Abdullaah Aleem's picture

Some recent shot. With teen girls. Please critisize.

D750 50mm 1.8. Natural light

Log in or register to post comments


Remy Dukes's picture

Great shots.

Rex Jones's picture

Great shots here!! Honestly, I think my only nit-pick is with the top image. I find the hat? bag? in the bottom right corner to be distracting. I can't tell if it was meant to be a part of the 'story' of the image or not. Either utilizing it more, or eliminating it altogether would be my recommendation. Cheers! :)

Abdullaah Aleem's picture

Sir. You're just making my day. Honestly. And yea. it was a spontaneous shot. In editing, then i realized the hat and glasses were there. Thanks so much again

Joseph Anthony's picture

I like them all, it is a shame the second one has a line down the left hand side, but come one, they are really good. I agree with Rex, that hat is unfortunate...but that could be removed in post if it bothers you enough. Maybe, the first is a little under exposed? Great job!

Abdullaah Aleem's picture

Thanks so much sir. Appreciate this feedback.

Joshua Barnes's picture

The only thing I see that's wrong with them is the hat and it's not really something that's wrong, just can be a little distracting. Other than that you the ish for these shots :). Everything eelse is just your personal present style so it's nothing to criticize.

Anonymous's picture

Three head & body outdoor portraits of young women in casual clothes, shot under what reads as natural light (with reflectors?). The strong first impression is a lack of pretense. Concurrently there is a sense of craftsmanship in framing and lighting. The poses are calm and natural, the environments (light) warm. The term "subtle" comes to mind.

A viewer lingers on these, this is interesting because these images are not highly unusual. The women are attractive but that is most often the case. Here, the whole is more than the sum of the parts. The short(ish) tone range here (often a mistake) works with the calm expressions, natural poses and low key environmental details (clothes choice & background) and created style. The lack of overt drama means these are effective work for many business purposes. A parent would approve (maybe not prefer the bared torso), a clothing line would approve (absolutely appealing to linger on), and they are flattering personal portraits too.

These are anti-t&A, anti contrivance, anti-phony, anti-bombast images. They could be called common, but that would not be right because they get too many little things just right: light, expression, pose, frame. Three images of a like style suggests it's not luck.

The shooter did not do all the work here, we do have inherent beauty here in the form of great models. But the evidence is that this shooter could do very well by an ordinary (homely or unusual) looking person for a hired portrait or an ad, because of the style avoids common traps like lame pose or odd sense of interaction with the camera, or distracting light. Seeing a few images rather than just one helps a critic give credit that might have to be withheld otherwise so thanks.


P.S. To review visual work, it is proper to describe what is there, then consider what it means in the real world. Declarations of liking or greatness are compliments that are nice, but compliments are not aesthetic criticism.