C&C please

[michael9000000]

I'm building my chops bouncing my on-camera speed light onto a reflector... How did I do?

 

[michael9000000]

Bump.

 

[cptkid]

To me these photos just seem to lack something, and i'm not entirely sure what it is.

Theres nothing that makes them jump out at me, or makes me go wow what a lovely photo.

I think you need to work on a number of things.

1. Separating the subject from the background. Now the backgrounds are OOF, which is a good thing, however, in the first three images there is just to much going on in the background, and that draws the attention away from the subject. The last image is the nicest. If i was you I would have blown that background out even more, shooting at an even wider aperture.

2. Composition. All of the photos in my opinion are just not composed correctly. You are leaving to much negative space above your models head for my liking, and you need to watch for things like cutting half her arm of like in the 3rd photo. Either the arm is there, or its not. Something to think about.

3. Lighting. The lighting seems very flat. I would like to see some more contrast. What seems strange to me is that you are firing a speedlight in to a reflector. A reflector should be used to reflect natural light back on to the model. What you really need is a 3rd person to do that for you.

If I was you I would try this. Forget the speedlight/flash. Get out side. Have you model face away from the sun, so you are shooting directly in to the sun, and then have someone feather the light from the reflector back on to the model. Watch you don't get to close, as this will just cause the skin to blow out, but also watch that you don't get to far away. That is why is best to have a 3rd person there to do this for you.

In regards to the model, I think she is gorgeous, but I don't think you have done her justice in this shoot.

Sorry if this seems like alot of critique, its just what I feel needs to be done to improve these images.

Thanks

 

[hirejn]

The lighting has no dimension and you've filled all the shadows, so there's no shape or form, and you want girls to have shape and form, some mystery. We can't see any light, and portraits are about light. All of the backgrounds are distracting to the point where they take away from the subject. Learn to control backgrounds because the background has significant importance in a good portrait. The poses are OK in general, but a good pose with too many other distractions isn't enough.

 

[KmH]

I'm building my chops bouncing my on-camera speed light onto a reflector... How did I do?

View attachment 45396

Her hands are over exposed from being closer to the reflector (inverse square law).
The image is soft.
It looks like you lightened the whites of her eyes, but her teeth have a reddish cast from her lipstick.

So, some burning on her hands and capture sharpening in ACR. In CS 5 some background cloning, whitened her teeth, some local sharpening of her eyes, nose, mouth, ear, dress, flower, rings, fingernails.

 

[michael9000000]

To me these photos just seem to lack something, and i'm not entirely sure what it is.

Theres nothing that makes them jump out at me, or makes me go wow what a lovely photo.

I think you need to work on a number of things.

1. Separating the subject from the background. Now the backgrounds are OOF, which is a good thing, however, in the first three images there is just to much going on in the background, and that draws the attention away from the subject. The last image is the nicest. If i was you I would have blown that background out even more, shooting at an even wider aperture.

2. Composition. All of the photos in my opinion are just not composed correctly. You are leaving to much negative space above your models head for my liking, and you need to watch for things like cutting half her arm of like in the 3rd photo. Either the arm is there, or its not. Something to think about.

3. Lighting. The lighting seems very flat. I would like to see some more contrast. What seems strange to me is that you are firing a speedlight in to a reflector. A reflector should be used to reflect natural light back on to the model. What you really need is a 3rd person to do that for you.

If I was you I would try this. Forget the speedlight/flash. Get out side. Have you model face away from the sun, so you are shooting directly in to the sun, and then have someone feather the light from the reflector back on to the model. Watch you don't get to close, as this will just cause the skin to blow out, but also watch that you don't get to far away. That is why is best to have a 3rd person there to do this for you.

In regards to the model, I think she is gorgeous, but I don't think you have done her justice in this shoot.

Sorry if this seems like alot of critique, its just what I feel needs to be done to improve these images.

Thanks

I don't mind the bundles of critique... I asked for it.

Regarding your suggestion of ditching the bouncing speed light and using only a reflector... It was a very overcast morning... Basically on the verge of thunderstorms the entire time... Would a reflector have worked out well for contrast lighting even without a hint of sunlight? I'm new to the reflector strategy.

 

[TCampbell]

I like Keith's edit. She's a bit washed out (a bit strong on the flash... remember that the flash brightness drops by half everytime the distance increases by a factor of 1.4). You could cut the flash power a bit. Your flash is casting a very definite shadow of her hands (look just around her neck-line in #1 -- it did not diffuse.)

Her smile isn't coming through genuinely... you may need to work her a bit to get her to laugh (get her in a light mood... laughing at your jokes or thinking fond thoughts... but whatever you have to do, work to "provoke" a genuine smile.) I have, upon occasion, asked grooms to "tickle" their brides (which usually makes both of them smile) ...whatever stunt you have to do, try to provoke the reaction you want.

I can't view your exposure settings (if the EXIF data was included) because I'm on my iPad and not my computer, but the backgrounds are a bit clearer then I'd prefer... will your lens lens allow for a lower focal ratio that can reduce the depth-of-field a bit more?

 

[michael9000000]

I can't view your exposure settings (if the EXIF data was included) because I'm on my iPad and not my computer, but the backgrounds are a bit clearer then I'd prefer... will your lens lens allow for a lower focal ratio that can reduce the depth-of-field a bit more?

My 50mm 1.8 met its untimely demise right before we started shooting... I opened my camera bag to get my speed light out... Then I picked up the bag before zipping it back up... Out flew the lens... Not shatterproof... Damn it... Luckily I can replace it brand new for 100 dollars, though I'm actually considering the 50mm 1.4 USM as an upgrade.

So, I did the shooting with the 18-55 kits lens, shooting somewhere between 5 and 6.3

 

[Juga]

I can't view your exposure settings (if the EXIF data was included) because I'm on my iPad and not my computer, but the backgrounds are a bit clearer then I'd prefer... will your lens lens allow for a lower focal ratio that can reduce the depth-of-field a bit more?

My 50mm 1.8 met its untimely demise right before we started shooting... I opened my camera bag to get my speed light out... Then I picked up the bag before zipping it back up... Out flew the lens... Not shatterproof... Damn it... Luckily I can replace it brand new for 100 dollars, though I'm actually considering the 50mm 1.4 USM as an upgrade.

So, I did the shooting with the 18-55 kits lens, shooting somewhere between 5 and 6.3

Try going to waterside and downtown Norfolk area or Ghent. Ghent has plenty of wonderful backgrounds that you could use and wouldn't distract like others have said.