Danielle - Senior Photos

Probably my most favorite from our shoot.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …ackschroeder/10​987258006/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …ackschroeder/10​989063015/

looks like a reg snap shot from a point & shot

^^^Well that was helpful^^^

12Rock wrote in post #16470679
looks like a reg snap shot from a point & shot

Well damn what kind of point and shoot are you using

hmmm...I kind of understand the "snap shot" reference only because it seems like the PP is very little or non existent; however, I still think it's a good shot.

You've posed her with curves which is good, the lighting is not harsh, but not spectacular. If I was you, I would of moved her away from the bush about 10 feet to create much better bokeh.

Sorry to both of you guys that were not happy with the input . I just left my opinion nothing more as there were no directions left soooooo

I went back and looked at the threads started by 12rock that had pictures in them, and now know why he can say they look like snapshots. Seems he has some experience with that style.

As for the picks of Danielle, while I'm not a portrait shooter by any means, I would suggest moving her away from the foliage and get it more blurred. The detail in the foliage competes with the pic of the young lady. I would also have her tilt her head toward the higher shoulder (the one closest to the camera) for a more feminine look rather than the lower shoulder.

The 'snap' comment is right on, but not particularly helpful, so I'll elaborate:

1. There is no separation between the subject and the detailed and distracting background. You could have had the subject step further away from the background. That would have blurred the background and improved the shots.

2. The shadows on the subject are distracting: the darkness around the eyes and mouth is not flattering. It looks like this was shot with just ambient light on an overcast day (which is normally pretty good) but you need fill.

3. A flash (or better yet, lights) would have given you that fill and a better eye (the catch-light in the eye is almost non-existent).

4. The poses and expressions appear pretty good.

5. The angle is odd -- you are looking down on her.

6. Between the waxy leaves of the bush, the shiny jacket and the gooey hair (which I'm sure you had no control of) it looks like she is standing in the rain. Probably not the look you were going for.

7. In general, I think there is too much contrast, maybe too much saturation too. I'd fool around with the setting a bit (I hope you shot raw).

8. I noticed you used the 35mm and 50mm lenses -- normally those (especially the 35) are considered too short for portrait work especially when using full frame. This is somewhat a matter of opinion, but I think you would have gotten better results, including a shallower DOF, using your 70-200 somewhere between 85 and 135 -- even though you would not have been able to use and aperture greater than f/2.8. You don't appear to be lacking the means to acquire resources, if you plan to do portrait work, you should consider an 85L or the 135L -- but the 70-200 will certainly do the job.

When you ask for help around here, you need to have a think skin. Not all comments that are unhelpful or seem mean spirited are wrong. And not all comments that make you feel good about your work are right or helpful. When you get a remark like 12Rock's, either try to read into it, or dismiss it -- don't take it personally. There is a lot of good feedback here, there is also unhelpful and incorrect feedback: you need to take the good with the bad and chose what is useful to help you improve.

[edit] For what it's worth, I just looked at the first one on flickr at 1600 cropped just below the breast -- the shadows don't look as pronounced and (with that crop) the angle does not appear as odd. It looks better at higher resolution. You should consider what size the final will be: Does she go to a school where she gets a full page, or just a little wallet size in the yearbook?

I will try to be helpful...

I would like a little more distance from the background too but what grabs my attention the most when looking at these is the difference in the color. I try to keep a consistent style overall but at the very least, I make sure all my photos from the same shoot are balanced to have the same overall "look & feel". Sure you can mix B&W or sepia in the same set with color but I just can't help but feel you intended for these to be the same and it didn't work out that way.
Maybe your white balance was not synced for the entire set or you tweaked the color one way or another but whatever look you were going for it looks like you forgot to do it to the other one.

I am not enough of an expert to criticize the color in either one on its own but I just think a client would look at these and think one is "wrong" when looking at them as a set.

Photo , You can also look at my other post and see I'm not one to get in a pissing match to often . I do believe like hairy that everyone is entitled to and opinion . . I left mine and pretty simple . You also see I have not posted any Senior photos , not that I have not done a few ( I have ). The reason I have not posted is I see where improvement is needed . I do not have the skill needed for tis type of photo YET! so I'm not going to pretend and leave some nonsense, but I do have an eye to see there is room for improvement . Leaving the comment that I did, I felt the original poster would give a hard look at the shot. I certainly did not mean any harm but stand by my comment , again sorry if they are offended . On this note feel free to bash , I'm out ,.

I played around with the first one a bit, incorporating suggestions from the others here. But you don't have Image Editing Ok showing. If you want, I can post my edit for discussion purposes. If you'd rather I didn't, that's cool too. I'll just dump it.

Question: what is up with this obsession in even environmental portraiture to bokeh the hell out of the background ? A lot of the critique I see in this thread and in others in the 'people' section seems to always be aimed at creating a photo in which the subject seems pasted on some oddly blurry background. Has extreme bokeh become some kind of criterion for quality in portraiture ?

Note: this is not critique about the photos so much as it is critique of the critique.

What lens, and what focal length did you use? It seems like you have some perspective distortion like you would get using a wider lens working from a closer distance.

Christopher Steven b wrote in post #16472376
Question: what is up with this obsession in even environmental portraiture to bokeh the hell out of the background ? A lot of the critique I see in this thread and in others in the 'people' section seems to always be aimed at creating a photo in which the subject seems pasted on some oddly blurry background. Has extreme bokeh become some kind of criterion for quality in portraiture ?

Note: this is not critique about the photos so much as it is critique of the critique.

My thoughts are not that it has to be a completely blurred background, but that more separation would help focus the attention on the subject rather than have her look like she is in the middle of the holly bush.

Something like this perhaps:

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

PhotoGeek wrote in post #16472397
Something like this perhaps:

+1 -- Much better. The background in the OP's post is just too distracting. Funny, looking at some of his other work on his flickr page, in my opinion, this is far far from his best work. (I'm guessing this model is someone special )

BTW, he was using a 35mm and 50 f/1.4 prime (I forget which was which). One was wide open, the other was not (but sill open more than f/2.8).

Even wide open, the 35 is not going to provide a lot of separation with distances that he is shooting (i.e., focus distance and subject to background distance) but you can see that some of the brush, further in the background, is nicely blurred. If he had just had her step forward about 4 or 5 feet, the shot would have been much better right off the bat.

(edit: corrected the 50mm lens)