Are my photos good enough to start charging for sessions?

[beccaf91]

I like these suggestions for composition; great ideas! I like it!

Aww... You're welcome!

I only write that much about once a year, so consider yourself fortunate that I did this time.

I think what I wrote might have been the condensed equivalent of one or two books on portraiture that you didn't have to read. You just caught me at a good time.

Well I appreciate your generosity in my hour of need! Lol.

 

[Designer]

So you think that using colorful background is a bad way to add interest to photos? I know it distracts from the subject which is a rule-breaker; but I thought the overall image would really attract attention?

I hope I'm not stepping on THE GRYPH's toes by responding to this post, but I am in the mood to respond.

I've seen very few photographs that are ostensibly someone's portrait in which the background is a major component of the composition. I will reserve judgement on all examples until I see one that actually works well. In the meantime, I would suggest that the background should remain the background, and not "intrude" on the subject.

Sometimes you're going to have a busy background, such as a carnival, for instance, but those shots are going to be rare, and we can excuse the occasional rare shot.

 

[Designer]

Well I appreciate your generosity in my hour of need! Lol.

Think nothing of it. Many of us are very happy to offer what we can as long as the member to whom we are offering assistance is willing to read, study, and learn. I think you are ready and willing to learn, so I'm perfectly happy to make my contribution.

 

[SquarePeg]

I agree with Gary that, IMO, you're not quite at a level to charge for your work but in the end, that is something that you and your clients will decide. You got a lot of excellent advice on what you need to do to step up your game - composition, backgrounds, dof - I know that shallow dof look is popular for children's portraits right now but it has to be really nailed to be good. None of these issues are anything that a little practice and attention to detail can't easily resolve.

I know it's hard with kids because they are moving moving moving but a great piece of advice I got from someone on this forum was to stop and look all around the frame in your viewfinder before you shoot - not just at the subject's face but at the composition, the background, the horizon, the light and the shadows. I don't know if that is the only lens you have but I think a previous poster mentioned the shaky bokeh - for me, it's really detracting from your subjects.

Great advice about offering to shoot friends/family as practice. I have a friend who frequently offers free digital files to her neighbors and friends if they will pose for her while she practices with a new lens or tries a new location or lighting idea. She puts the word out on FaceBook and usually has all the models she can handle. She gets to practice and she has built up a pretty nice customer base this way. Most of them like the practice shots so much they end up hiring her to shoot their Christmas card photos, family events, maternity, newborns, senior photos etc.

 

[Derrel]

OH wow! These are fantastic! You can see how well these are composed!! This is the stuff I want to do! Was artificial light used in these?

Some were shot at f/4 at 1/100 second, and some were shot at f/6.3 at 1/100 second: the EXIF info states "Flash ON, Return Light Not Detected," because these were shot using a Pocket Wizard trigger, and a single Speedotron M90 studio flash head with an 8.5-inch metal reflector with the hard white plastic snap-on flash diffuser, flash powered by Innovatronix inverter; afternoon sunlight coming in from behind her from camera left, and a LOT of natural fill light coming off the surface of the Columbia river camera right. This is a naturally-lighted background, and flash on the subject.

im_22141.jpg

 

[vintagesnaps]

These don't look like professional work yet. I think it's unethical to expect people to pay a dime for unprofessional quality anything. If you have friends who you could practice with and provide some complimentary photos that could be an option. But you need to look at American Society of Media Photographers - Homepage or PPA and learn about licensing, contracts, releases etc.

Derrel gave some accurate critique on the photos. Gary knows what he's talking about - pay attention to what he's trying to tell you.

You caught some nice moments with the kids but need to learn more about composition. It doesn't seem like you're seeing everything that's in the frame when you're looking at the photographs or when you're framing shots.

It's up to you if you want to practice and learn and actually become a photographer or just another amateur with a camera - they're a dime a dozen and don't seem to last too long before they're running into problems with business, unhappy customers, and aren't making enough money to be worth it. They last maybe three years or so?

If you don't love it enough to spend time with your camera and practice, practice, practice til you're consistently getting good results then it probably isn't for you.

 

[table1349]

I have to agree with Tirediron's comments about the photographic and compositional technique these two pictures display. Assuming these are two of your better images, I would imagine that others are less successful than these two frames. I will pass along one tip for photographing smaller children: working at these distances with that lens at such wide f/stops is a recipe for many, many reject shots, as far as focus goes. These have the bare minimum of depth of field; closing down to f/3.5 and finding/setting up less-distracting backgrounds would be a smart strategy for avoiding shots that must be rejected due to slight focusing errors under real-world conditions.

Photographing smaller children of this age is, as you know, hard work! They move! They don't follow many directions! Focus and recompose at this range is **inaccurate as heck** if you are using the center AF square. At 7 to 10 feet at f/2 or so, the edges of the frame and the center of the frame are at different distances; distances which will exceed the DOF band of a lens shot at wide f/stops, and that's where/why a good number of missed focus shots can occur. At f/3.5 or at f/4, the overall net DOF at this camera-to-subject and subject-to-background range will be "similar", but there will be just enough additional DOF to make a keeper out of what would easily have been an f/2 but rejected image.

I dislike rendering opinions of peoples' skill level based on two, individual photos of related children who appear to maybe be the OP's own offspring. Two shots is not a lot to go on, but it can reveal a few things, but it's not the ideal way to evaluate a photographer. If we saw 100 of your photos, we could probably form better opinions, and spot trends, and patterns, and better evaluate the overall skill level you are currently at to a better degree than we can from seeing only these two shots.

I don't have a ton of portraits to show you guys yet.

That is a telling statement to me. In addition to what has already been said, when one is ready to charge, especially in the portrait world one needs to be able to produce a multitude of sell-able images with each shoot. Not everyone will be that golden image, but the majority should be good enough to be worthy of display.

My photos are very consistent in exposure and focus. But I am aware that I have to brush up on the composition. Thanks for the advice!

Consistent in exposure and focus are nice but not interesting. I think you have received some good advise. Learn the finer details of portrait photography. Most people have an eye for finding a pleasing aspect of a subject. The photographers that are successful in the business of photograph have the ability to see the entire photo before it is taken. The devil is in the details.

Consistent in exposure and focus are nice but not interesting.

So you think that using colorful background is a bad way to add interest to photos? I know it distracts from the subject which is a rule-breaker; but I thought the overall image would really attract attention?

No, colorful is not bad. Well balanced is what is needed. The background should never draw the eye from the subject on the first look or even the second look. That is part of being able to visualize the small details in the shot.

 

[KmH]

I don't want to do studio portrait photography; my photographer works outdoors and I like the feel of those better.

Your profile has no location info.

Wind, clouds, solid overcast, rain, cold, snow, heat are reasons lots of portrait photographers maintain a studio in addition to shooting on location and/or outside.

I know from experience, 10 years shooting in the San Diego area and then 20 years in Tucson, that less than amenable-to-doing-photography-outside weather can wreak havoc on a shooting appointment schedule that is heavy on outdoor shoots.

 

[beccaf91]

I don't want to do studio portrait photography; my photographer works outdoors and I like the feel of those better.

Your profile has no location info.

Wind, clouds, solid overcast, rain, cold, snow, heat are reasons lots of portrait photographers maintain a studio in addition to shooting on location and/or outside.

I know from experience, 10 years shooting in the San Diego area and then 20 years in Tucson, that less than amenable-to-doing-photography-outside weather can wreak havoc on a shooting appointment schedule that is heavy on outdoor shoots.

I'm in Northwest Florida where the weather is tempermental at best. Lol. But we have several State Parks all around us that provide beach/woods backdrops that I plan to utilize.

 

[beccaf91]

I have to agree with Tirediron's comments about the photographic and compositional technique these two pictures display. Assuming these are two of your better images, I would imagine that others are less successful than these two frames. I will pass along one tip for photographing smaller children: working at these distances with that lens at such wide f/stops is a recipe for many, many reject shots, as far as focus goes. These have the bare minimum of depth of field; closing down to f/3.5 and finding/setting up less-distracting backgrounds would be a smart strategy for avoiding shots that must be rejected due to slight focusing errors under real-world conditions.

Photographing smaller children of this age is, as you know, hard work! They move! They don't follow many directions! Focus and recompose at this range is **inaccurate as heck** if you are using the center AF square. At 7 to 10 feet at f/2 or so, the edges of the frame and the center of the frame are at different distances; distances which will exceed the DOF band of a lens shot at wide f/stops, and that's where/why a good number of missed focus shots can occur. At f/3.5 or at f/4, the overall net DOF at this camera-to-subject and subject-to-background range will be "similar", but there will be just enough additional DOF to make a keeper out of what would easily have been an f/2 but rejected image.

I dislike rendering opinions of peoples' skill level based on two, individual photos of related children who appear to maybe be the OP's own offspring. Two shots is not a lot to go on, but it can reveal a few things, but it's not the ideal way to evaluate a photographer. If we saw 100 of your photos, we could probably form better opinions, and spot trends, and patterns, and better evaluate the overall skill level you are currently at to a better degree than we can from seeing only these two shots.

I don't have a ton of portraits to show you guys yet.

That is a telling statement to me. In addition to what has already been said, when one is ready to charge, especially in the portrait world one needs to be able to produce a multitude of sell-able images with each shoot. Not everyone will be that golden image, but the majority should be good enough to be worthy of display.

My photos are very consistent in exposure and focus. But I am aware that I have to brush up on the composition. Thanks for the advice!

Consistent in exposure and focus are nice but not interesting. I think you have received some good advise. Learn the finer details of portrait photography. Most people have an eye for finding a pleasing aspect of a subject. The photographers that are successful in the business of photograph have the ability to see the entire photo before it is taken. The devil is in the details.

Consistent in exposure and focus are nice but not interesting.

So you think that using colorful background is a bad way to add interest to photos? I know it distracts from the subject which is a rule-breaker; but I thought the overall image would really attract attention?

No, colorful is not bad. Well balanced is what is needed. The background should never draw the eye from the subject on the first look or even the second look. That is part of being able to visualize the small details in the shot.

Ohh, got ya! Okay, I was bummed because I worked hard scouting these different locations that I thought would make great bg's.

 

[JonA_CT]

I agree with what a lot of people said in this thread...but you keep mentioning the background, so I thought I'd throw my 2 cents in.

I think the woodsy/nature backgrounds can work really well for the type of portraits you are looking to take, but this is one place where the gear really does make a difference. I'm not sure exactly what 50mm lens you are using, but I'm guessing it's one of the older, 5 blade aperture models.

Sharon referred to the bokeh as shaky. I'll use the words sharp and distracting. Even though the lens is throwing the BG out of focus, the characteristics of the lens are still drawing attention to it.

Look at your background with your older Canon 50mm lens...

View attachment 135262

I found a similar picture that I took with a more modern lens design...this is with a Nikon mount Sigma 50mm 1.4 (non-ART) lens, but you'll get the idea. You could also buy this exact lens to fit your camera for around $300.

This lens is much smoother and less distracting in OOF areas. Just a thought.

 

[table1349]

I don't have a ton of portraits to show you guys yet.

That is a telling statement to me. In addition to what has already been said, when one is ready to charge, especially in the portrait world one needs to be able to produce a multitude of sell-able images with each shoot. Not everyone will be that golden image, but the majority should be good enough to be worthy of display.

My photos are very consistent in exposure and focus. But I am aware that I have to brush up on the composition. Thanks for the advice!

Consistent in exposure and focus are nice but not interesting. I think you have received some good advise. Learn the finer details of portrait photography. Most people have an eye for finding a pleasing aspect of a subject. The photographers that are successful in the business of photograph have the ability to see the entire photo before it is taken. The devil is in the details.

Consistent in exposure and focus are nice but not interesting.

So you think that using colorful background is a bad way to add interest to photos? I know it distracts from the subject which is a rule-breaker; but I thought the overall image would really attract attention?

No, colorful is not bad. Well balanced is what is needed. The background should never draw the eye from the subject on the first look or even the second look. That is part of being able to visualize the small details in the shot.

Ohh, got ya! Okay, I was bummed because I worked hard scouting these different locations that I thought would make great bg's.

The thing about using overly busy or colorful backgrounds is to tie the background into the photo. That may mean adding something recognizable in the photo that ties the background into the photo. For example if you shoot a small child at a carnival you will have a busy multi colored background. By adding something as simple as some cotton candy in the child's hand or the child eating the cotton candy the viewer will recognize the type of location. An overly busy background needs a reference point.

Colorful backgrounds also need to be balanced so there is not a splash of color that draws the eye to one particular location in the photo.

 

[beccaf91]

That is a telling statement to me. In addition to what has already been said, when one is ready to charge, especially in the portrait world one needs to be able to produce a multitude of sell-able images with each shoot. Not everyone will be that golden image, but the majority should be good enough to be worthy of display.

My photos are very consistent in exposure and focus. But I am aware that I have to brush up on the composition. Thanks for the advice!

Consistent in exposure and focus are nice but not interesting. I think you have received some good advise. Learn the finer details of portrait photography. Most people have an eye for finding a pleasing aspect of a subject. The photographers that are successful in the business of photograph have the ability to see the entire photo before it is taken. The devil is in the details.

Consistent in exposure and focus are nice but not interesting.

So you think that using colorful background is a bad way to add interest to photos? I know it distracts from the subject which is a rule-breaker; but I thought the overall image would really attract attention?

No, colorful is not bad. Well balanced is what is needed. The background should never draw the eye from the subject on the first look or even the second look. That is part of being able to visualize the small details in the shot.

Ohh, got ya! Okay, I was bummed because I worked hard scouting these different locations that I thought would make great bg's.

The thing about using overly busy or colorful backgrounds is to tie the background into the photo. That may mean adding something recognizable in the photo that ties the background into the photo. For example if you shoot a small child at a carnival you will have a busy multi colored background. By adding something as simple as some cotton candy in the child's hand or the child eating the cotton candy the viewer will recognize the type of location. An overly busy background needs a reference point.

Colorful backgrounds also need to be balanced so there is not a splash of color that draws the eye to one particular location in the photo.

Ok, so then the photo below... to me it's visually pleasing. But compositionally it's incorrect? Busy background, bright headlights? Or am I missing your point entirely?

Please do not post images to which you do not hold rights. You may post links.

 

[DanOstergren]

My photos are very consistent in exposure and focus. But I am aware that I have to brush up on the composition. Thanks for the advice!

Consistent in exposure and focus are nice but not interesting. I think you have received some good advise. Learn the finer details of portrait photography. Most people have an eye for finding a pleasing aspect of a subject. The photographers that are successful in the business of photograph have the ability to see the entire photo before it is taken. The devil is in the details.

Consistent in exposure and focus are nice but not interesting.

So you think that using colorful background is a bad way to add interest to photos? I know it distracts from the subject which is a rule-breaker; but I thought the overall image would really attract attention?

No, colorful is not bad. Well balanced is what is needed. The background should never draw the eye from the subject on the first look or even the second look. That is part of being able to visualize the small details in the shot.

Ohh, got ya! Okay, I was bummed because I worked hard scouting these different locations that I thought would make great bg's.

The thing about using overly busy or colorful backgrounds is to tie the background into the photo. That may mean adding something recognizable in the photo that ties the background into the photo. For example if you shoot a small child at a carnival you will have a busy multi colored background. By adding something as simple as some cotton candy in the child's hand or the child eating the cotton candy the viewer will recognize the type of location. An overly busy background needs a reference point.

Colorful backgrounds also need to be balanced so there is not a splash of color that draws the eye to one particular location in the photo.

Ok, so then the photo below... to me it's visually pleasing. But compositionally it's incorrect? Busy background, bright headlights? Or am I missing your point entirely? Lol Credit: Meg BittonView attachment 135421

I think this comes down to personal taste. There are aspects of that photo that I personally don't like such as a few of the over-saturated neon colored light spots, however it's still a good photo that has many other merits to it. If you like Meg's photos and want a similar look, I suggest getting out there and practicing. I would also recommend getting an 85mm, 100mm, 135mm lens, or even a 200mm lens in order to achieve a similar background blur and compression as Meg Bitton. Based on your level of experience, I would stick to an 85mm or 100mm lens until you feel ready for a longer focal length. I recommend prime lenses (fixed focal length) simply based on personal preference, and you could potentially get a zoom lens that covers all of those focal lengths, but I personally like the look of a prime lens myself.

 

[beccaf91]

Consistent in exposure and focus are nice but not interesting. I think you have received some good advise. Learn the finer details of portrait photography. Most people have an eye for finding a pleasing aspect of a subject. The photographers that are successful in the business of photograph have the ability to see the entire photo before it is taken. The devil is in the details.

Consistent in exposure and focus are nice but not interesting.

So you think that using colorful background is a bad way to add interest to photos? I know it distracts from the subject which is a rule-breaker; but I thought the overall image would really attract attention?

No, colorful is not bad. Well balanced is what is needed. The background should never draw the eye from the subject on the first look or even the second look. That is part of being able to visualize the small details in the shot.

Ohh, got ya! Okay, I was bummed because I worked hard scouting these different locations that I thought would make great bg's.

The thing about using overly busy or colorful backgrounds is to tie the background into the photo. That may mean adding something recognizable in the photo that ties the background into the photo. For example if you shoot a small child at a carnival you will have a busy multi colored background. By adding something as simple as some cotton candy in the child's hand or the child eating the cotton candy the viewer will recognize the type of location. An overly busy background needs a reference point.

Colorful backgrounds also need to be balanced so there is not a splash of color that draws the eye to one particular location in the photo.

Ok, so then the photo below... to me it's visually pleasing. But compositionally it's incorrect? Busy background, bright headlights? Or am I missing your point entirely? Lol Credit: Meg BittonView attachment 135421

I think this comes down to personal taste. There are aspects of that photo that I personally don't like such as a few of the over-saturated neon colored light spots, however it's still a good photo that has many other merits to it. If you like Meg's photos and want a similar look, I suggest getting out there and practicing. I would also recommend getting an 85mm, 100mm, 135mm lens, or even a 200mm lens in order to achieve a similar background blur and compression as Meg Bitton. Based on your level of experience, I would stick to an 85mm or 100mm lens until you feel ready for a longer focal length. I recommend prime lenses (fixed focal length) simply based on personal preference, and you could potentially get a zoom lens that covers all of those focal lengths, but I personally like the look of a prime lens myself.

The 85mm was the next lens I was planning to add actually. I do like her style, and also I think even though the background is busy its not distracting as the lines from the street draw your eye to the subject.