Well technically they are not bad images, but also don't have the "pop" effect. I assume that a women on photos is not a model, just a regular client so I won't comment on that. In terms of compositing I do feel that frames are quite "tight", but in not a "good" way. I mean I would expect to come closer for tight shoots or move away to get more space around. In terms of perspective and lines I favor second photo. In terms of posing the model - I would work a bit with having hands more in the view, they are not bad in general (i saw many worse setups around), but it could be further improved. Finally - I'm unsure about clothing setup, In my subjective opinion it doesn't fit well to the person on the picture, or the surroundings. Her shirt is pretty distracting and takes out interest from the woman. Hopefully this will help you improve, If I something sounds harsh - I'm sorry for that - bare in mind that I have no intent to do that, just some (hopefully) constructive criticism. Keep the good work and happy shooting!
>>. In terms of compositing I do feel that frames are quite "tight", but in not a "good" way. I mean I would expect to come closer for tight shoots or move away to get more space around
Without wanting to sound too critical, this advice strikes me as dangerously subjective because you don't provide a rationale for it. And looking at your port, it's very much the framing you use! Eg compare
Well I haven't say anywhere I do it correct, just stating my though about particular photos. Framing in terms of person occupying space is fine, still I feel those frames are "tight". If I would talk about mine own photos - first one that you've pasted is not "tight" it's simple "flat" - because of a pretty flat background that has no lines that gives dimension. Second one is more or less ok with me as background lines give space and a bit more dimension, still not perfect would say. It's something I personally work a lot recently, yet it's not that trivial.
Oh and I think I didn't explained it well. Maybe it's not the real name of a "framing" in general. I do feel that different focal length would work here better and I think I can't express what I have in mind, and I use term differently than you (not saying that it's bad or good, just something different).
>> I do feel that different focal length would work here better
Thanks for the disambiguation!
I agree that in general a longer fl is easier to shoot, because it reduces perspective problems - sticking to an 85mm equivalent (so eg a Fuji 56mm) is a good choice when starting out. That does cut to why your shots - which are excellent - look better. I think that's excellent advice.
Otoh, as you get more experienced I think it's worth dropping down to a 50mm or 35mm equivalent for full body - partly for the look and partly because doing so forces you to get to grips with perspective more. But even then "look" is very subjective.
Yes exactly this is what I'm doing right now - playing a lot with 35mm on full-frame, this makes me thinking more about surroundings and setting up background more carefully, but I can't say I'm somewhat experienced in this field. Will see in a time did this practicing go well and end up anywhere huh ;)
It sounds like you think a larger or more expensive camera will make a better photo. The trick is to get something special, a reaction or something that make the viewer react. These portraits are, "Dull".
Shot 1 - the object near the subject's head is a problem. Worse, she seems to br slumped forwards, which together with the spine-shortening camera angle makes her look bulky. Always try to maximize height. Also the subject's hair has gone crazy at the upper edge of the frame,
4 - The elbow and near leg seem swollen because of perspective. If you wanted this pose you should have shot from further away with a longer lens. The hand on the thigh looks huge and steals attention from the face because of contrast, Solution with same lens;
- Move the left hand way down the leg so the elbow doesn't protrude ass much
- Hide most of the other hand
..Basic rules
- Make the subject look as tall and narrow as possible
- Concentrate attention on the face, which means keeping hands tidy and not overly visible
- Use perspective to support those objectives
All the shots except 1 make extremely good use of light - you've found those interesting places that mix soft and hard light.
Your work is fine. The exposure and the framing are better than most. My question is: Why do you need the opinion of others.
My first advice is: Pick the best shot and don't show more then 1-2 photos of the same person. And, don't listen to peopl who use the term: "Not Bad", they have a problem with giving compliments to anyone. Avoid these people#s opinions..
The sad fact is:
1. Anyone can be a photographer. The cameras and lenses are so good that it is almost meaningless to take a, "Good", photo.
2. If you go to a major magazine or agency, they will ask to see 3,000 GREAT PHOTOS.
3. It is depressing. Find something to shoot, a theme or people who go to a certain event or members of a club, Etc.Then you are documenting something and it should/could have value in 10-20 years.
4. People usually don't appreciate photos shown to them that were taken on the past year or two.
I have been covering the art scene for over thirty years and only now am I starting to show my photos of: H. Newton,
A. Warhol, R. Rauchenberg, R. Mapplethorpe....
I agree with Geoffrey. As a photography instructor my first statement is always - "it's the person taking the photo, not the camera." Don't be so intense about the technicalities. Your photos need to have feeling, emotion and expression in them and that comes from YOU, the photographer, not a fancy camera. You know your stuff, so just go out and shoot and put your heart in it.
Well technically they are not bad images, but also don't have the "pop" effect. I assume that a women on photos is not a model, just a regular client so I won't comment on that. In terms of compositing I do feel that frames are quite "tight", but in not a "good" way. I mean I would expect to come closer for tight shoots or move away to get more space around. In terms of perspective and lines I favor second photo. In terms of posing the model - I would work a bit with having hands more in the view, they are not bad in general (i saw many worse setups around), but it could be further improved. Finally - I'm unsure about clothing setup, In my subjective opinion it doesn't fit well to the person on the picture, or the surroundings. Her shirt is pretty distracting and takes out interest from the woman. Hopefully this will help you improve, If I something sounds harsh - I'm sorry for that - bare in mind that I have no intent to do that, just some (hopefully) constructive criticism. Keep the good work and happy shooting!
No offense taken. thank for your comments I take no offense in honest critiques. If that is what you feel .I'm asking for an honest opinion to improve
>>. In terms of compositing I do feel that frames are quite "tight", but in not a "good" way. I mean I would expect to come closer for tight shoots or move away to get more space around
Without wanting to sound too critical, this advice strikes me as dangerously subjective because you don't provide a rationale for it. And looking at your port, it's very much the framing you use! Eg compare
https://cdn.fstoppers.com/styles/large/s3/photos/10814/05/30/88e3ccc8099...
https://cdn.fstoppers.com/styles/medium/s3/photos/62552/04/11/966e7c2c07...
and
https://cdn.fstoppers.com/styles/large/s3/photos/10814/05/30/9d890b861fd...
https://cdn.fstoppers.com/styles/medium/s3/photos/62552/07/07/184b9ab283...
...There really is nothing wrong with the framing here.
Well I haven't say anywhere I do it correct, just stating my though about particular photos. Framing in terms of person occupying space is fine, still I feel those frames are "tight". If I would talk about mine own photos - first one that you've pasted is not "tight" it's simple "flat" - because of a pretty flat background that has no lines that gives dimension. Second one is more or less ok with me as background lines give space and a bit more dimension, still not perfect would say. It's something I personally work a lot recently, yet it's not that trivial.
Oh and I think I didn't explained it well. Maybe it's not the real name of a "framing" in general. I do feel that different focal length would work here better and I think I can't express what I have in mind, and I use term differently than you (not saying that it's bad or good, just something different).
>> I do feel that different focal length would work here better
Thanks for the disambiguation!
I agree that in general a longer fl is easier to shoot, because it reduces perspective problems - sticking to an 85mm equivalent (so eg a Fuji 56mm) is a good choice when starting out. That does cut to why your shots - which are excellent - look better. I think that's excellent advice.
Otoh, as you get more experienced I think it's worth dropping down to a 50mm or 35mm equivalent for full body - partly for the look and partly because doing so forces you to get to grips with perspective more. But even then "look" is very subjective.
Yes exactly this is what I'm doing right now - playing a lot with 35mm on full-frame, this makes me thinking more about surroundings and setting up background more carefully, but I can't say I'm somewhat experienced in this field. Will see in a time did this practicing go well and end up anywhere huh ;)
It sounds like you think a larger or more expensive camera will make a better photo. The trick is to get something special, a reaction or something that make the viewer react. These portraits are, "Dull".
.
Shot 1 - the object near the subject's head is a problem. Worse, she seems to br slumped forwards, which together with the spine-shortening camera angle makes her look bulky. Always try to maximize height. Also the subject's hair has gone crazy at the upper edge of the frame,
4 - The elbow and near leg seem swollen because of perspective. If you wanted this pose you should have shot from further away with a longer lens. The hand on the thigh looks huge and steals attention from the face because of contrast, Solution with same lens;
- Move the left hand way down the leg so the elbow doesn't protrude ass much
- Hide most of the other hand
..Basic rules
- Make the subject look as tall and narrow as possible
- Concentrate attention on the face, which means keeping hands tidy and not overly visible
- Use perspective to support those objectives
All the shots except 1 make extremely good use of light - you've found those interesting places that mix soft and hard light.
Your work is fine. The exposure and the framing are better than most. My question is: Why do you need the opinion of others.
My first advice is: Pick the best shot and don't show more then 1-2 photos of the same person. And, don't listen to peopl who use the term: "Not Bad", they have a problem with giving compliments to anyone. Avoid these people#s opinions..
The sad fact is:
1. Anyone can be a photographer. The cameras and lenses are so good that it is almost meaningless to take a, "Good", photo.
2. If you go to a major magazine or agency, they will ask to see 3,000 GREAT PHOTOS.
3. It is depressing. Find something to shoot, a theme or people who go to a certain event or members of a club, Etc.Then you are documenting something and it should/could have value in 10-20 years.
4. People usually don't appreciate photos shown to them that were taken on the past year or two.
I have been covering the art scene for over thirty years and only now am I starting to show my photos of: H. Newton,
A. Warhol, R. Rauchenberg, R. Mapplethorpe....
I agree with Geoffrey. As a photography instructor my first statement is always - "it's the person taking the photo, not the camera." Don't be so intense about the technicalities. Your photos need to have feeling, emotion and expression in them and that comes from YOU, the photographer, not a fancy camera. You know your stuff, so just go out and shoot and put your heart in it.