a few pics C&C please

[swmocity]

1.

2.

3.

4.

 

[chrisburke]

i promise that i'm not trying to be rude.. but is that a girl or a guy??

pics arent bad.. not a fan of the selective coloring in the first one

 

[ANDS!]

If you can't tell that she is a female, then you need to get out more. Seriously.

 

[swmocity]

i promise that i'm not trying to be rude.. but is that a girl or a guy??

pics arent bad.. not a fan of the selective coloring in the first one

...female...

 

[Mgw189]

Selective coloring does nothing for the first image at all. The lighting is pretty harsh looking to me anyway. Good shots for the most part though.

 

[What]

The backgrounds in all four pictures are busy and distracting. They pull the eye away from the model.

 

[swmocity]

i dunno if any of you guys have canon but on the custom functions..it has a option for av mode where the shutter speed is always 200..i dont know the exact name for it..."av sync" or something...this was my first time using it...200 speed @ night...1600 iso...flash was 1/3 i think...anyone else ever used this

 

[Mgw189]

The backgrounds in all four pictures are busy and distracting. They pull the eye away from the model.

The watermark bugs me more than the backgrounds.

 

[kn4ds]

The watermark bugs me more than the backgrounds.

Right, because we don't want anything in the way of taking images for other uses.

Sorry, man, but I have no trouble with people protecting their images in whatever way they see fit. It doesn't take anything away from the technical aspects of the image.

I think the lighting could have been softer... wax paper over the flash? Just a thought as an inexpensive way to soften the flash.

 

[swmocity]

Right, because we don't want anything in the way of taking images for other uses.

Sorry, man, but I have no trouble with people protecting their images in whatever way they see fit. It doesn't take anything away from the technical aspects of the image.

I think the lighting could have been softer... wax paper over the flash? Just a thought as an inexpensive way to soften the flash.

dont be sorry its fine...its good to learn form other people...i have a flash diffuser but i forgot to bring it with me

 

[Mgw189]

Right, because we don't want anything in the way of taking images for other uses.

Sorry, man, but I have no trouble with people protecting their images in whatever way they see fit. It doesn't take anything away from the technical aspects of the image.

I dont have a problem with people protecting their images either however there are much less distracting ways of doing so. To be honest my eyes went right to the watermark the first time I looked at the image. I think what bugs me is the red.

 

[chrisburke]

If you can't tell that she is a female, then you need to get out more. Seriously.

sorry, but i've worked on the streets of Toronto feeding homeless people and prostitutes... there were some of them who I had no idea until I was told.. and its not because I need to get out more, its because they looked so feminine...

 

[kn4ds]

I dont have a problem with people protecting their images either however there are much less distracting ways of doing so. To be honest my eyes went right to the watermark the first time I looked at the image. I think what bugs me is the red.

So request... and pay for... a copy without the watermark.

I'm sorry, but I just can't see givin' someone crap about their image protection.

C'mon... overlook that, and comment on the technical aspects of the image. It's not up to you or me to comment on their attempts to make sure their images aren't used without payment. That wasn't the question... he wanted comments and critiques on the images. You're being petty.

 

[kn4ds]

i promise that i'm not trying to be rude.. but is that a girl or a guy??

What difference does it make? Why should we care?

There was no request to comment on whether the subject could "pass."

Sorry, but this doesn't seem to be the place to be advancing personal agendas that don't have to do with the technical aspects of images.

 

[Mgw189]

So request... and pay for... a copy without the watermark.

I'm sorry, but I just can't see givin' someone crap about their image protection.

C'mon... overlook that, and comment on the technical aspects of the image. It's not up to you or me to comment on their attempts to make sure their images aren't used without payment. That wasn't the question... he wanted comments and critiques on the images. You're being petty.

There isnt a single one of those shots that the watermark couldnt be photoshoped and the watermark removed from it. If protection of the image is what is desired there are better ways to do it. Place the watermark somewhere where it cant be easily removed for one. As far as use of images go though other than being used on the web there isnt much hope for those shots being used. They are to small and the image quality would not be good enough to print and use the photos.

As far as the quality of the images goes I already offered my thoughts on the same issue that you mentioned regarding the harshness of the lighting in addition to the use of selective color in the first image.