First Photo Job! Senior Pictures

[Oilersrock]

What if I want her laying on the beach, showing the whole body? Would that be acceptable for horizontal?

IMO - If you want to show the whole body, show the whole body. If not, then don't. However, one thing you (and me) should remember is that for wedding photography, the subject should probably fill the whole frame. Also, remember, you're taking these shots for the client - not for the users of this forum. Talk to them and see what kind of photos they like. If they are the anti-Derrel and absolutely love horizontals and hate verticals, then go ahead and shoot horizontals. If they don't know what they like, get a good mix of both. It's all about the client.

 

[iKokomo]

IMO - If you want to show the whole body, show the whole body. If not, then don't. However, one thing you (and me) should remember is that for wedding photography, the subject should probably fill the whole frame. Also, remember, you're taking these shots for the client - not for the users of this forum. Talk to them and see what kind of photos they like. If they are the anti-Derrel and absolutely love horizontals and hate verticals, then go ahead and shoot horizontals. If they don't know what they like, get a good mix of both. It's all about the client.

Thank you very much! It's all up to her not me or anyone else Thanks!

 

[The_Traveler]

What if I want her laying on the beach, showing the whole body? Would that be acceptable for horizontal?

She should be lying on the beach; 'laying' would not be suitable for a wedding album unless they are very broadminded folks. :lmao:

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

What if I want her laying on the beach, showing the whole body? Would that be acceptable for horizontal?

IMO - If you want to show the whole body, show the whole body. If not, then don't. However, one thing you (and me) should remember is that for wedding photography, the subject should probably fill the whole frame. Also, remember, you're taking these shots for the client - not for the users of this forum. Talk to them and see what kind of photos they like. If they are the anti-Derrel and absolutely love horizontals and hate verticals, then go ahead and shoot horizontals. If they don't know what they like, get a good mix of both. It's all about the client.

Shooting horizontal or vertical is dictated mostly by the pose.

 

[Derrel]

But the thing is derrel you have to think about the finish product. A lot of my pics will go on a flush mount album where these pics will be on a spread. Vertical photos typically won't make a good spread.

Always excuses...maybe it is time for you, and the OP, to buy some books on posing people...books written by TRAINED professionals who understand principles of posing (foot and body positioning, weight balance, body angles to the camera, masculine and feminine head tilts, how to position hands, arms, and fingers, etc,etc.). There is a well-established visual language that has been cultivated over centuries. As bitter jeweler stated elsewhere in this thread, the decision to orient the camera vertically or horizontally is determined by the ***pose*** of the person...not by a pre-conceived desire to slap an image in to a "layout"...

The difference between a top-level professional wedding photographer and a self-taught shooter is that the top-level shooter understands that each pose demands the proper orientation of the camera. Wrapping your head around this concept in the kind of thing that will differentiate you from all the MWAC and GWC wedding shooters. I hate to be so blunt, but your excuses are just that. When you butcher a POSE of one, or two people, to get an image that will "drop into a layout", you ain't doing it right...

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Schwetty, to apply what Derrel is saying, you need to have an idea of how many landscape aspect images you need for your album, and pose and shoot for your needs.
Doesn't it make sense to have a plan for your final product, rather than forcing things to work with "what you got" later?

 

[Paulwil]

Look around at some other photographs and see what inspires you. Do not try to copy them but use them as insperation and allow your style to come out. Just be comfortable with what you are doing and even if you do not feel it still show confidence. That way your model will feel at ease, and you will get more natural looking poses. Take all of your gear with you, nothing worse then going man this would turn out really cool if i had my. As far as charging goes, since she is your first senior session. I would let her see your finished work and say. Since you are my first senior and I am learning off you what do you feel these photographs are worth to you. You know she will keep the payment in range she can afford, but you will also know just how much she likes them by what she is willing to pay you for them. That is what I did when I first started doing photographs for others. I knew I was still learning and would make mistakes. That was a way for both sides to be happy. Once you reach a level when you know your photography is as good as other pros out there. You make sure to charge what you feel your photographs are worth. Remember to have fun with it!!

 

[Patrice]

This young friend of the op does not waste any time, from senior (graduation) photos to wedding in a mere 35 posts!

 

[Robin Usagani]

Well..I just look at the frame and I see what looks good what doesnt. If I see horizontal looks good, I do it. My culled photos will have vast amount to choose from between horizontal and vertical. I dont know why derrel has so much problem with horizontal. I have seen many amazing photos taken horizontally with 85% of it negative space and it looks absolutely stunning. You would take this vertical too? Actually I did that.. but I like the horizontal better and it would be a shame if I didnt have the horizontal choice.

 

[Derrel]

I do not have a "problem with horizontal".. I have a problem with $hi++y compositional skills, or NO SKILL.

Get a clue,man. Me, The Traveler, Bitter Jeweler, and others probably have a combined 100 years of experience in photography. Bitter, and myself, have studied art, composition, drawing, the arts...get a CLUE Schwetty...your photo above shows a "scene". We have a beautiful tree in bloom, a woodpile, a log fence and some cars behind, and a pretty young woman. The season of the year is spring...this horizontal composition actually "works" because there is a "reason for", a "justification for" the camera to be horizontal. Your disparaging comments about my "problem with horizontal" tells me,and the rest of us with experience, that you just--do--not--understand--the-visual--arts.

MY GOD man, can you not get it through your head that I am trying to help you get better? And that you, and others in this thread, are acting like the untrained, unstudied,self-taught shooters that you are?

Your statement, "I dont know why derrel has so much problem with horizontal. I have seen many amazing photos taken horizontally with 85% of it negative space and it looks absolutely stunning."

Man, what a clueless proclamation. You JUST DO NOT UNDERSTAND the visual arts if you think that a photo consisting of 85% of what you call negative space looks, to use your words, "absolutely stunning"--except under exceptional circumstances. TAKE AN ART CLASS MAN. LEARN FROM THE MASTERS, not from snap-snap-snapping. Get a clue. Improve your game. Your work looks like that of countless other GWC's and MWAC's because you're breaking all sorts of accepted compositional rules and guidelines, and making excuses because you're un-educated in the visual arts. You bought a camera and some lenses and hung out a shingle. I would never hire you to shoot a wedding for me, or my family. Why? Because you do not yet understand how poses are related to the framing, and you are repeatedly contradicting three vastly more-experience, older, more-accomplished shooters and artists, each of us who takes their art "seriously". You make excuses, but have no training to back up your facile ideas and understanding of composition and framing.

So, you bought a camera and some lenses. Now, get some artistic education to go with them...or remain forever in the MWAC-GWC camp.

 

[ghache]

I do not have a "problem with horizontal".. I have a problem with $hi++y compositional skills, or NO SKILL.

Get a clue,man. Me, The Traveler, Bitter Jeweler, and others probably have a combined 100 years of experience in photography. Bitter, and myself, have studied art, composition, drawing, the arts...get a CLUE Schwetty...your photo above shows a "scene". We have a beautiful tree in bloom, a woodpile, a log fence and some cars behind, and a pretty young woman. The season of the year is spring...this horizontal composition actually "works" because there is a "reason for", a "justification for" the camera to be horizontal. Your disparaging comments about my "problem with horizontal" tells me,and the rest of us with experience, that you just--do--not--understand--the-visual--arts.

MY GOD man, can you not get it through your head that I am trying to help you get better? And that you, and others in this thread, are acting like the untrained, unstudied,self-taught shooters that you are?

Your statement, "I dont know why derrel has so much problem with horizontal. I have seen many amazing photos taken horizontally with 85% of it negative space and it looks absolutely stunning."

Man, what a clueless proclamation. You JUST DO NOT UNDERSTAND the visual arts if you think that a photo consisting of 85% of what you call negative space looks, to use your words, "absolutely stunning"--except under exceptional circumstances. TAKE AN ART CLASS MAN. LEARN FROM THE MASTERS, not from snap-snap-snapping. Get a clue. Improve your game. Your work looks like that of countless other GWC's and MWAC's because you're breaking all sorts of accepted compositional rules and guidelines, and making excuses because you're un-educated in the visual arts. You bought a camera and some lenses and hung out a shingle. I would never hire you to shoot a wedding for me, or my family. Why? Because you do not yet understand how poses are related to the framing, and you are repeatedly contradicting three vastly more-experience, older, more-accomplished shooters and artists, each of us who takes their art "seriously". You make excuses, but have no training to back up your facile ideas and understanding of composition and framing.

So, you bought a camera and some lenses. Now, get some artistic education to go with them...or remain forever in the MWAC-GWC camp.

your so good Derrel, i want you to be the father of my childs.

I am sorry but from what ive seen from your webpage and Schwettylens website, you should start putting all that visual ART in your pictures because your clearly suck. i think you spent too much time in those major art school and your basement. you are pathetic.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Schetty, I think that is a nice image, but it does have issues for me. I find myself mor interested in whats going on on the left of the image. I think part of the reason is that she sorta blends into the flowers too much. Something I do with images is squint at them to help decide how well they work. This helps me "blur" the image into identifiable shapes, and reduces getting lost in the details, so I can get a rough idea of the compostition. when I squint at this, she gets lost into the blossoms. While I can seperate her from the background looking at it normally, I feel the tree behind her is competing, and coming forward into the plane of focus.

Schwetty, keep in mind, I don't shoot portraiture much. I do think it is difficult to do really well. But I do think, what I know from my background, I can speak to it. I wish I had more opportunity to work on it myself.

 

[lyonsroar]

I passed "Art History: Prehistoric - Gothic Eras" last semester. Am I qualified to shoot in both landscape and portrait orientation yet?

 

[tibrunner]

Schetty, I think that is a nice image, but it does have issues for me. I find myself mor interested in whats going on on the left of the image. I think part of the reason is that she sorta blends into the flowers too much. Something I do with images is squint at them to help decide how well they work. This helps me "blur" the image into identifiable shapes, and reduces getting lost in the details, so I can get a rough idea of the compostition. when I squint at this, she gets lost into the blossoms. While I can seperate her from the background looking at it normally, I feel the tree behind her is competing, and coming forward into the plane of focus.

Schwetty, keep in mind, I don't shoot portraiture much. I do think it is difficult to do really well. But I do think, what I know from my background, I can speak to it. I wish I had more opportunity to work on it myself.

I do like this photo, and I am pretty sure she did as well.

Also, I agree with Bitter, she blends in way too much with the tree. Secondly, she seems overly pasty (though that could be my screen), and as for the trucks in the background...I am sorry but they do not help this photo at all. Almost seems as if the location was set up on the fly, and that you either didn't notice them or were just hoping no one else would. Tell Jethro to move the trucks, then and try again.

 

[Derrel]

I am sorry but from what ive seen from your webpage and Schwettylens website, you should start putting all that visual ART in your pictures because your clearly suck. i think you spent too much time in those major art school and your basement. you are pathetic.

Thanks,gash. I hope you get the last bit of sand out of your vag soon.

There's still a bed for you at the mental ward gash, whenever you want to come back!!! Toodles! **Cheek Pinch!** We all love yer' stuff, girl!!