Jessika Andrea

[Donde]

With on camera flash.

 

[Rick50]

The pose is good but the window is distracting. The lighting is at least even but I need my shadows. I might have bounced the flash to get them.

 

[Gary A.]

Looks like a snapshot. A disservice to her beauty and your skills/photography. A 90+ degree turn would bring that window lighting into play ... then maybe the onboard flash for fill. But Gary is a bigger fan of ambient/available light than flash.

 

[Donde]

It was a snapshot in a restaurant. All my photos are snapshots. Those are good suggestions and I agree. If the subject were cooperative I would try them out but unfortunately not the case. I do try to avoid flash completely and use only available light but this time it was just too dark. I think I would have needed flash even if I'd gotten her to turn towards the window.

 

[Gary A.]

“... All my photos are snapshots.”

 

[Destin]

It was a snapshot in a restaurant. All my photos are snapshots. Those are good suggestions and I agree. If the subject were cooperative I would try them out but unfortunately not the case. I do try to avoid flash completely and use only available light but this time it was just too dark. I think I would have needed flash even if I'd gotten her to turn towards the window.

If all your photos are “just snapshots” then why share them on a photography forum?

Snapshot is something that none of us here ever want to hear our work described as. A snapshot is generally considered a photo that only documents what was seen, and makes no attempt to be artistic or creative. The word snapshot reminds me of crime scene or surveillance photos.

The main goal of most on this forum is for their photos to be an art form, and not just a snapshot documenting what was present.

 

[Fred von den Berg]

Looks like a snapshot. A disservice to her beauty and your skills/photography. A 90+ degree turn would bring that window lighting into play ... then maybe the onboard flash for fill. But Gary is a bigger fan of ambient/available light than flash.

It was a snapshot in a restaurant. All my photos are snapshots. Those are good suggestions and I agree. If the subject were cooperative I would try them out but unfortunately not the case. I do try to avoid flash completely and use only available light but this time it was just too dark. I think I would have needed flash even if I'd gotten her to turn towards the window.

If all your photos are “just snapshots” then why share them on a photography forum?

Snapshot is something that none of us here ever want to hear our work described as. A snapshot is generally considered a photo that only documents what was seen, and makes no attempt to be artistic or creative. The word snapshot reminds me of crime scene or surveillance photos.

The main goal of most on this forum is for their photos to be an art form, and not just a snapshot documenting what was present.

I like snapshots. That people use the term as an insult never ceases to amuse. Snapshots are authentic documents and as such have real value.

 

[Derrel]

My first question is not the lighting, but, "Why did you not rotate the camera to a tall orientation?" I mean...she's taller than she is wide...the parked car outside on the street does nothing to advance the picture "of her". Since this is a picture "of her", why not rotate the camera to a vertical orientation, and show less parked car, and less frame on the all, and more "of her"...

I've seen a number of your photos of her over the past year. Most of them are marked by excessive contrast, with the darkest areas like her hair, devoid of exposure information. I think perhaps you could address the darkest areas of some shots of her, and strive for a bit more detail in the blacks/dark hair zones.

For a post in the discussion of photography, in the people photo forum, I think this is a critical item for discussion: making the subject and the picture's compositional orientation be in agreement. She's taller than she is wide, ergo, the correct orientation of the camera is "portrait", AKA vertical, AKA "tall"...not wide, not horizontal, not "landscape".

 

[Donde]

My first question is not the lighting, but, "Why did you not rotate the camera to a tall orientation?" I mean...she's taller than she is wide...the parked car outside on the street does nothing to advance the picture "of her". Since this is a picture "of her", why not rotate the camera to a vertical orientation, and show less parked car, and less frame on the all, and more "of her"...

I've seen a number of your photos of her over the past year. Most of them are marked by excessive contrast, with the darkest areas like her hair, devoid of exposure information. I think perhaps you could address the darkest areas of some shots of her, and strive for a bit more detail in the blacks/dark hair zones.

For a post in the discussion of photography, in the people photo forum, I think this is a critical item for discussion: making the subject and the picture's compositional orientation be in agreement. She's taller than she is wide, ergo, the correct orientation of the camera is "portrait", AKA vertical, AKA "tall"...not wide, not horizontal, not "landscape".

 

[Donde]

Good points Derrel thank you. I will try to address them in the future.

 

[Donde]

For Destin:
"I don't believe that the distinction can be found in the nature of the image taken but rather in the size of the ego of the person pushing the button."

Dpreview April 17, 2008