Can you give me good constructive criticism? Senior Photos

[SkyPhotography17]

All these are already edited
1.
1-20 by skyphotography17, on Flickr
2.
1 by skyphotography17, on Flickr
3.
1-6 by skyphotography17, on Flickr
4.
1-9 by skyphotography17, on Flickr
5.
1-10 by skyphotography17, on Flickr
6.
1-12 by skyphotography17, on Flickr
7.
1-16 by skyphotography17, on Flickr
8.
1-18 by skyphotography17, on Flickr
9.
1-19 by skyphotography17, on Flickr

Thank you for the help

 

[Aerr]

It's hard to give constructive criticism for so many photos. You'll have more luck if you keep it down to 1-3 photos.

1. It's distracting to have upside down text. My eyes keep going there to try to figure out what it says instead of looking at the subject. Her hair kind of disappears for me. Maybe it should be more visible on the grass. It also looks a little soft, but I like sharpness.

2. I like this one better than the first. It looks sharp and well exposed. I'd suggest not cutting off her elbow. Also, she seems too backed up against the right side of the frame with too much empty space occupied by a pole and metal steps on the left. Maybe have a shallower depth of field for those background things because they're too in focus.

3. This is too bright for me. Her head is cut off and her skin looks unreasonably white. It's also a little soft.

4. This one is better than #4. It's a nice pose, reasonably sharp, and has better coloring.

5. I think this is a pretty good angle and nice and sharp. A shallower DOF would be nice because of the random pipes and crumbling wall in the background.

6. Her arm is cut off and her chest area is blown out.

7. I think this is a great pose for bigger girls. I don't know why the vignette is bigger on the bottom but lighter on the top. It also doesn't seem even (bigger on the right than the left).

8. I like her face in this one, but I don't know if hugging the tree is the best pose.

9. Too tight of a crop, I think. Her head is cut off and her arm is cut off. I think this is another good angle for bigger girls, and she has a nice expression on her face. The hood peeking up in the back is distracting--I'd clone that out.

Overall, I think it's pretty good work!

 

[Robin Usagani]

The edits and exposure are all over the place and need more consistency. Some of the grass look yellowish, some look green, some look natural, some dont.

 

[skieur]

Framing, posing, exposure, colour, and postprocessing need to be considerably improved.

skieur

 

[tirediron]

^^ All of that.

 

[redessa]

What the others said. Plus I think you went too far on her eyes. The whites are TOO white, it's a little freaky.

 

[Chris R]

I think these would be very decent photographs if they weren't so processed looking. Just my personal opinion but I think the whole contrasty lo-fi look is getting really over done nowadays but if that's what your client expects from you then I guess it doesn't matter what I think.

 

[KmH]

Unfortunately, many clients have zero photographic taste, and need the photographer to save them from themselves.

Avoid poses, or camera positions, that have the shoulders parallel, or perpendicular, to the plane of the image sensor.

Eyes need to have at least some white on each side of the iris.

 

[SkyPhotography17]

I am gonna point I took all these photos when I was 8 months pregnant I'm due sep 13 so they are kinda sloppy

 

[The_Traveler]

I am gonna point I took all these photos when I was 8 months pregnant I'm due sep 13 so they are kinda sloppy

I must admit that it a more interesting excuse than some others but I must ask, didn't you know you were pregnant before you started shooting?

 

[D-B-J]

Be careful with adding excessive contrast. Her eyes look like black holes in some of the shots.

 

[AgentDrex]

I don't have anything constructive to input, but I find the best (not great but waay better than my people photos) shots here are #5 and #9. In #5 I like the positioning of the subject...she looks relaxed, accomplished, pleased... and obviously #9 is a great angle for her facial structure...and I like the contrast of the grass on one side and the brick on the other

Great job and keep shooting...

 

[Derrel]

#8 is a good example of what not to do. Her shoulder literally fills the entire bottom edge of the frame because the camera is far,far,far too close to her, and the lens focal length is far too short. The closeness of the camera to her causes exaggerated foreground/background size relationships, causing her shoulder to look absolutely massive in size.

In a similar vein, take a look at shot #3...in that one her hand looks absolutely TINY, and her face looks HUGE...again, this is caused by being far too physically close to the subject...at close distances, the PHYSIUCAL, on-sensor, on-print, on-screen, etc size of the foreground is LARGE, while things in the background appear much,much SMALLER, by comparison, and also in an absolute, measurable sense. So, for example in shot #3, her hand width for four fingers is a measured 5 picas on my monitor; her head height from hairline to chin is 21 picas.

I just measured the width of my 4 fingers on my left hand: 22 picas, and the height of my face from hairline to chin is 51 picas. Simple math shows actual, real-world hand-to-head ratio of 1: 2.318, while in photo #3 her head looks HUGE, with a ratio of 1: 4.2. In other words, your ultra-close camera positioning is causing her head to look almost double in size, while in photo #8 her shoulder is physically, on-monitor, on-print, on-sensor, probably close to almost DOUBLE its actual size. These two photos make her look awful. Shooting a heavy-set person from straight-on and from very close range with a short focal length is absolutely the worst way to shoot. If I were her, I would be p*SSed that #8 is even being shown...

The best course of action is to realize that there is a "best distance" and a "best range" of focal lengths to use for portraiture, and all of these are using too short a lens length, and are shot from too close-up. I selected #3 and #8 because both show what is called "apparent perspective distortion." One of the single biggest problems that crop-sensor bodies have introduced is the need to use short focal length lenses in many indoor and outdoor situations, to compensate for the fact that the outside of the lens's image circle is not being captured...when you find yourself indoors, shooting a full-length portrait at 17mm on a 1.5x body, you will see that the noses of people look unnaturally large. The same issue has befallen you in this outdoor session...

This is the best and most-constructive criticism I can offer to beginning portrait shooters who shoot on crop-body cameras: back UP and ZOOM IN. If your sitter's head looks 4.2 times taller than the width of his or her hand, you are FAR TOO CLOSE. If the subject's closer shoulder looks (and also actually measures, on-screen!) 2x larger than it does in real-life, you need to back away, and zoom in.