Looking for CC on Outdoor Portraits

So I'm a somewhat new photography, posted some pics that can be viewed here
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1222612
and after reading the critique I got myself the book, light, science, magic, and a speed lite, light stand, and umbrella.

I want to get my pictures that I posted on that thread critiqued compared to the pictures that I took yesterday with the speedlite + umbrella set up. Thanks for taking the time to read this post. By the way, if anyone wonders why shes so white in the pictures it's because shes very light skinned (porcelain skin) and wore cover up, thank you.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/79530042@N03/8​024161158/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/79530042@N03/8​023887808/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/79530042@N03/8​023887407/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/79530042@N03/8​023886680/

In #1, #2 and #4 you are looking up at her, which isnt all that flattering, especially in the first two. The lighting looks good, and you have a nice balance with the ambient. Work on getting her to engage the camera, these have that "I'm not looking at you" look.

gonzogolf wrote in post #15041455
In #1, #2 and #4 you are looking up at her, which isnt all that flattering, especially in the first two. The lighting looks good, and you have a nice balance with the ambient. Work on getting her to engage the camera, these have that "I'm not looking at you" look.

I like that look though so I guess it's more personal taste. I have pictures of her looking directly at me but they seem bland and atypical pictures where I'm trying to develop my own style. Plus if shes looking directly at me and I have my light source outside of the angle of direct reflections those catch lights wont pop up in her eyes which really make her eyes pop.

I'm glad that you said that I got the exposure right though (I'm using a manual Yongnuo 560 ii speedlite), I've been learning a lot thanks to the recommendations of the book light, science, and magic on here and even after only reading 100 pages so far, I've learned a lot about lighting so I can't thank you guys enough.

Here are some eyes looking directly at the camera portraits from yesterday.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/79530042@N03/8​024468379/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/79530042@N03/8​024469285/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/79530042@N03/8​024470353/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/79530042@N03/8​024471269/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/79530042@N03/8​024469936/

Sovern wrote in post #15041712
I like that look though so I guess it's more personal taste. I have pictures of her looking directly at me but they seem bland and atypical pictures where I'm trying to develop my own style. Plus if shes looking directly at me and I have my light source outside of the angle of direct reflections those catch lights wont pop up in her eyes which really make her eyes pop.

I'm glad that you said that I got the exposure right though (I'm using a manual Yongnuo 560 ii speedlite), I've been learning a lot thanks to the recommendations of the book light, science, and magic on here and even after only reading 100 pages so far, I've learned a lot about lighting so I can't thank you guys enough.

Here are some eyes looking directly at the camera portraits from yesterday.

.

She doesnt always have to be looking at the camera, but probably ought to be looking at something, preferably something in the frame, or at least suggested by the elements within the frame. That way you avoid the sense that she's simply not looking at you. The whole staring into space thing gives a disconnected feeling when you ought to be working in creating intimacy. The same goes with the posing, if you shoot from a low angle the subject is percieved as dominant, which can be useful in some shots. If you shoot from above, the subject is perceived to be submissive or less than an equal. By shooting at roughly the same eye angle you get a sense of equality and connectedness, if not intimacy.

gonzogolf wrote in post #15041797
She doesnt always have to be looking at the camera, but probably ought to be looking at something, preferably something in the frame, or at least suggested by the elements within the frame. That way you avoid the sense that she's simply not looking at you. The whole staring into space thing gives a disconnected feeling when you ought to be working in creating intimacy. The same goes with the posing, if you shoot from a low angle the subject is percieved as dominant, which can be useful in some shots. If you shoot from above, the subject is perceived to be submissive or less than an equal. By shooting at roughly the same eye angle you get a sense of equality and connectedness, if not intimacy.

Ahh okay I see what you're saying, well thanks for the advice. What do you think about the above looking directly at the camera photos?

Sovern wrote in post #15041867
Ahh okay I see what you're saying, well thanks for the advice. What do you think about the above looking directly at the camera photos?

I prefer them to the others. Going back to one of your previous posts, when she tries to look serious, she appears a bit angry so the monochrome one doesnt work for me.

gonzogolf wrote in post #15041880
I prefer them to the others. Going back to one of your previous posts, when she tries to look serious, she appears a bit angry so the monochrome one doesnt work for me.

Okay, thanks for the critique.

I find that your low camera angle is not at all flattering to her, nor would it be for many people. As Gonzogolf mentioned, there are often REASONS for chosing a low angle, but the trade off you make for shooting low to portray dominance is this: you end up shooting up her nose, not flattering. You end up making it so her eyes are not as "open" as they could be, not flattering. Not flattering, but you do achieve the dominance thing, if that is what you are after. You just need to be aware of what you and she are giving up to get that and if it's worth it, you win. She is a natural beauty, by the way. What does SHE think about the pictures?

She loves the pictures, luckily I only have a few pictures of her at a low angle and those are the ones where she is looking away. I'm happy with the way my pictures turned out, thank for the critique. I still do'nt understand the low angle part on some of my pictures though, I mean the lower angle is so subtle I don't see her as being dominant in it and I see other pros shoot at that level......I can see if I was shooting from way far down but I'm not doing that. I'm shooting mostly straight forward. Do you mind pointing out the photos that are angled up cause I honestly just looked through all of them and I only see two of them where I see my camera angled up and even then its subtle.

I guess another way of seeing it is that if I shoot subtly low it puts her on the spot light and being the dominant women/beuty sort of like a muscular man would be dominate.....idk haha to me they all look about eye level except for two of them but I'm happy with them and she is too so I guess we're good on that aspect. I really just wanted to get my lighting critqued as its my first time using a speed lite/umbrella and the speedlite is full manual.

Best is the last one. The reason: The angle is the most flattering for a woman. Most of the rest you seem to be shooting ground up. this doesnt work.

When I say "low angle", I'm referring to any that I can see most of her nostrils. (to me, seeing most of the nostril is NOT a good thing) The majority of these are like that, some a lot lower than others.

I also feel like all but the last one are shot from too low. All I see is NOSTRILS!

Maybe if she tilts her head down a touch, then you can't see up her nose, and her eyes will open up a bit more. But that might cause other problems too..I'm not sure.

But I am sure that I feel like I'm sitting on a chair and she is standing over me for most these pictures.