Portrait session: C&C please.

[bullock1692]

View attachment 72500View attachment 72501

 

[Austin Greene]

I'd suggest next time you post these to the "People Photography" sub-forum you'll more responses there. Also, I'd suggest you number your images to make it easier for folks to give you CC.

1. The photo is "ok." She has a somewhat nice expression, though it is identical between the two images. The background is distracting and was probably made more so from the conversion to B&W. You've composed the image in landscape, and subsequently cut off her arms. The bit of her right arm peeking from behind her body is distracting and breaks the line of her dress. Good angle to the camera, but it would have been much better shot portrait orientation. Not to mention having so little negative space in front of her, and so much behind her, makes the image feel claustrophobic overall.

2. The color here is...decent. It's got a certain appeal, but just barely so. That said the highlights are more than blown, it looks to me like you shot this via ambient light, and then boosted the heck out of it to bring her back up. That or it's poorly done flash, possibly without a modifier. Either way, the highlights are distracting, both in the background and on her arms/limbs. You've boosted the contrast way too much, making her "happy lines" on her face appear like deep, dark crevasses. Her hand is, as it appears, being consumed by some kind of slow-working, voracious, man-eating grass. I do like the way you've posed her legs, and her right arm. I'd like it better if she were looking at the camera, engaging with me.

They're two good starts, better than a lot of the portraits getting posted to the interwebs nowadays, but they certainly need work.

One last note. In all honesty, your watermark concerns me. It's not unreasonably distracting, but I'm curious why you'd be placing one on these images unless they were the product of a paid shoot, or you are looking to do paid shoots. The portraits might not be horrible, but they aren't great either, and imo not up to snuff for paid work.

 

[Derrel]

I agree with pretty much all of Austin's post, from start to finish. My very first thought is that the B&W of her would have made a GREAT "tall". More woman, less brick wall...woulda' been good.

The horizontal seated pose is a bit unrefined. She's looking off-camera and out of the frame, and I think the large, out of focus trees have too much emphasis in the composition. I looked at it large, and I LOVE the bokeh rendering on the trees. I think it might have been a bit stronger if you would have moved to the right, and had her more centered between the trees. The skin looks kind of over-exposed to me.

 

[wyogirl]

If I were doing the first one, I would have oriented her to look like he is walking into the frame, not walking out of it. Also what Austin said about cutting the arms off. Lastly on the first one, her middle is a little curved out.... makes her look like she is in the early stages of pregnancy and I doubt she will choose that pic to buy. Just a tip when posing women is to always adjust them or their clothes to make the belly as flat as possible. No one buys a photo that they perceive as making them look fat. (Not that she is fat at all)

Now for #2: I like the processing on the second but would burn the shoulder and shin some to reduce the blown out look there. The only thing that is distracting me is that her hand looks missing because its buried in the grass. Not much you could do about that and still keep the pose the same. Maybe you could have tamped the grass down some, but that may or may not have worked.