The wife part 2

Second photoshoot in the house. Tell me what you think.

Part 1 is simply better.

Pic. 1. Overblown outside with distracting stuff doesn't work for me.
Pic. 2. I'm not really sure what to look for. Neither does the she.
Pic. 3. Overblown outside with distracting stuff and too much her facial features are covered.

Her "messy" hair distracts me.

Hope this helps....please take this positively.

I was kind of going for this kind of look as far as the blown out highlights in the window. Not sure if I did it right though. Messy hair kind of disappoints me because an hour before I took these I paid $150 for a haircut, color, and style lol thank you though for the cc.

Varneeezy wrote in post #17443269
I was kind of going for this kind of look as far as the blown out highlights in the window. Not sure if I did it right though. Messy hair kind of disappoints me because an hour before I took these I paid $150 for a haircut, color, and style lol thank you though for the cc.

Hosted photo: posted by Varneeezy in
./showthread.php?p=174​43269&i=i149046473
forum: Critique Corner

Based on the example you posted (which I'm sure someone will remind you that you are only allowed to link to images that are not your own), I think you could have come closer to achieving your result if you totally blew out the highlights in the windows.

I got a good laugh about paying $150 for messy hair lol. Personally, I think the hair looks good. I think the t-shirt is no good...the logo and baggy style don't work for me. The patterned pants are also somewhat distracting. Maybe a fitted solid color t-shirt with pants or a long, baggy t-shirt that goes to the top 1/3rd of her thigh...assuming she would be wearing underwear and not pants.

I did not know that about posting pictures that aren't mine. Now I know, thank you. And as far as the pants, she took the pants off later on in the "shoot" lol I probably should have posted those ones. I was going for a more casual look by having her wear one of my shirts.

Are these better with the highlights blown out?

I also brought up the highlights on this pic. I think it looks better and brightens up the image.

Varneeezy wrote in post #17444804
Are these better with the highlights blown out?

Hosted photo: posted by Varneeezy in
./showthread.php?p=174​44804&i=i22966898
forum: Critique Corner

Hosted photo: posted by Varneeezy in
./showthread.php?p=174​44804&i=i70469255
forum: Critique Corner

I think you really have to blow the highlights COMPLETELY to make it work. I can still see a pick-up truck and a child's toy in the background, but besides that, I still think they need to be completely gone to achieve the look you referenced.

I took a quick stab at it. I converted to black and white because I think the white balance is off a bit, and not having the RAW file, I was getting some funky colors when pushing the exposure. I also cropped because I think it does look somewhat strange how she is looking into a huge, blank, open space. Also toned down the pants to be less distracting.

I agree with what's been stated by others so far. IMHO though, what stands out to me the most (and ruins the pictures for me) is the fact that she just doesn't seem very into the shoot. Her face says "I'm doing this but I'd rather be doing something else." Viewers want to get a connection with the model, but we can't do that if the model has no connection to the camera.

mannetti21 wrote in post #17444933
I think you really have to blow the highlights COMPLETELY to make it work. I can still see a pick-up truck and a child's toy in the background, but besides that, I still think they need to be completely gone to achieve the look you referenced.

I took a quick stab at it. I converted to black and white because I think the white balance is off a bit, and not having the RAW file, I was getting some funky colors when pushing the exposure. I also cropped because I think it does look somewhat strange how she is looking into a huge, blank, open space.


[ HOSTED PHOTO DISPLAY FAILED: ATTACH id 714381 does not exist. ]

Boy that looks a lot better. Is the look im trying to acheive a good look? Or am I trying to do something that could lead into a bad habit? Do you know what I mean? It's hard to explain but it sounds good in my head. Lol

Jarvis Creative Studios wrote in post #17444940
I agree with what's been stated by others so far. IMHO though, what stands out to me the most (and ruins the pictures for me) is the fact that she just doesn't seem very into the shoot. Her face says "I'm doing this but I'd rather be doing something else." Viewers want to get a connection with the model, but we can't do that if the model has no connection to the camera.

That's a good observation. My wife despises posing for portraits, whether it be for a legitimate photo or my own personal practice session.

Varneeezy wrote in post #17444947
Boy that looks a lot better. Is the look im trying to acheive a good look? Or am I trying to do something that could lead into a bad habit? Do you know what I mean? It's hard to explain but it sounds good in my head. Lol

I wouldn't say its a good or bad look, it's just a look. I have a friend that is big on the bright/washed-out type portraits. It's his style and he chooses to create that type of shot rather than doing it out of habit. Regardless of personal style, its nice to be comfortable using the style when you are forced into it by an excessively bright background.

She was into it. She actually was more enthusiastic about it than me. I'm not sure but I think maybe she was trying to do a "sexy" expression? Lol

And one more with clipped black levels and object removed from background wall.

I actually really like this one

Portraits take time to learn. Model portraits take even longer, and is yet to be a skill I have mastered (not my style of photography). I would study Matt Granger's videos. He is very knowledgeable on these type of portraits and you could probably learn a lot.