Redneck modeling part 2 lol CC

[jowensphoto]

I think you took what I said out of context... I wasn't insinuating that the model was bad, just obviously new. She doesn't have the comfort or poise that an experienced model has/should have.

 

[kundalini]

I do think "adults" look younger and younger the older I get. I went to a doctor the other day that looked like Doogie Howser's younger brother.

I wonder how many Google searches have the keywords Doogie Howser in it today?

 

[charlie76]

I think you took what I said out of context... I wasn't insinuating that the model was bad, just obviously new. She doesn't have the comfort or poise that an experienced model has/should have.

I know what you meant...was only kidding...sorry to use your thing for my own amusement!!

 

[PapaMatt]

So what was all the chatter about? I think the photos are just fine now that I get to see them. Nice Job, keep thinking out of the box, don't follow crowd. Good Luck

 

[pgriz]

Whew! Glad we figured out the age thing. As for the pics, I like the fact that luvmyfamily is working hard at broadening her skill set and is not very afraid of trying edgy stuff.

As for the age thing, I was still being carded when I was 28 (this in a province where the legal age for purchase of alcohol is 18), so the fact that the model looks younger than she is is not that unusual.

 

[tirediron]

C&C per req:

1. First and foremost, the hair bothers me. I would prefer to see it either swept back on her shouldes, or covering her bra/swimsuit- top completely. As-is, it just looks messy. The lighting isn't bad, though looking at the brightness of the sky, I can't help thinking that a silver reflector would have brought some real sparkle into her eyes.

2. Right idea, but just a tad too much power. To do this properly, you really need a flash meter. Meter the ambient with your camera, then meter your flash and set it for 2/3 - 1 stop below (also consider an SB - it would definitely reduce some of the 'sharpness').

I'm NOT a fan of the angle or pose; I would much prefer to see something done using the fence; say the classic 'one foot on the bottom board' sort of look.

3. Pose idea is good here, but some fill light was needed as they're faces are slightly dark and should be turned slightly toward the camera. Watch the little things like her cropped fingers!

4. The highlights seem about 1/3 stop too hot here. When you're shooting a scene like this, you really need to do an incident metering or use a grey card to determine exposure. The concept is good, but the plants sort of take away from the 'gritty urban' look. As well, watch hand placement. I don't really like this pose, but I'm afraid I don't have a good suggestion for an alternative.

5, 6. Better, but remember to have them look slightly toward the camera. I think a setting with a little more detail besides a blank, white wall would have helped. Graffitti, some old, rusty junk, etc... it's a little too boring. Alternatively, dressing the models in bright clothes might have worked.

Overall, they're a good set, but there are some small details that are holding them back IMO; for instance, her bra/swimsuit top looks far too 'every day'. Something more 'Daisy Duke' would have helped with the image and remember hair!!!!! Models with long hair need to be checked FREQUENTLY - if it is going to be messy, ensure that it's planned mess!

Just my $00.02 worth - your mileage may vary.

~John

 

[e.rose]

1. I don't like the crop of the first one, or the fact that you're shooting up at her. It's just an awkward angle for me as a veiwer. I feel as though the coloring is a little yellow as well? Maybe that's just me though. If I were you, I would have brought my camera at least to eye-level and then cropped it vertically from at least the waist up for this one.

2. Someone asked you if you photoshopped the sky because they apparently don't understand the relationship between flash and ambient light in a single exposure. THAT being said... you have too much flash... not enough ambient light. The first thing my eyes to go are her jeans because they're light up like Christmas due to the strong flash exposure. You needed to drop the exposure on the flash a stop... maybe even almost two (I'm still learning to guesstimate ) and then if your overall exposure was too dark, up your ISO or open your aperture a bit to make up for your flash exposure change. And now that I look at it again... it also looks like your flash was aimed too low. It's stronger on her legs and the grass and starts to fall off around her chest. Did you have any sort of modifier on your flash? The light also seems to harsh for this sort of thing.

As far as the posing goes, she seems unsure of what to do with her hands. I would have directed her to do something more with them than just let them hang there. I also would have turned her hips slightly more away from the camera, and turned her face slightly more towards the camera

3. Again... this shot calls for a more vertical crop. It also looks like you had some camera shake going on so it's not sharp like it should be. I'm assuming someone already told you that you needed fill flash here.

4. Her expression is unsure in this shot. As far as the posing is concerned, I would have either had her standing or sitting completely... I'm not into having her on her knees like that. Also, again, I think her face should have been turned more towards you. I don't like that weed because it's running into her foot... but on the other hand... had she been standing, I don't think it would have bothered me as much.

Also... I'm not digging the shoes here.

That's not really a helpful comment... cause... I just sat here staring at this for like 3 minutes trying to figure out what the eff I'd have had her wear instead... but... I'm fashionably deficient. S'why I call up my wardrobe stylist friend for stuff like that, haha. But the shoes just don't look like they belong.

5. See... the weed doesn't bother me here But the fact that you're shooting up at them does. Get eye level... or even shoot down for this one. I'm not into the pose either in this one. If you HAD to have her leg attached to him somehow, I would have just had her wrap it around him on her own, where it was comfortable for her and not pulling her jeans too tight across her butt. Having him hold up her leg is too... I dunno what word I'm looking for, but it's too something not desirable.

6. It looks a bit underexposed to me. His eyes look closed, and I wouldn't have had her hand hiding her face. The fact that they're looking at each other already cuts the connection from them to the viewer... having her block her face cuts it even *more*. I'm also distracted by the slanted lines on the wall and that weed coming up by her butt, haha.

It's gonna take some practice, but you'll get there! :sillysmi:



AND...

Whoever got offended by this shoot is... kind of... ridiculous.

I've seen FAR worse with models who ARE younger (17... 18...)

There's nothing wrong with what was done here.

Sorry. Just had to say it. :lmao:

 

[luvmyfamily]

Just had a chance to log back on. Busy week. I read ALL of your CC, and rather than reply to each one, Thank you!! I know these 2 people and borrowed them for practice. Flashfill, framing, angles, posing, and more practice with the speed lite. Already replied to the sharpening earlier, if sharpening needs to happen, I'm glad to know I can do it in PS and select areas. I love the edit side by side of the eyes and the idea of a silver reflector! Anyway, sorry I didnt respond to each of you individually for the great advice, but short on time all this week. P.s. I always print stuff like this out, and printed each page to have on reference and I'm reading it again on paper before heading to bed. Thank ya!!!

 

[luvmyfamily]

Oh, the only thing I find confusing is in previous portraits I have posted, I have been told not to take them straight on, was even told to put them up. Which one is it?

 

[Ernicus]

I agree with the hair covering the swimsuit on that image that was edited. To me, we are being teased with some cloth, not cleavage. Since the model does not have cleavage to tease the viewer, we are left with cloth...and it's not rewarding. Cover up the cloth with hair and we are left with mystery and wondering...which is not rewarding but leaves a better image in our head as we are forced to fill out the mystery with our imagination. ;-)

and yeah, I'm a perv...oh well.

 

[tirediron]

Oh, the only thing I find confusing is in previous portraits I have posted, I have been told not to take them straight on, was even told to put them up. Which one is it?

Not take what straight on?

 

[luvmyfamily]

You know what, never mind that. I guess it depends on what portrait, background, props you are using as to what angle you should choose. I personally think all portraits taken straight on would be boring, but we all have our opinions. Not these I have posted, but for future reference. Like someone on a couch might be more interesting taken "upward," photographer laying on the floor getting the couch and subject for example. Once again, busy week, hopefully next week I'll have more time to spend on here. Only able to pop on and off.....