Need extremely rough critic

Hi there,

I would really love it if you could look at my photo before reading on, just take a look and see if anything looks wrong. I normally don't water mark my images but because I'm uploading a much larger file than used I have in this case.

Honestly every time I try to look at the sky all I see is that watermark. That thing makes it hard to concentrate on the rest of the image. Above her head where the sky meets the grass it looks a little odd, but probably wont be noticed as a sky replacement.

gonzogolf wrote in post #11833302
Honestly every time I try to look at the sky all I see is that watermark. That thing makes it hard to concentrate on the rest of the image. Above her head where the sky meets the grass it looks a little odd, but probably wont be noticed as a sky replacement.

I'm sorry about the water mark but the file is the actual print size, roughly 2 pages so it felt like I should stick that ugly thing on it for once and make sure it's big enough to be a large pain to remove.

I agree with the grass bit, the mask is kinda blurry I think which I'll be cleaning up. Thanks for the reply.

move the water mark down. The critical point in whether the sky is believable is where it meets the horizon, so if we could see that then we could make a judgement.

The sky is fine, imo.

Her right arm tone is too different than the rest of her body and overall has, what looks like, a green tinge. The watermark is making it hard to judge. I would, in this case, get rid of the fly away hair on her right side, also.

The whole picture looks a bit too flat and slightly too dark, to me. Her face needs to be a bit brighter.

I agree--the subject is too dark. Fill flash would have been nice, but maybe you can fix this with curves or burning. I suspect the WB is a little off as well because of the color of both arms, one greenish and one bluish. The foreground grass on the right bottom is a bit distracting.

Other than what others have said, IMO the sky looks fine.

Sky is fine, but the fact that the level of the tones on her skirt are the same level/color as the sky really doesn't help.

Comment on strictly the lighting: What appears to be a fog or mist at the horizon near the water, lack of any sunlight highlights on the scene, and the overall flat lighting doesn't seem consistent with the ceiling: clear sky above (bokeh taken into consideration). My imagination leads me to believe the pretty bright blue sky with high thin clouds shown would allow more sun and shadow, so what looks wrong to me is that it should be overcast.

I was pretty much going to write what Seamless has. The light on the subject doesn't mimic what you would expect given the sky. For that reason the image just doesn't feel right.

No need for the watermark IMO. No one is going to steal and use this photo.

I like the sky, it looks fine to me. I also like the washed out tone. One thing that detracts my eye is her left arm appears to be different than her body, and growing out of the sand. Anyway, nice effort.

Just looking from my little laptop, but too cool/bluish to my eye -- the white dress doesn't look quite white, nor to the skin tones look right, at least to me on my laptop.

What happens if you apply a white balance eyedropper/correction to the white dress?

This feels like one of those shots you see in the car forums, a lot, with the subject on a flat surface and the camera turned sideways; but with the skyline in the background being flat. I realize that she may be on a hill, but the collision of lines really throws this image off, to me; like the background was dropped in after the fact and the skyline back there wasn't noticed. Some of the effect I'm getting may be from the watermark being RIGHT on the near shoreline, though, I don't know.

The actual sky, though, looks fine in color, etc.

I also agree that the whole image is a little on the cool side.

You wanted "extremely rough critic" so here goes
1. Your watermark size and placement sucks. Its totally distracting.
2. You should have used some fill flash on the subject to separate her and give the image more POP.
3. The image is underexposed. Her white dress looks gray. Should have opened up a stop.

Otherwise, I like your image. The pose of the model is good, her attention to the lens is nice and overall its a really nice pose and environment, just need to get a bit more technically perfect.

Hope I wasn't too rough!

Thanks for all the replies

tohara wrote in post #11833355
move the water mark down. The critical point in whether the sky is believable is where it meets the horizon, so if we could see that then we could make a judgement.

The horizon is visible?

bohdank wrote in post #11833516
The sky is fine, imo.

Her right arm tone is too different than the rest of her body and overall has, what looks like, a green tinge. The watermark is making it hard to judge. I would, in this case, get rid of the fly away hair on her right side, also.

The whole picture looks a bit too flat and slightly too dark, to me. Her face needs to be a bit brighter.

Her right arm being different tone is fine isn't it? It's on the side of her face that's also darker, that's just the lighting.

WB/contrast/everything else does need some work, I haven't really got that far yet haha. Or even decided if I'll use this photo.

LiberationFrequency wrote in post #11834399
Sky is fine, but the fact that the level of the tones on her skirt are the same level/color as the sky really doesn't help.

Care to elaborate?

Seamless wrote in post #11834622
Comment on strictly the lighting: What appears to be a fog or mist at the horizon near the water, lack of any sunlight highlights on the scene, and the overall flat lighting doesn't seem consistent with the ceiling: clear sky above (bokeh taken into consideration). My imagination leads me to believe the pretty bright blue sky with high thin clouds shown would allow more sun and shadow, so what looks wrong to me is that it should be overcast.

Mmmm I agree to some extent though conditions were blue sky and cloudy, just different types of clouds than the new sky. I thought some of the same things though the conditions actually were kinda similair, the sun was totally behind trees (right before sunset and the sky in hte background was in the opposite direction) so I dunno.

CactusJuice wrote in post #11834827
No need for the watermark IMO. No one is going to steal and use this photo.

I like the sky, it looks fine to me. I also like the washed out tone. One thing that detracts my eye is her left arm appears to be different than her body, and growing out of the sand. Anyway, nice effort.

Okay you can water mark your images as you please and I'll watermark mine as I please, it's already been adressed in the thread lol. Thanks for the reply though.

tonylong wrote in post #11834972
Just looking from my little laptop, but too cool/bluish to my eye -- the white dress doesn't look quite white, nor to the skin tones look right, at least to me on my laptop.

What happens if you apply a white balance eyedropper/correction to the white dress?

You are right, the wb is off. I have just been seeing if I can actually make the selection work so I'll be dealing with that eventually. Thanks. Oh, bad things happen if I sample from the white dress haha.