Portraits

[chris_panas]

As the british would say, photo 1 is BRILLIANT. The posing, the lighting, the makeup, even the vignetting and post processing (looks like some split-toning) really add to it. Her hair is just amazing. I want to reach out and touch it. Her red hair goes very nicely with the purple in her dress and in the shadows. I've always been partial to red hair.


I'd be interested in knowing a little about your setup for that shot.

Thanks a lot. I'm not British, I just live in London, but I agree, that's what they say The setup - well, nothing much to tell, all natural light, Canon 5D Mark II, 50L lens and some editing in Photoshop. The key here was the time of the day to get the light right.

great shots. #2 #4 show great restraint in post; I know you could have pushed it a bit to play up that style, but I think they are spot on.

Thanks a lot. You're right, I like to edit pictures to the point when I'm sure it's enough and not go any further, so they can still feel "fresh".

These are exceptional. The use of the color around you in #4 is brilliant. The use of posing here is a great example of how to show a mood with just the body alone. Great work.

Thank you very much. I love color and playing with it

#1 is awesome and #3 is priceless.

Thank you very much. And it's interesting how you put them in a hierarchy here: first one is a photo of the year and an editor's choice on a few of the photo portals and #3 has been selected by VOGUE. Great taste Mister!

# 1 & 4 are totally awesome

Thanks a lot!

#1 is just great. Terrific pose and effect - classical.

Thank you very much, that is exactly what we were going for with this shoot.

1 2 and 4 are pretty awesome. Really dig your editing style

Wow great photos. Like someone else said, nice editing style.

great photos and style

Thank you kindly, I will post more soon

The visual attention in a portrait is supposed to be on the eyes and the hands are not considered to be visually flattering. In #1, the hands are in front of the face and therefore distract the eye of the viewer. They are also over-exposed, possibly to reduce the detail that would even more distract the eye of the viewer. The necklace further directs the attention to the hands rather than the eyes. Skin tones are washed out in #1 as well which creates a very flat face which is also not flattering to the model.

The hand is the problem in #2 as well. It looks more like a claw and distracts the viewer's attention from the face as well.

In number 3, the subject is looking out of the frame and away from the camera which is also an approach that is negative in a portrait.

Number 4 has an over-exposed background and a clichee pose.

The photos I posted here won the photo of the month, photo of the year contests on other photography forums, some of them are in the "editor's choice" galleries, some won other contests, like 35mm photography and some has been selected by VOGUE. After reading your comments I was sure that you must be someone that has a much greater knowledge and experience than people who liked my photos and decided to select and publish them. So, before replying to your criticism I decided to take a look at your works.
Found only one portrait: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/people-photography/151415-year-half-year-old.html

I promise that from now on, I will only take crappy photos of people's eyes with the flashlight mounted on my camera and pointed directly at my models. And I will remember to crop them badly as well, and not to include hands or anything else than a face. Or even better - the eyes.

You are officially my favourite joker now

I was drawn directly to the eyes in every photo but the 3rd which I think that image is much more than just eyes.

the above critique is VERY picky and I politely disagree with everything that he/she said ha

Thanks, the 3rd photo has been selected by VOGUE and I think their editors also disagree with all what was said

 

[Braineack]

I promise that from now on, I will only take crappy photos of people's eyes with the flashlight mounted on my camera and pointed directly at my models. And I will remember to crop them badly as well, and not to include hands or anything else than a face. Or even better - the eyes.

:hail:

 

[dsiglin]

Ok the fact that #1 is natural light is even more impressive to me just because I know how hard it is to get light that is that diffused. Or at least to my beginner mind it seems hard to get light that diffused. Did you use a scrim? The reason I asked you about it is since I'm just starting to learn photography I like to know the technicals behind photos I enjoy. The "Lady Bug Fly to Heaven" photo in your flickr is another great one.

totally random but if you haven't been to Monmouth Coffee Company at The Borrough Market, I highly recommend it.

 

[chris_panas]

Thanks. Well, like I said, the time here is the key, so if you want to have a very soft natural light without any modifiers, you need to shoot either very early in the morning or very late in the afternoon, when the sun is low and the amount and the angle of light is just right. Reflectors are also very helpful most of the time

I've been there of course, it's about 20 minutes from where I live Very cool place!

 

[JoeLeBean]

Number 4 is gorgeous, i like 1 then 2, that's awesome work
I'm not keen on 3 because of the expression,it makes me feel that she's not well.

 

[skieur]

I was drawn directly to the eyes in every photo but the 3rd which I think that image is much more than just eyes.

the above critique is VERY picky and I politely disagree with everything that he/she said ha

Attention to detail or to use your words being "very picky" is what photography and critique is all about.

 

[dsiglin]

And it is much appreciated except when, in this instance, it's not accurate.

 

[rexbobcat]

I was drawn directly to the eyes in every photo but the 3rd which I think that image is much more than just eyes.

the above critique is VERY picky and I politely disagree with everything that he/she said ha

Attention to detail or to use your words being "very picky" is what photography and critique is all about.

But much of your critique was very shallow. And being picky is different than looking for noticeable problems that aren't picked up by the majority of people, and as such, they are not really noticeable .

 

[DanOstergren]

Really stunning, each one! Thank you for sharing! These are very inspiring.

 

[skieur]

As the british would say, photo 1 is BRILLIANT. The posing, the lighting, the makeup, even the vignetting and post processing (looks like some split-toning) really add to it. Her hair is just amazing. I want to reach out and touch it. Her red hair goes very nicely with the purple in her dress and in the shadows. I've always been partial to red hair.


I'd be interested in knowing a little about your setup for that shot.

Thanks a lot. I'm not British, I just live in London, but I agree, that's what they say The setup - well, nothing much to tell, all natural light, Canon 5D Mark II, 50L lens and some editing in Photoshop. The key here was the time of the day to get the light right.

great shots. #2 #4 show great restraint in post; I know you could have pushed it a bit to play up that style, but I think they are spot on.

Thanks a lot. You're right, I like to edit pictures to the point when I'm sure it's enough and not go any further, so they can still feel "fresh".





Thank you very much. I love color and playing with it





Thank you very much. And it's interesting how you put them in a hierarchy here: first one is a photo of the year and an editor's choice on a few of the photo portals and #3 has been selected by VOGUE. Great taste Mister!





Thanks a lot!





Thank you very much, that is exactly what we were going for with this shoot.











Thank you kindly, I will post more soon

Number 4 has an over-exposed background and a clichee pose.

The photos I posted here won the photo of the month, photo of the year contests on other photography forums, some of them are in the "editor's choice" galleries, some won other contests, like 35mm photography and some has been selected by VOGUE. After reading your comments I was sure that you must be someone that has a much greater knowledge and experience than people who liked my photos and decided to select and publish them. So, before replying to your criticism I decided to take a look at your works.
Found only one portrait: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/people-photography/151415-year-half-year-old.html

I promise that from now on, I will only take crappy photos of people's eyes with the flashlight mounted on my camera and pointed directly at my models. And I will remember to crop them badly as well, and not to include hands or anything else than a face. Or even better - the eyes.

You are officially my favourite joker now

I was drawn directly to the eyes in every photo but the 3rd which I think that image is much more than just eyes.

the above critique is VERY picky and I politely disagree with everything that he/she said ha

Thanks, the 3rd photo has been selected by VOGUE and I think their editors also disagree with all what was said

Gee, you had to go 4 years back to find a grab photo that was mistakenly uploaded! You didn't mention my gallery with almost a 1/4 million views, but then neither did you point out where my critique was wrong. Some of your photos are street photography and that is the source of some of the limited technique demonstrated. Some work on your planning and posing would also be helpful in those that were more controlled. Decide whether your emphasis is street photography or portraits. The approaches and criteria are not the same.

skieur

 

[DanOstergren]

I was drawn directly to the eyes in every photo but the 3rd which I think that image is much more than just eyes.

the above critique is VERY picky and I politely disagree with everything that he/she said ha

I agree with you. Skieur's critiques seem a lot more like inaccurate nit-picks than anything else. Hands can be a major part of a portrait, and eyes don't need to be open or in contact with the lens in order to make a highly effective and emotional shot. I see a little bit what Skieur means about the hand in the second photo looking a little like a claw, but to me it still looks very natural and doesn't detract from the shot at all in my opinion. In the last shot I don't see a single blown out or over exposed area; perhaps Skieur could really consider re-calibrating their monitor.
You can't impress everyone though I guess. There are a few people here who always seem to try and find something to nit-pick, and if you disagree with them they get pretty upset about it. It's water off a duck's back.

 

[DanOstergren]

Gee, you had to go 4 years back to find a grab photo that was mistakenly uploaded! You didn't mention my gallery with almost a 1/4 million views, but then neither did you point out where my critique was wrong. Some of your photos are street photography and that is the source of some of the limited technique demonstrated. Some work on your planning and posing would also be helpful in those that were more controlled. Decide whether your emphasis is street photography or portraits. The approaches and criteria are not the same.

skieur

I don't see how a single one of these could be confused for a street photograph and not a portrait. Nor do I see how there is limited technique used in any of these shots. I think you're pulling all of this out of your ass.

 

[Geaux]

Haters gonna hate.

and please post your 1.4 million view gallery skiur Or however it's spelled. From the shots I've seen on here, you have no room to talk.

 

[dsiglin]

Photography isn't just a check list you can do and have a powerful photo. Inversely, it's not a set of rules that can never be broken. A powerful photograph is much more than the sum of its part. If certain guidelines are disregarded it speaks to the photographer's skill/genius that they can pull off what most people would never dream can work.

 

[DanOstergren]

Photography isn't just a check list you can do and have a powerful photo. Inversely, it's not a set of rules that can never be broken. A powerful photograph is much more than the sum of its part. If certain guidelines are disregarded it speaks to the photographer's skill/genius that they can pull off what most people would never dream can work.

Agreed. I've noticed a lot of people here are completely obsessed with following these rules, and if you dare disagree with them about it then be prepared for a fight or to be added to their ignore list. It's absurd how easily someone willingly limits what they're capable of by staying in this box.