I'd like to post photos from a photoshoot I did yesterday. Critiques are very welcome.
I realized I spelled 'Yesterday' as "Yeesterday" I'm off to a great start...
2/11
A majority of these shots were shot using an off-camera flash with a shoot through white umbrella, but there a couple that aren't like 2 & 3.
4/11
5/11
The next three shots used natural lighting during 'golden hour'
6/11
7/11
>>2867920
Nah I'm not a faggot. It's just how I shot it. How would you compose that shot of her next to a lamp post?
Back to using an off-camera flash for the rest of the shots.
9/11
10/11
That's it... I've got another shoot lined up for tomorrow that I'll post in this thread.
11/11
>>2867927
Thank you for your critiques. It was kinda hard avoiding her looking 'fat' while wearing a baggy sweater. She said she regretted wearing after we started shooting. The next time I do a photoshoot with her she'll wear better fitting clothing.
I tried working on not cutting off my model's feet or hands as best as possible, it did happen a few times, but I don't think that always makes the photo bad.
>this one get her to far from the subject, she's just a detail in the picture, even with her in the center of it
I was trying something different from my normal shooting style, didn't really turn out that well.
>>2867923
That is an incredibly unflattering top. Makes it look like she's built like a fucking linebacker and has not tits.
direct sunlight, no idea how to pose subjects, vsco
checks out
>>2867974
Posing is my biggest issue, I've got no idea what I am doing in regards to that. Any suggestions?
And yes I did use a VSCO preset, good eye, but I altered it a bit to my liking. I'm not a fan of how my typical editing of photos looks when it comes to portrait work. So I took the "lazy" way out.
>>2867970
Yes that was noted, she's not going to wear a large sweater for our next shoot.
>>2868002
read a few books on posing, watch a dozen creative live videos, and then shoot another 20 models. I can't break down 10 years of experience for you in a 4chan post.
>>2867923
But I can critique some shit for you.
Take this one.
She's straight on, making her as wide as possible.
You crossed the legs, but the foot is turned at a weird angle making it look unnatural and uncomfortable.
The hands don't have any separation from the body, which would define her waist, instead they're behind her on a post, farther away from the camera, making them appear as if she has tiny donald trump t-rex arms.
The lighting is flat. You're shooting from below. The Private Property sign is distracting, because text is distracting. Her shirt is the brightest object in the scene, making her look even fatter and drawing away attention from her face. And the brick/grunge model scene is played out, but that's just my opinion.
>>2868055
>watch a dozen creative live videos
Not him but could you recommend me a video or channel on youtube?
>>2868079
I just googled it - thought it was not what you meant with the Richard Branson video but looks like it is the right thing.
Sorry for my engrish in advance.
Fist of all she is unemotional and jammed as hell though quite cute.
This >>2867915 smile looks a little bit uncanny and artificial by my opinion but at least it is a smile.
>>2867921
Framing is too thick and girl is too far. Couple of steps away and lens with longer focal lens will do the trick.
>>2867919
You should light the shadow on her face to avoid the long nose shadow.
All photos are quite nice and you did a good job, i like the color/light but you need to work more with model and both of you should know what you want to get.
>>2868002
There are heaps of resources available, however this has personally helped me a lot in terms of understanding how to improve my direction to achieve more flattering results
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmi9TPQ57Mo
>>2867910
I'll go ahead and get it out of the way, since other anons have said it: That sweater isn't doing her any favors. She's not a svelte girl (which is fine), but now she just looks frumpy. Also, her pose looks sad and bored. She's just slouching there. Needs to bring her head forward a bit, sit up straight, straighten shoulders, do something with her sad hands, and figure out an emotion other than "bored and bitchy."
>>2867911
She just looks angry. She doesn't have that edgy fashion model stare I think you were going for. She just looks annoyed at you. Also, that light sucks balls. It's way too fucking harsh.
>>2867914
Slouching, bored, pissed.
>>2867915
>leaning against lamp post with arms folded
This is High School Graduation Shoot 101. It's not really bad, per se, but it's cheesy as hell. At least she's conveying an emotion in this one. Also, it's a minor thing, but when you've got a girl who is a little thicker, and she's got super tight jeans on, you probably don't want the button/zipper area showing, because it looks like she's about to burst out. It's not very flattering, (but, then again, none of her wardrobe is).
>>2867917
>i don't know what to do with my hands
You need to spend some time looking at models and posing and trying to figure that shit out. Also, she's back to angry face.
>>2867919
I actually don't hate this one. It needed some work, but it had potential. If you had a reflector over to the left of the frame (her right), it really would've helped to fill out that crazy nose shadow. Also, I'm not crazy about her expression, but I'll admit that she's actually doing something other than anger/boredom, so I'll give her credit. Perhaps she's just an unhappy person.
>>2867921
The meta framing thing is just cheesy as hell. Also, she's way too small in this shot. Also, the B&W does fucking nothing.
>>2867922
Boredom: The Photograph.
>>2867923
Shooting from the ground up isn't usually flattering. Doing that with a bigger girl makes it worse. I know I've said it before, but it bears repeating: That fucking top, man. Get rid of that shit. Also, her pose in this shot, with her arms out to her side, head on, leaning back, just makes her look fat. She isn't fat, but this shot makes her look that way.
>>2867924
deer_in_the_headlights.jpg
Honestly, why did you think this was good. She looks surprised and scared. Also, she's leaning forward in a weird, unflattering way.
>>2867925
On your next shoot, get the fuck away from brick walls. It's a crutch. You don't know what to do, so you're just throwing her up against shit and having her lean on things. That's why she looks so damn frumpy and sad in all the pics.
All in all, you've got tremendous room to grow. You've got some basics down, but you really need to figure out how to pose a girl and how to direct a shoot before you do this again. Looking back through these, she's either (a) sitting down, or (b) leaning against something. Just stop that shit. It's hampering everything you do. Also, as the photographer, you've got to step up and say if somebody's wearing a fucking potato sack to their shoot. I don't care if you hurt her feelings. Your job is to get good photos.
Keep it up, bro.
>>2868177
She instantly regretted wearing that oversize sweater, and she didn't have anything else to change into. Next time I will tell her to wear some more fitting clothing. We talked about doing another shoot together.
>On your next shoot, get the fuck away from brick walls. It's a crutch.
Noted. I will try avoiding propping my model against something, not entirely though.
>>2868175
>She just looks angry. She doesn't have that edgy fashion model stare I think you were going for.
I like the look of the "resting bitch face" I think having my models smile, depending on my model of course, makes the photos seem cheesy. I do have photos of her smiling, and will post one.
>I actually don't hate this one. It needed some work, but it had potential. If you had a reflector over to the left of the frame
My photo assistant couldn't make it to this shoot, so I was able to use my reflector light I normally would when shooting in just natural lighting. Would've helped that shot a lot, but I also like the contrast. I made her have the "resting bitch face" look, not her fault, entirely mine.
>The meta framing thing is just cheesy as hell.
Wasn't an actual planned shot, spur of the moment type thing when I was getting ready for another shot, definitely didn't turn out as cool as I would of hoped. B&W helped because the highlights were blown out so badly, looks much better than the color version.
>>2868087
>smile looks a little bit uncanny and artificial
That was an actual laugh I captured, not artificial at all.
>need to work more with model and both of you should know what you want to get.
Thank you. This was the first time I had worked with her/even talked to her in person. I have another model I've worked with on four shoots, and now she knows exactly what I am looking for, and it more comfortable in front of the camera.
>>2868619
>I like the look of the "resting bitch face"
I'm not trying to be a dick, dude, but you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. "Resting bitch face" isn't a good thing, in any situation, unless you're trying to convey pictures of a total bitch. "Resting bitch face" isn't the same thing as that blank, hard, high fashion model stare. Honestly, it's just a lack of experience on your part. You need to spend more time studying posing and facial expressions. Study great fashion photographers, I mean really fucking study them.
> I think having my models smile, depending on my model of course, makes the photos seem cheesy.
You're creating a false dichotomy. Nobody has said you have to have her smile. You don't want smiles? Fine. Don't have her smile, but the opposite of smiling isn't making her look like a total angry cunt.
>>2868619
>B&W helped because the highlights were blown out so badly, looks much better than the color version.
If you need B&W to cover up a problem with the photo, then it's not worth saving. B&W isn't a quick fix for broken photos. It's an artistic decision for already good photos.
>>2868631
Can the model in the photo I posted with this post pull off that mean model face? I personally feel like she can, what do you think anon?
>>2868643
I need to study up with videos and literature before my next shoot, which is in the next few days. I've only done like 8 photoshoots so far, so I don't think I'm doing too bad for a newbie. I love the harsh criticism I get from /p/ because too many people tell me my photos are "amazing" outside of here. I follow an upcoming fashion photographer on IG (https://www.instagram.com/jesseherzog/) and I REALLY like his style, obviously I need to be more diverse than just a couple of "amateur fashion photographers" on my IG feed. Any photographers that you would suggest for me to look at?
>>2868644
This is true for most cases, but they're situations where you can apply it to help save a photo, mostly in the realm of concert photography when the lighting is EXTREMELY harsh. I didn't want to mark these photos as "not keepers" because I wanted the model to receive at least one photo from all the locations that we shot at for that day.
>>2868651
>I personally feel like she can, what do you think anon?
I feel like you don't understand the difference between a model face and an angry face.
The model face says
>y r u making eye contact with me peasant
This photo says
>you promised you would take me to shoe shopping and Wendy's, Carlo! i'm going to tear strips off you in mixto-gutter-spanglish when we get back to the duplex
>>2868709
I don't then. I don't spend a lot of time looking at fashion photography. I thought that image captured "that look" Oh well, more practice can't hurt. Any suggestions on established photographers who have accurately captured "that model look" that I could check out?
>you promised you would take me to shoe shopping and Wendy's, Carlo! i'm going to tear strips off you in mixto-gutter-spanglish when we get back to the duplex
Lol I thought that was funny, she does look like she is pissed at me. By the way I'm not carlo.
I'm doing another photoshoot with this girl sometime this week. I will take in all the suggestions and critiques from this thread.
big face model with shitty direction
big face looks like bigger face
>>2868742
True dat homeslice.
>>2868757
Couldn't avoid blocking her legs with that railing with how I HAD to shoot those shots.
How can a background be dull and distracting at the same time? That doesn't make sense. I do a series of different style of shots throughout my photoshoots, sometimes they're very tight, other shots show more the scene around the model.
I typically like the middle ground like I achieved in this photo posted with this post.
>>2868773
>Couldn't avoid blocking her legs with that railing with how I HAD to shoot those shots.
On the first one, if she were on the bench that's further away and you a bit higher, that would have helped. Still, you picked a shitty location and there's no workaround to it. A smarter choice would have been to place yourself on the inside of the building (behind where she's sitting/standing) and shoot from there.
>How can a background be dull and distracting at the same time?
It's got enough detail/texture/clarity that it bothers the eye yet there's nothing worth looking at/helps in no way the composition.
>>2868773
This one's better but you cut her fucking feet and there's no good reason on the framing to justify it.
Any reason she's picking the self-help book? The action and pose/gesture don't match.
A sluttier face or subtly raised eyebrow would have made much funnier picture.
Try cropping the left side of the picture up to where the bookstand starts, it'll get rid of the sense of open space (to which the amount of white on the picture give a hint of sterility) and give you a more intimate look.
Also, I'd give it a warmer tone, fluorescent light makes everything look duller.
>>2868773
free advice: stop getting so defensive.
I did a shoot with a model and lets just say the session kind of sucked. Out of 400 photos, there were 3 I felt like showing to people.
That's not to say there were only 3 good photos, but rather 3 photos I thought had minimal flaws.
Learn what makes a photograph shit, and then make sure your photos aren't shit. Don't make excuses - you should be culling that shit before you even think about uploading it to the internet.
>>2868793
Indeed.
He could also crop just above the knee and below where that ugly dark line I assume is the roof or a hanging light to somewhat salvage the picture.
>>2868778
>It's got enough detail/texture/clarity that it bothers the eye yet there's nothing worth looking at/helps in no way the composition.
Okay that makes sense to me.
>This one's better but you cut her fucking feet and there's no good reason on the framing to justify it.
I fucked up and wasn't thinking about that sort of thing, this was a previous shoot. I tried working on that was my latest shoot, the 11 photos I posted above, and most of those I got the whole model in the shot when it seemed appropriate to do so.
>Also, I'd give it a warmer tone, fluorescent light makes everything look duller.
The WB was very wonky with this image thanks to the fluorescent lighting. I originally had it a tad bit warmer, but that seemed to look worse to me, but that's my opinion.
>>2868789
>free advice: stop getting so defensive.
I wouldn't say I'm getting that defensive, I'm stating my point of view. I'm sure you've seen how other people react on /p/ when their work gets shit on. I'm reply back to most people with a level headed approach that gave me a level headed critique.
>Learn what makes a photograph shit, and then make sure your photos aren't shit.
I only put what I think are the best photos from each shoot on my portfolio, it's usually only like 5 photos from 45 "keepers", and most of those "keepers" are the same location, just slightly different pose or expression, that's why it adds up so much because I want to give variety to the model.
Pic Related: This from an older shoot I did, once again with the model posted above.
>>2868709
>you promised you would take me to shoe shopping and Wendy's,
Got an actual kek out of me.
I'm sorry, OP, but that's the best description possible for that face. That hits the nail squarely on the head.
>>2868773
I actually think this is the strongest photo in the thread so far. I've been highly critical of most of this stuff, but I think a shot like this is much more on track. The lighting on her is good. (I disagree with the other anon who said the light is dull. I think it fits here.) She's fairly well positioned in the frame. You haven't done any cheesy editing. Most importantly, though, she's making a reasonable face. She's not smiling, but she doesn't look angry. She looks mischievous, which works for the library setting. Also, she's actually doing something. She's not just leaning against a brick wall or a telephone pole.
I agree with the other anon that where you cut off her fee is awkward. I'm not one to bitch and moan about cutting off body parts, because it can be done well. But here, you've got that little sliver of shoe sticking up, so it just looks like a sloppy crop. Also, the choice of book looks cheesy. It doesn't fit with her expression. Why that book? But that's a content choice, not really a technical thing.
>>2868716
This is another decent facial expression. It's ... sultry, I guess. Not great, but much better than angry chick yesterday. I agree that cutting off the legs with the railing is wonky here If this was just more of an upper body portrait, starting at the waist, it would work better. Colors and light are nice, though. Much better than the previous shoot.
You've got something to work with here. Keep at it.
>>2868819
Oh, and this is just unflattering. It looks like a cheesy high school graduation portrait.
>leaning against tree
check
>arms folded awkwardly
check
>shitty mid-day light
check
>heavy handed editing
check
>"i just farted" facial expression
check
OP, you've got a thing for slightly-thicker-than-a-normal-model girls. That's not bad at all. Personally, I think this body type is fucking perfect. However, you've got to be mindful of that sort of thing when you're shooting.
Take this shot:
>>2867923
You turned her into a box. Frumpy shirt. Middle of frame. Squared out shoulders. Arms adding weight to center of frame. She probably has great curves, but none of those are accentuated here.
Same here:
>>2868819
Softer face with pudgy cheeks. She's definitely cute in my book, but when you have big hair on top of that, with her leaning up against a giant dark tree that she blends into, it just adds all sorts of weight to the shot. Also, look at how her head is positioned. It's just a blob sitting on her neck. She looks strained to be looking over her shoulder. It's very unnatural and unflattering.
Now take this:
>>2868716
She's more isolated in the frame. Her arms and shoulders are positioned in such a way that they don't dominate her torso. Her neck is turned and elongated. Compare that to the way the girl in the previous photo's neck is turned. Same position, but wildly different results.
>>2867962
That model is getting portly though, no matter how you cut it.
>>2868934
Yeah, but that just means OP has to be mindful about how he shoots her.
me again OP,
just a editing question, what did you do to get this color tones? LR or another software? I want to start shooting models, and I'm quite lost.
this is what I get from my first try, tho
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D600 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 (Windows) Photographer E. Chiereguini Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.7 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 858 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 50 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:04:07 12:40:24 Exposure Time 1/160 sec F-Number f/7.1 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/7.1 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 50.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2868963
Here's an idea: Try and use your words to actually describe what it is you like and what you want to emulate. "These color tones" is just useless. It means nothing.
Point out a specific picture, describe what it is you like about it.
>>2868963
okay if you're completely lost check out adobe color wheel to help you figure out the palette you want
Get as close to these values as you can when you're constructing your shoot and then the hex values are for if you're completely off in post
>>2868963
>what did you do to get this color tones?
He shot his models in really harsh, shitty midday light. That's why the colors look so harsh and shitty. You want to copy his shitty style? Add a metric fuck ton of unnecessary contrast. Raise your black point a bit so it looks like you tried to recover fucked up shadows. Then split tone that mother fucker! Add some creamy colors to the highlights! And, if you really want to get that classic OP look, you need to fuck up her skin tones a bit. Take those hue and saturation sliders and push everything towards magenta. I mean really rape those fucking sliders.
And then you'll have instant art!
>>2868973
Isn't the internet great? There's no place where more people can get together and put up long paragraphs spouting completely incorrect biased shitty opinion and use it to try to disparage people!
Might I ask where you live where "midday light" comes in at this angle?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand
>>2868977
>ah haI i got you! it wasn't shitty mid day light!
>it was shitty afternoon light!
>checkmate motherfucker!
It's shitty light. It causes shitty colors. It causes shitty shadows. It causes shitty contrast.
>Might I ask where you live where "midday light" comes in at this angle?
Do you have any fucking clue how latitude works? The higher or lower you go, the greater the angle of the sun, even at midday. The angle of the shadows in this shot tell you precisely fuck all about the time of day. We can tell from the setting that this probably isn't a tropical climate, so what does that leave us with? Some time between morning and evening. I'd guess he took these at like 5:30 in the afternoon.
>>2868975
>did he up some shadows in the curve? this warm toning is only by an warm wb? is this image flat with more vibrance?
Have you tried those things? If so, what result did they give you?
>>2868980
So you have no idea then. Okay, nice.
Direct evening sunlight (Which this absolutely fucking is) can (and usually does) look excellent for portraits. If you don't like his processing, that's one thing, but you sound like someone who has literally no experience, or who tried it once, and did it badly, and blamed the light, rather than you own lack of understanding.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model ILCE-6000 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh) Photographer Gervin Puse Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 90 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 3520 Image Height 5280 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2015:02:05 13:15:20 Exposure Time 1/4000 sec F-Number f/4.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/4.0 Brightness 10.2 EV Exposure Bias -0.3 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 60.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 667 Image Height 1000 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Soft Saturation Low Sharpness Normal
>>2868982
>posting a highly stylized gervin shot
>to show justify OP's shitty decisions and shitty results
>in order to help an anon who has no clue what he's doing
Yeah, you're right. In the hands of Gervin, direct evening light can produce striking results. But how the fuck does that help this anon? >>2868963
Do you honestly think he's going to get good shots by going out at that time of day and shooting? There are excellent photographers who can produce excellent results in any condition.
>>2868982
His stuff really started suffering when he got drunk with Photoshop power. That overly-brozed, high contrast stuff just looks like dated perfume advertisements from a 2009 fashion mag.
>>2868993
The light looks great, almost always. All it requires is the correct posing, and the correct processing.
>But how the fuck does that help this anon?
Because he's asking for help to make his photos look good. So answering the question with honesty and with information about technique and processing would help him. Telling him "Evening light sucks" is straight up wrong, and does nobody any good.
Most modeling shoots that use direct light use either evening/morning light, or strobes set up to mimic it. It looks fucking excellent. Don't give out bad information because you don't feel like (or more likely, are unable to) take the time to explain the concept.
>>2868998
Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it bad. His work is supremely marketable right now, and it's marketable because many people love it.
>>2869002
>Because he's asking for help to make his photos look good.
No, he's asking for help to make his photos look like OP's photos.
>>2869003
Which he thinks look good. Therefore, through the transitive property... How fucking jaded are you that you're both 100% incorrect, and 100% against the concept of helping someone achieve their goals? You realize that your sense of taste has absolutely no bearing on the opinions and tastes of others, right?
>>2868963
He's got a much warmer color palette going, both in processing, and more importantly, in his scene. He's got light coming from one direction only, whereas you have light coming in from everywhere, which really changes how your shadows and tones are going to fall.
Start by brightening up your model's face and chest quite a bit, but in the case of this photo in particular, you won't get too far, because there's no directionality to the light on her front, which means you won't get gradients for shape or color. Warm up your scene, and bring the saturation back in. His shots are all quite saturated, and your seems muted, from what looks like maybe a vsco preset.
>>2869005
Telling anon to shoot in harsh, direct evening sunlight because great photographers are able to do it is absolutely fucking useless. You're raging because you don't like what I've said to him? Then why not explain to him what he needs to do to achieve OP's look? Or what he needs to do to achieve Gervin's look?
Oh, right. Because you don't actually give a shit about teaching him, and because you don't actually have any fucking clue what you're talking about. You just want to get on a moral high horse and white night some poor shitty photographer.
Prove me wrong with your wisdom. Let's see your step by step guide to achieving OP's "color tones."
>>2868977
Obsessed by midday light, this one. lol probably thinking you have to do portraits at a certain hour with a model that has a certain ratio hotness/professionality and in a place where NOBODY ever comes.
>>2869072
Sorry, those goalposts flew by so fast they blew papers off my desk. What were we talking about again?
>>2869075
Now, now. Don't let logic get in the way of anything. He's trying separately to keep that argument alive, so let him have his fun.
>>2868982
This is great advice. Y'all should be shooting in direct evening light. It pretty much guarantees you great shots like this.
>>2868982
Do you see those shadows nearly under her, what time do you think it is?
>>2869155
>Do you see those shadows nearly under her
No, I don't. I see some shadows thrown out way behind her. Maybe those are the ones you're thinking of? Keep in mind it's a 90mm equivalent lens, taken from about her head-height, and that the rocks are coming up behind her as well. She's got her chin pointing down, and yet there's still light hitting her eye directly.
It's not 9pm light, but it's also certainly not 1pm light.
>>2869158
Sometimes you know you're arguing with a retard so you just kinda have to resort to the facts by calling the retard a retard, and you are a retart
>>2868981
I didn't tried nothing at all about this, yet. I liked his tone, and I would appreciate to get somehow close
>>2869199
You're asking to be spoon fed.
Try to figure something out for yourself. That's how you learn. The fact that you asked the question in the way you did tells me that you don't even really understand the basics of what you're doing. That's fine. There's no shame in that. Everybody starts somewhere. But you just admitted that you haven't even tried anything yet. I'd suggest you try some of your own suggestions. See what they do. You'll learn something, and it'll get you closer to being able to figure it out on your own.
>>2869224
>ask technical advice
>gets moralfagged by a preachy cunt
help the guy or shut the fuck up.
>>2869242
I am. I've offered him solid advice on how to get better.
I come back from work to see my post has double the number of replies only to find out a bunch of people bitching about sunlight, I found it funny.
Like all art, photography is subjective. What I find pleasing to the eye and "good", others see as utter shit. Thank you for all who have replied critiquing my portraiture work, I've taken that all in and will use it where I see fit on my next shoot.
>>2868909
>It looks like a cheesy high school graduation portrait.
That's why I am practicing so I can bust out cheesy senior portraits easily and make a little money on the side.
>>2868963
>>2869199
>just a editing question, what did you do to get this color tones?
I use Adobe Lightroom for all my photo editing. (inb4 somebody bitches about me using VSCO) To get the tones I have in >>2867910 I used a VSCO preset "Kodak Portra 160 VC" then went through and changed the preset to how I preferred it. It's not just a straight preset, there's a bunch more edits done to that photo to make it look like how it is. There's two gradient filters coming from either side to help lower the exposure by half a stop or so to compensate for my overpowered off-camera flash setup. Among other things...
>>2868973
>>2868980
>>2868977
>>2869072
>>2869158
It was shot 25 minutes before sunset, regrettable so. I could've gotten such a better shot if I had my photo assistant there to hold a bounce/reflector off camera, but she wasn't there :/ I didn't like how those photos turned out because it was a pain in the ass to make them look somewhat decent.
>>2869263
wrongwrongwrongwrong
for fuck sakes
>Like all art, photography is subjective
okay but there are standards you have to adhere too who going art to make the majority of people think it is good
if you don't care about those standards or don't want the majority of people to think it is good then don't post them publicly , keep it to yourself and enjoy what you have created by alone
and stop cutting off the feet, why do you do this?please don't, it is one of those standards people we talked about
>>2869306
whoops erased part of that
>you have to adhere to, if you are going to make art that the majority of people think is good.
>Like all art, photography is subjective. What I find pleasing to the eye and "good", others see as utter shit.
No, there are valid fucking reasons beyond "well that's just my opinion."
Posing, for one, is not done "to taste". There is a right and a wrong way to pose. Most of yours do it the wrong way.
Cropping. There are right and wrong ways to crop. When you crop a joint, you're doing it the wrong way.
Lighting. There are well-established patterns of how light falls on the face that you're completely ignoring in favor of flat boring lighting. Additionally, there is a "character" of light that is defined by how intense, soft, and contrasty it is. All your light is harsh, hard, and well, shit.
Now you could take this thread, and learn a thing or two about portraiture, and that'd be a win for you. Then you'd go out with a model next time and go "well shit, better not do that." - and you'd be a better photographer.
Unfortunately, it seems like you chose to write off valid advice as "just their opinion".. in which case you're going to make the same mistakes over and over. And you're going to wonder why you never went beyond selling senior photos on craigslist..
>>2869263
like here - the lighting is actually fine, the pose isn't horrible - but you cut off her feet, and you're shooting from below. The brightest part of the photo is her legs and hand, and the lines created by that pose draw me to her crotch, which isn't very flattering. If you shot this from 3 feet higher up, included the feet in the shot, it'd be worth keeping, but instead it's just another wasted shot.
>>2869306
>stop cutting off the feet, why do you do this?
This was from two photoshoots ago when I wasn't paying attention to cutting of limbs, in my most recent one, the 11 photos up top, I barely did that. Also I feel getting the whole model in frame isn't necessary for EVERY shot, it depends on what framing I am going for.
>don't post them publicly
I posted them on /p/ because I know nobody is going to hold back and tell me they're good, when they're not. If I were to constantly go out and do photoshoots and not get shit on by /p/ I wouldn't be making any progress because I think they're decent photos. This way helps me improve quicker.
>don't care about those standards
It's not that I don't care about them, it's that I don't know ALL the standards when it comes to portraiture work, I know some.
>>2869315
>it seems like you chose to write off valid advice as "just their opinion"
I've read all the replies to this thread, and have taken them into consideration and said I have. I haven't done another shoot yet so I can't apply that advice to new photos yet. Most of the critiques I've gotten where about technical aspects that would make my photos better, but some were purely based on opinion/taste, like overall editing for example.
>Posing, for one, is not done "to taste".
I've quickly realized that after watching a bunch of videos on YouTube. The one posted in this thread, the B&H video, was very helpful indeed.
>Lighting.
I'm decently versed in how off-camera flash, but obviously still learning as I do more and more shoots. I typically use the most standard approach, behind camera to left or right at a 45 degree angle down. Obviously they're more way to work the light, but that's my go-to. I want to get another speedlight so I can use it as a hair light which allow my models to "pop" from the background even better.
>>2869327
>I'm decently versed in how off-camera flash, but obviously still learning as I do more and more shoots. I typically use the most standard approach, behind camera to left or right at a 45 degree angle down. Obviously they're more way to work the light, but that's my go-to. I want to get another speedlight so I can use it as a hair light which allow my models to "pop" from the background even better.
Dude please, you have a speedlight you're triggering off camera at 45, you're not "decently versed" in anything. You can't even see what you're doing because no speedlight has a modeling light. What you're doing is glorified fill flash, its not lighting.
>>2869347
I would say I am better than the average photographer when it comes to off-camera flash. I'm not dropping $250 for JUST a single strobe light when I didn't even know how to use off-camera flash, that's why I went with a speedlight, stand, modifiers, and weight for only $120 so I can become equated with the world of flash.
>What you're doing is glorified fill flash, its not lighting.
You're completely wrong, dude. Speedlights are a great tool, and when used correctly can create some amazing results. Don't be confused and think that I am saying my photos are great/amazing/fan-fucking-tastic because I used a speedlight. I am still learning, but for only having 10 photoshoots under my belt, I think am doing adequate.
>>2869356
if you're just using your flash to fill shadows
what else would you call that
>fill flash
check out the strobist whenever you're ready to actually move beyond that
>>2869356
>I think am doing adequate.
goddamn, lad. you are in for a rude awakening very soon.
>>2869327
>Also I feel getting the whole model in frame isn't necessary for EVERY shot, it depends on what framing I am going for.
yes this is in fact a much better photo
and you are right, you do not need to include the feet everytime, it is only bad when you crop up until the shins, or worse, the ankle
>don't post them publicly
That is out of context, but it does not matter now, you should post and seek advise,if you want to be a better photog
>>2869380
So you think my photos are complete shit and don't look good what so ever? They're not exposed correctly, not in focus, don't have a basic composition, and aren't edited to some degree?
I want to see YOUR exceptional portraits, please, please post some of your work. Mine are certainly adequate i.e. acceptable.
>>2869359
I would call it my key light, yes it's 'filling' in the shadows, but not in the way that a fill light does. Typically a fill light is referred to as a fill light when you have a key light lighting the scene, and you need to fill in the shadows created by said key light. If I were using a fill light, the left said of my models face would have a more even exposure, instead of contrasting shadows created by the key light (my speedlight). The sun wasn't my key light in the photo posted below since it was setting behind the building we were at, the sun only provided ambient lighting. So shut the fuck up unless you know what you're talking about.
>>2869406
Some pp and ambient light will be not as bad as you think.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 1000 Image Height 1334 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:06:24 10:57:02 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1000 Image Height 1334
>>2869406
you're giving too much importance to the wall. It takes half of your picture. Plus she is too far, therefore it doesn't feel like she is the subject but just a girl that happens to be there while you take pictures of a building.
>>2869418
Yeah it's not that bad at all, and is salvageable, but I was just trying to prove a point to the anon who said using a speedlight is equal to a fill light and is not lighting, which is not true. He doesn't know what lighting is if that's what he thinks a fill light is.
Very nice edit though, I'm kinda curious to what you could've pulled off with my RAW images of my "keepers"
>>2869423
I wouldn't quite say that. I was trying to add depth to the photo be having the wall in frame. Seeing as a third of the wall is out of focus, it doesn't draw attention to the eye.
I personally like how I setup up the composition, and when I look at it this photo the first thing I notice is the girl, then her surroundings because she stands out for a multiple of reasons. She's a human being (when observing pictures/paintings/etc. people tend to look at the humans in the frame then the surroundings), her contrasting colored clothing, and the way I lit her with my lighting.
>>2869424
>Very nice edit though, I'm kinda curious to what you could've pulled off with my RAW images of my "keepers"
I just tried to match my edit and colours with yours to show that real difference is in the painting light on the girl and even that shadows is not so hard to make it in PS by hand.
Also your models are attractive as hell, tell them at next photoshoot that anon likes it.
>>2869424
It's not that speedlights can't possibly create good light - but you have no idea what the fuck they're going to do. You're working blind. So you put it on a stand, point it in the general direction of the subject, and hope for the best. That's not lighting a subject. That's adding light, randomly, and hoping it works out.
Why is this important? Lets take butterfly lighting, on axis, above camera light, creates a small shadow under the nose. If it's too low, it doesn't create the shadow. If it's too high, it creates dark eyes and the shadow becomes too long.
Use a strobe with a modeling light, you can see what you're doing. Use a speedlight, you have no idea what the fuck you're doing until after you've taken a photo. You're shooting blind.
Add outdoor ambient to the mix, even in shade, and you're basically just throwing random bits of light at a subject and hoping it all works out. There's no technique involved, no creativity, its total guesswork and getting lucky. That's what I mean when I say "glorified fill flash". I didn't mean you were using actual fill flash. I meant what you were doing takes about the same amount of skill as popping up your flash and pressing a shutter. The fact you put it up on a stand with a remote trigger is irrelevant. You don't know what the fuck to do with it once its there.
>>2869427
I tend to keep my editing in LR, but what you said still applies, I personally don't like to go super heavy on the editing so when I'm out shooting I try to get it close to what I want in camera as possible. The image you edited was straight RAW, no edits except a crop to make it straight.
>tell them at next photoshoot that anon likes it.
Lol I'll definitely tell them that a internet stranger thinks they're attractive, it'll boost their confidence.
>>2869433
Okay now that sounds more concise and less condescending than your previous comments. There's definitely more skill than using a pop-up flash when you use an off-camera speedlight, I'd admit not much though. I look at this image guide to help eliminate a lot of that guessing work.
I ultimately would love to get a decent 600w/s strobe, but those are very spendy, and I didn't know if I would like portraiture. So far I do like portraiture, but I'm not confident enough/knowledgeable to justify spending a few hundred dollars on JUST a strobe. I would also need to get a C-Stand, which is another $100, because I wouldn't trust my shitty stand now to hold it up. Also another $100-$200 on proper soft box for the strobe. I've got a shitty soft box that I have for my speedlight, but I don't use it because it's a pain-in-the-ass to setup on location, so I stick with a shoot through and reflective umbrella for quickness.
>>2869433
How many battery powered strobes ccome with modelling lights? Modelling lights that are powerful enough to use outside and see what you are doing? Do you actually have any idea what what you are talaking about?
>>2869425
>She's a human being so people look at her more
Are you retarded? Even if i see a human in this picture, i am disturbed by the amount of wall on the side, especially that blurry.
>>2869406
>I want to see YOUR exceptional portraits, please, please post some of your work.
wew lad
>>2869446
Well, mine does. I took the AD600 out in the backyard just now, and its modeling is good in the shade up to about 6-10 feet. It's not going to create a ton of contrast, but you can see where the light is falling.
>>2869438
You should look into this.
http://www.adorama.com/fplclslp.html
>>2869446
The very pricey ones unfortunately :/ You might not be able to use it very direct sunlight, but the modeling light should work fine in ambient/shade type area during the day.
>>2869455
Not retarded. Two thirds of the photo is my model with the backgroud/backdrop behind her. You might be the ratard in this situation complaining about a creative choice of composition on my end.
>>2869487
Exactly...
>>2869623
That's a very interesting product, didn't know anything like that existed. Might look into purchasing one.
>>2869263
thank you, using VSCO and them editing something is normal, I did this to get my mate toning.
I like your work, ty
>>2869224
I saw what you were trying to, I can understand you either, but somethings people just can't figure out from nothing, tho
Some of the lights I got just in WB, also I got there was some minor up in the shadows at tone curve, and there's some other things on HSL.
In the process of editing photos from a photoshoot I did today, I took a more active approach trying to pose my model. This photo doesn't have the best pose, but the other ones from today had what I think is an improvement from my previous shoot.
Also trying to stray away from VSCO this time around, and edit entirely myself.
>>2870278
Have you fucked any of your models OP
>>2870280
Lol great question, no I haven't.
Forgot to edit out her acne on shot #1.
>>2870286
What are you taking a photo off?
A girl in a landscape
or
A landscape with a girl?
>>2870289
A landscape with a girl as the main subject. We wanted to get the fields in the photo.
Why is everyone so opposed to getting the scenery in the photo?
Here's a tighter shot in the same location.
>>2870296
You can get the scenery in with an establishing shot. The rest should just be of the subject.
Breaking standard rules here, but I shot this with a 14mm focal length...thought it looked cool.
>>2870311
>Gigantic Hand / 10
Try and fix the veins/varices on her thigh if anything.
>>2870337
I'm terrible at 'airbrushing' skin in Photoshop, it always comes out looking like a blurry mess. I noticed it when editing, hard to miss.
Yeah using a fisheye is a terrible idea when it comes to portraits, but I wanted to get the whole staircase in frame. I couldn't do that with my other lenses since there was a busy street directly behind us.
>>2870286
This could have been dond better had you been closer to the pipe (both horizontally and height-wise, made her arch her back inwards a bit, lift her chin up, and look atyou sideways. Commenting on this one in particular because it feels like the one with the most potential.
>>2870296
This one also looks good, though I would again, have had her lift her chin, or used the lights in a way that sharpened her features.
You should definitely fuck her dude, she's quite a hottie, use all that time you spend with her doing the sessions for good.
Anyways, you've noticeably taken a step up in every way OP, keep it up.
Also, like it or not, you will have to learn to correct skin imperfections. The patching tool in LR ain't half bad for starters.
>>2870395
I got a shot of her on that pipe horizontally, but I accidentally cut her feet off, pic related.
>You should definitely fuck her dude, she's quite a hottie
She's very attractive, but I've got a girlfriend.
>noticeably taken a step up in every way OP
Thank you! I'm glad to hear at least one person thinks I'm heading in the right direction. I felt like I did a better job posing this time around, but I don't really like the shots all that well. I feel like they would've been drastically better if I were to have a photo assistant holding a white reflector on the shaded side of my model. The thing is, the model in the photos is my impromptu photo assistant. She's agreed to help me on any upcoming shoots, and was going to help on the photoshoot I posted originally up top, but had something come up last minute.
>you will have to learn to correct skin imperfections
More YouTube study is in my future...
>>2870400
I meant it even closer to the pipe, framing from the knees up perhaps.
Protip: think of the reflectors as a tool made to help you get a good picture better, don't let it become a crutch ti the point it becomes essential to your process of composition. Learn to work with only natural light. It's gonna be hard first, but it will force you to think outside the box, otherwise you'll corner yourself.
Same for youtube tutorials, use them to learn the basics, then get good by trial and error. I've seen way too many videos done by people who don't know shit but talk as if they did.
