New Flash - My sons 8mos old mini shoot C&C please and thank you

[pixmedic]

i apologize for decrying the work here to be meaningless, that was an ill-chosen word.

but as for the rest of it, it's idiotic...

wait..so, "meaningless" was ill chosen....so you decided to go with "idiotic" instead? classy.

 

[salalone]

well, you posted a bunch of small stuff that is unable to be viewed full size...but for "knowing how to control a camera" you appear to have issues with underexposure and white balance on many of these pictures. some of the building pictures have serious DOF issues as well as stuff that is basically just random snapshots and not appearing to have ANY composition or thought invested in them at all.
but hey...if you have "clients" paying for them, more power to you. lots of people on FB have clients.

false.

and where's your work, friend?

the whole thing is hilarious.

you can search my posts and see plenty of what i have posted. and "I" never claimed to be a Pro.
and your right. the whole thing IS hilarious. you claimed professional grade work, and delivered decent snapshots.
congratulations. if you cant even see your own issues, you have more serious problems than the quality of your photos.

ha! snapshots is an insult buzzword around if i've ever heard one. what else you got? there's the facebook insult, the MWAC one, snapshot, OH WAIT, you forgot fauxtographer. go ahead then...

i'm not wrong though, that's the thing.

since i've issued my apology, see you all later.

 

[salalone]

i apologize for decrying the work here to be meaningless, that was an ill-chosen word.

but as for the rest of it, it's idiotic...

wait..so, "meaningless" was ill chosen....so you decided to go with "idiotic" instead? classy.

mmmm no, the work isn't idiotic, the assertions are.

 

[pixmedic]

false.

and where's your work, friend?

the whole thing is hilarious.

you can search my posts and see plenty of what i have posted. and "I" never claimed to be a Pro.
and your right. the whole thing IS hilarious. you claimed professional grade work, and delivered decent snapshots.
congratulations. if you cant even see your own issues, you have more serious problems than the quality of your photos.

ha! snapshots is an insult buzzword around if i've ever heard one. what else you got? there's the facebook insult, the MWAC one, snapshot, OH WAIT, you forgot fauxtographer. go ahead then...

i'm not wrong though, that's the thing.

since i've issued my apology, see you all later.

actually, I thought I gave pretty accurate critique on what I saw in your photographs.
you claim your not wrong, but your pictures say otherwise.
why don't you post a few a little larger on the forum and ask for C&C like the rest of us do? im sure if your right you will get nominated for the photo of the month.
the apology was nice though, im sure the OP appreciates it.
why not show us all how its done?

 

[Derrel]

The idea that a portrait must always be taken in a portrait orientation is baffling to me.

Nobody has written that.

Exactly...NOBODY here has stated that a "portrait must always be taken in a portrait orientation."

The original poster put up three portraits of an eight month-old child. A small child who is just in his first few months of being able to sit up on his own, but yet not able to stand up or walk. He does not yet have visible teeth in the shots we have seen. He still has a cute, pudgy little infant physique. It would be wonderful to actually SEE the child. To literally see him sitting, which for him is about the peak of his physical capabilities at his current eight months of age. It would be nice to literally SEE his little arms. To literally SEE his little baby-sized hands. A vertical camera orientation, or even a square-format camera, or just pulling the camera BACK, and literally SHOWING the boy's body would have been nice.

Again...nobody has stated that, "A portrait must always be taken in a portrait orientation". That is all coming from a lack of reading comprehension and a rush to judgement on the part of a self-confessed, "former MWAC" who feels that the work of everybody else on this entire forum is, "meaningless".

 

[Rwsphotos]

Idiotic is is calling those that give the op the opnion and advice they asked for idiots. Portraits DO NOT always need to be taken in portrait orientation how ever it is suggested for a reason. The op needs to learn the rules before they go breaking them. That way they they can do it creatively instead of haphazardly. Your rudeness has been no help to the op and wont garner you friends around here. But then I suspect your not here for that since we can't possibly meet your professional standards since you must be the only professional on this site.

 

[cgipson1]

I see she has taken it down already... I missed it! Oh well! Based on the C&C that was offered, I can guess what it was like!

 

[ManualMode]

Second bag of popcorn here, but I missed the photos from SalAlone - douchebag level = 40

 

[laynea24]

Is it over? I was just getting into it. Seeing as she deleted the photos, I'm guessing they were less than awesome?

OP, sorry your thread got derailed. I hope you will listen to Derrel's advice. He is a great photographer and he definitely knows what he's talking about.