Christian - First!

[DGMPhotography]

This is the first from my shoot with Christian.



What do you think?

 

[DGMPhotography]

Morning bump!

 

[Braineack]

so far so good. let's see the rest!

 

[Rosy]

Do yo have any with her loking at the camera?

 

[Designer]

Frame and light are good. Pose seems rather static. The handrail behind her is unfortunate.

 

[The_Traveler]

I think:

• she is too big in the frame, so she is looking into the margin.
• Her dress is so bright is pulls from her face.
• the background is too bright
• her skin needs more saturation

 

[The_Traveler]

One point I forgot.
The two obvious centers of interest are her face and her clasped hands; both of these are close to the margin in the original.
By giving more room they are then both at thirds and are in synchrony.

 

[DGMPhotography]

Hmm... interesting points there.. Not sure how I feel about cloning out the background rail though, because then that wouldn't match the rest of the pictures. And I noticed the skin saturation too and actually already did some.. you should have seen the original! xD Thanks for the feedback!

 

[Steve5D]

I think:

• she is too big in the frame, so she is looking into the margin.
• Her dress is so bright is pulls from her face.
• the background is too bright
• her skin needs more saturation

View attachment 73131

Honestly, Lew, I'm pretty surprised that you said nothing about what is some of the worst cloning I've ever seen...

 

[The_Traveler]

Honestly, Lew, I'm pretty surprised that you said nothing about what is some of the worst cloning I've ever seen...

I only cloned in the new space from what was available to make a point rather than to create a good image.
I can't imagine that you couldn't understand that.

 

[DGMPhotography]

Honestly, Lew, I'm pretty surprised that you said nothing about what is some of the worst cloning I've ever seen...

I only cloned in the new space from what was available to make a point rather than to create a good image.
I can't imagine that you couldn't understand that.[/QUOTE]

Yeah... I'm thinking maybe he read it wrong and thought that I posted the cloned edit? Or maybe expected that you would apologize for the job? In either case, you simply demonstrated your point and it worked for me!

 

[Derrel]

I typed this up earlier this AM, then my WiFi started acting up...so I saved it as a text document and am going to paste it in.

I have to agree with Lew...the originally-shown version of this is framed really tightly, and her line of gaze up and out of the frame doesn't work well in this shot; the edge of the frame being so close to the top of her head causes visual tension; having her looking out of the frame with the top so close compounds the issue. I DO LIKE the two rails--having the rail in front of her, with her hands clasped and placed on the rail, then the rail behind her gives a great 3-D effect, and makes it seem like she's on an elevated footpath or elevated trail at some type of nature park or zoo or something, and I think Lew's eliminating the second rail hurts that 3-D effect.

On another level: I see technical weakness. Depth of field is way too shallow, and not in a good way. Her hands are out of focus, and the whole image looks sub-par in the modern era. The picture is fuzzy,soft, and has plenty of visible chromatic aberration. On a carefully posed, studied shot like this, that is a total shame--that the lens is not stopped down and the picture is working hard against lack of depth of field. This kind of shot NEEDS to have the majority of the person in sharp, clear, good focus. I'm not talking about how the image looks on a cellphone or on a web browser at playing card size...I'm thinking about this as a 13-inch tall print...it will not look good with the hands, arms, and basically most of her outside the actual depth of field zone.

Compositionally, except for the too-tight framing, I LOVE the hands and arms and the diagonals of the railings, and the light upper right corner, and the foliage, and the lovely, simple color palette, and I think the "look" is pretty good. A white dress with lots of bare skin makes a tough garment to compete against for the FACE! It's a very spartan, elegant composition, but the super-shallow DOF works against the things it's strongest at: formality, tranquility, and careful balance of the body on the rails. The way the rail in front, and the small sapling tree, and her arms and hands all come together right there at the hands...when you look at that, it's all out of focus at that point.

I have not "pulled the EXIF info", but I am thinking "f/1.8" with a 50mm or something...and it should be more like "f/6.3 at 1/20 second" at low ISO...

 

[DGMPhotography]

I typed this up earlier this AM, then my WiFi started acting up...so I saved it as a text document and am going to paste it in.

I have to agree with Lew...the originally-shown version of this is framed really tightly, and her line of gaze up and out of the frame doesn't work well in this shot; the edge of the frame being so close to the top of her head causes visual tension; having her looking out of the frame with the top so close compounds the issue. I DO LIKE the two rails--having the rail in front of her, with her hands clasped and placed on the rail, then the rail behind her gives a great 3-D effect, and makes it seem like she's on an elevated footpath or elevated trail at some type of nature park or zoo or something, and I think Lew's eliminating the second rail hurts that 3-D effect.

On another level: I see technical weakness. Depth of field is way too shallow, and not in a good way. Her hands are out of focus, and the whole image looks sub-par in the modern era. The picture is fuzzy,soft, and has plenty of visible chromatic aberration. On a carefully posed, studied shot like this, that is a total shame--that the lens is not stopped down and the picture is working hard against lack of depth of field. This kind of shot NEEDS to have the majority of the person in sharp, clear, good focus. I'm not talking about how the image looks on a cellphone or on a web browser at playing card size...I'm thinking about this as a 13-inch tall print...it will not look good with the hands, arms, and basically most of her outside the actual depth of field zone.

Compositionally, except for the too-tight framing, I LOVE the hands and arms and the diagonals of the railings, and the light upper right corner, and the foliage, and the lovely, simple color palette, and I think the "look" is pretty good. A white dress with lots of bare skin makes a tough garment to compete against for the FACE! It's a very spartan, elegant composition, but the super-shallow DOF works against the things it's strongest at: formality, tranquility, and careful balance of the body on the rails. The way the rail in front, and the small sapling tree, and her arms and hands all come together right there at the hands...when you look at that, it's all out of focus at that point.

I have not "pulled the EXIF info", but I am thinking "f/1.8" with a 50mm or something...and it should be more like "f/6.3 at 1/20 second" at low ISO...

Thanks for the feedback, Derrel!

That's a really good way to think about it... I like how it looks on screen, but imagining it as a poster, the out of focus hands would be more obvious, and I can see now that it would look better if it was in focus. I've made it a point to stop shooting wide open, but I will admit I still do it sometimes (maybe a lot), and probably did so here. I just didn't want the rails in focus, but I suppose I should have tried harder to get that healthy medium. Unfortunately, as you will see in future images, the walkway was very narrow (over a river) and I didn't want to use my kit lens, so the cropping was about the best I could get at that angle, without taking a dive into the river.