s-photographs/5096697303​/

I think 3 is very good. Her head is cut in half by the house in the first two and the blown out sky is distracting. 4 is okay but background seems a little busy. Pretty girl.

Personally, I find the backgrounds in #1 and #2 terrible. The twin garage doors especially so. The fact that the subject isn't looking at the camera is also not appealing to me, but that's another subjective opinion about portraiture. As the other poster noted the blown skies scream "AMATEUR"! Images like this seriously benefit from use of OCF. Not a bad first attempt, but exposing for the sky/background, and then adding flash to light the subject would go miles.

3+4 are nice!

Lightworks Imaging wrote in post #11127899
As the other poster noted the blown skies scream "AMATEUR"!

Oh... that's why mine look like that! LOL! drives me nuts! Will a polarizing filter help that? (along with ocf)

Focus and color look good. ! & 2 suffer from a very poor backgrounds and mushrooms?

#3 looks good until you get to the cropped arms and hand and the sole of her shoe over her head.

#4 is interesting.

Lightworks Imaging wrote in post #11127899
As the other poster noted the blown skies scream "AMATEUR"!

Completely disagree with this. I truly think this is one of the 'rules' that people parrot just because it's a 'rule'. Sure, most times it's not ideal, but the OP has managed the exposure perfectly well and the sky certainly isn't distracting to me. "Screaming 'AMATEUR'"? Hardly.

Lightworks Imaging wrote in post #11127899
Images like this seriously benefit from use of OCF.

This is part I do agree with...or at least I'd be interested to see the result of trying it with OCF.

On topic; I really like 1 and 3, although the crop on the hand/elbow on #3 is a little....awkward.

As has been noted the background on 2 isn't ideal.

glockamole wrote in post #11127820
I think 3 is very good. Her head is cut in half by the house in the first two and the blown out sky is distracting. 4 is okay but background seems a little busy. Pretty girl.

You're bothered by the roofline intersecting her head in 1+2, but you like 3 in spite of the foot growing out of her head and the cropped off half-arm thing she's got going on? Some consistency in C+C is essential

But on topic, I think this is a well lit, well-exposed set especially for a first session. Don't listen to the "blown skies, oh no" crowd, when shooting natural light who cares as long as the subject is properly exposed and lit in an appealing manner.

1 is great, 3 is good and would be great with more careful composition (cut off arm, shoe-on-head)

She is gorgeous, get her in to another venue,park, ,etc, anything that she can be the star in.

Your lighting on her looks wonderful, very flattering.If you do venture out, watch what she wears, you want her to compliment the surroundings, not compete.

Very good for a first try! and I agree, #3 is the best, but the foot is distracting, but could probably be cloned out.

I also agree you've got a good blur on the background, but they are not the best for your model, and you need to move around her more and see what else you can put behind her so it doesn't compete.

Your exposure is really nice, very well done. Also may want to watch where her eyes end up, you want to try and have a least a little bit of white on either side of the iris, to start with, (another 'rule' that can be broken later as you get more proficient).

Another thing to think about is a reflector, or using onboard flash dialed way down to creat 'catch lights' in her eyes. (I know the pros hate onboard flash, but for starting out and learning about flash, it is a way to put that sparkle in the eye, when used in a very low key fashion).

Lovely model, and really good for a first try, and go out and shoot more!!!

I agree that the backgrounds are not good selections and too busy, but the girl is well exposed in the last two shots.

a lot of people have noted my blown out sky, but it was overcast that day, so i was wondering what i should have done. the sky would not be blue even if exposed very, very low.

i do agree though, it is somewhat distracting.

what should i have done?

fstopblues wrote in post #11138422
a lot of people have noted my blown out sky, but it was overcast that day, so i was wondering what i should have done. the sky would not be blue even if exposed very, very low.

i do agree though, it is somewhat distracting.

what should i have done?

If you have a featureless overcast sky, sometimes thats all you get. I know the problem you have as I had to take some portraits on a given time and day and the sky was utterly white and no amount of underexposure was going to make it blue.

fstopblues wrote in post #11138422
a lot of people have noted my blown out sky, but it was overcast that day, so i was wondering what i should have done. the sky would not be blue even if exposed very, very low.

i do agree though, it is somewhat distracting.

what should i have done?

I just try and make sure that white sky is not in the picture. The light from a white sky is wonderful, but the sky it's self is NOT most often.

fstopblues wrote in post #11138422
a lot of people have noted my blown out sky, but it was overcast that day, so i was wondering what i should have done. the sky would not be blue even if exposed very, very low.

i do agree though, it is somewhat distracting.

what should i have done?

Sometimes your only option is to replace it with a blue sky.

Titus213 wrote in post #11139273
Sometimes your only option is to replace it with a blue sky.

ahhh. i hate that.