Corporate in available

WooHoo, Allen!

I thing some people didn't catch the "available" bit, hence the comments about the lack of "catch lights" in the eyes...

Helps to read. I've been guilty of not fully reading before posting .

And if you look there are catch lights. Not like if I had used a 30 X 40 soft box but in these cases very natural looking catch lights for the environment and the quality of light. They match the portraits.

The woman's eyes in the first picture look a painful pinkish red. I think there's a white balance issue because her teeth appear to be the same colour.

I also agree with what the others have said about the eyes appearing soft and dark, with #3's having no sense of depth. They appear flat.

I do get the "corporate portrait" feel from these so you captured that in essence, and while it may seem like we're a tough crowd, we can only judge what we see after compression.

tonylong wrote in post #11437489
I thing some people didn't catch the "available" bit

If the OP didn't find the light workable under those conditions then he could've relocated. I'm sure the suits wouldn't have minded.

Reading the EXIF data from the third picture, the OP was shooting at ISO-1600 in morning light (at 09:29) at 1/125 at f/2.0. ISO-1600? They must've been standing in shade.

IrishK wrote in post #11438320
The woman's eyes in the first picture look a painful pinkish red. I think there's a white balance issue because her teeth appear to be the same colour.

I also agree with what the others have said about the eyes appearing soft and dark, with #3's having no sense of depth. They appear flat.

I do get the "corporate portrait" feel from these so you captured that in essence, and while it may seem like we're a tough crowd, we can only judge what we see after compression.

If the OP didn't find the light workable under those conditions then he could've relocated. I'm sure the suits wouldn't have minded.

Reading the EXIF data from the third picture, the OP was shooting at ISO-1600 in morning light (at 09:29) at 1/125 at f/2.0. ISO-1600? They must've been standing in shade.

This is something I've been doing for this client for a very long time (years). Its indoors and you should be able to tell by the catch lights and the exif info its not outside. These match the others and was in the location that I picked to be what it is. I am happy, the client is happy also you are not seeing the finals. I tend to try and not over do eyes and to me whats really important is the skin tone. The finals in the printed pieces will not be dark or soft.

You're all pussy cats compared art directors, editors and designers I have to deal with and if you can't defend your work you had better give it up now. They are much picker than anyone that posts here but they have a specific feel or look they are looking for most of the time. Many here want everything to look the same. Have you ever read Bressons or Arnold Newmans attitudes about portraiture or seen they're work? Much different than the PPA attitude towards it.