Portrait Critique Please--Don't be nice!

[tomato1236]

I would like a critique of a couple of photos, please. I've spent the last several months developing my lighting and editing techniques. I'm trying to create something more specialized for portrait photography than the 5,000,000 other local photographers offer. Within 6 months I'll have pro lighting gear. The boy directly below, here was shot using a home-made softbox with a 100-watt bulb and another naked bulb of the same power. The photo of the girl is a candid shot I took outdoors beneath a picnic canopy.

 

[user3977]

the first one looks like something you see on advertising from the 50's im not good enough to C&C it but its just what it reminds me of.

 

[oldmacman]

Love the quality of light in the second pic. I can't exactly put my finger on why, but I don't like the PP in number 1. There's green in his face and shirt and I don't know if it reflected or missed in post. The green, while cool, is also a bright green. That means it will appear to come forward more than you may want. The eyes look nice and sharp, but the mouth is soft. The red-orange/green colour combination is harmonious for me.

edit - oops: that should read, "The red-orange/green colour combination is not harmonious for me. "

 

[tomato1236]

Thanks. I didn't edit these on a calibrated monitor, so while I don't see green, that may be why.
Regarding the sharpness/softness, because my lights were so dim, I had to use a wide aperture if I had any hope of getting any sharpness at all. Hopefully when I get some brighter lights that problem will resolve.

 

[DanFinePhotography]

Both of these look like the PP'ing was pretty heavy

 

[tomato1236]

It is pretty heavy. Is that a bad move? I like the effects I've gotten, and I'm interested in feedback. I see myself moving further toward heavier PP in the future.

 

[Inst!nct]

It is pretty heavy. Is that a bad move? I like the effects I've gotten, and I'm interested in feedback. I see myself moving further toward heavier PP in the future.

First one as said before, looks like it could be on a cereal box in the 60's. The second one, I hate vignetting to begin with, but looks over pp, as if you are trying too hard in my opinion.

 

[chuasam]

I like the first one, I don't like the second one so much.
Second one has too much sharpening and the pose and composition seems too awkward and tight.

 

[paigew]

I love them! As a mother I could see wanting something like this of my kids. A sort of hybrid between a photo and a painting. I wouldn't want all the photos of my kids to look like this, but yes, I see a market for this type of editing

I do agree though about the greenish cast...

 

[Bossy]

You chopped his ear in the first one. And he looks plastic. And orange. But if thats "what you were going for" then ok. The lighting looks good.

The second one is noisy/oof/underexposed/not color balance/poorly faked DOF. Basically the kind of shot I'd expect to see from a MWAC.

​

 

[rexbobcat]

They're disgusting. Just kidding. You said not to be nice after all. lol But in all seriousness, I do think that the first photo is really nice, even if it is a bit on the blue/green side. The second one doesn't look like a keeper to me. Her back is so much brighter than her face, and since she's wearing a white shirt, that fact is more obvious. The whole left side of her face is in shadow including her eye. It's not very flattering. The lighting, as a whole, is all over the place. There are bright spots in weird places and shadows in other weird places. The colors also seem to be kind of....boring...mute...

 

[katiejayne]

You chopped his ear in the first one. And he looks plastic. And orange. But if thats "what you were going for" then ok. The lighting looks good.

The second one is noisy/oof/underexposed/not color balance/poorly faked DOF. Basically the kind of shot I'd expect to see from a MWAC.

I have to agree with all of Bossy's critique. I understand that you are trying to stand out, but most mwacs are over compensating for lack of skill/experience by over processing. You want to get better? Study and learn to use light to mold your subject and create depth, as well as learn how to connect with your subject. Orange plastic skin does not a timeless portrait make. Anyone can Photoshop an image. Just trying to be honest

 

[dxqcanada]

Are you willing to put up the unprocessed images ?

 

[manaheim]

The treatment of the images distracts me so much from the composition I forgot to really look at it in that light, and am lament to comment on anything else. (not that this is necessarily bad... it's just that the PP is a real statement)

The first one didn't work for me. They're both heavy-handed, yes... but I thought the end result on the second one was actually very pleasing. I agree with the comment about the 50s add or whatever... if the saturation were pulled down, I would have suspected it pulled right from an old magazine.

Very interesting.

 

[jamesbjenkins]

I would like a critique of a couple of photos, please. I've spent the last several months developing my lighting and editing techniques. I'm trying to create something more specialized for portrait photography than the 5,000,000 other local photographers offer. Within 6 months I'll have pro lighting gear. The boy directly below, here was shot using a home-made softbox with a 100-watt bulb and another naked bulb of the same power. The photo of the girl is a candid shot I took outdoors beneath a picnic canopy.

Are you going for a portrait, or an artistic print? Both of these images are pretty heavily PP'ed, and as such they don't even look "real." If that was your intention, then mission accomplished. I'm going to assume it was with my C&C:

#1: Your exposure is good overall, but the hair and face on the left side of the boy's face seem underexposed. The halo effect around the boy is pretty distracting from his face. His eyes look crisp and natural. Good job on the composition.

#2: I like this dreamy, soft focus effect you're going with here. The natural light was your friend on this one.