Senior portrait shoot C&C welcome

[AnotherNewGuy]

I don't think her arm is underexposed. Compare it to face. She probably has makeup on her face which gives it a slightly different tone.

 

[lmchelaru]

What ISO are you using? They look a little bit noisy.

 

[KAikens318]

What ISO are you using? They look a little bit noisy.

I used a low ISO, I think it was around 400

 

[Pugs]

What ISO are you using? They look a little bit noisy.

I used a low ISO, I think it was around 400

Oh... Portraits, as a rule of thumb, need to be shot at 100 or lower.

 

[KAikens318]

What ISO are you using? They look a little bit noisy.

I used a low ISO, I think it was around 400

Oh... Portraits, as a rule of thumb, need to be shot at 100 or lower.

But isn't ISO 100 on some cameras worse than a high ISO, more grainy with more noise? That is what I was told by a photography teacher so I never use 100 anymore. I know at the portrait studio that I work at they have it set at 100 ISO, like F14-20 depending on the room, and shutter speed at about 80 (which when you have moving children suuuuuuuuuuuuucks) Lol.

 

[Katelyn.Rose]

I like them, but I think you should have challenged the creativity in yourself a little more. She is a very beautiful girl, and you could have done a lot of great poses & fabulous styles with her!

 

[KAikens318]

I like them, but I think you should have challenged the creativity in yourself a little more. She is a very beautiful girl, and you could have done a lot of great poses & fabulous styles with her!

I would have loved to shoot all day with her as she does make a great model! We only had a limited amount of time as it got dark very quickly. I tried a few at night with the cityscape behind us, but they just weren't coming out right. Anyone have tips on night portraiture?

 

[GeneralBenson]

What ISO are you using? They look a little bit noisy.

I used a low ISO, I think it was around 400

Oh... Portraits, as a rule of thumb, need to be shot at 100 or lower.

That's a stupid rule. It's rules like that that encourage people to not actually learn to understand and make their own decisions. Shoot portraits at whatever ISO is right for the shot. That's the only rule.

As for the shots, some are pretty underexposed, other are massively underexposed. The posing looks pretty stiff and a lot of the crop are awkward. Also, the lighting is really flat and the focus seems to be off in a few. Good effort, keep practicing!

 

[Pugs]

I used a low ISO, I think it was around 400

Oh... Portraits, as a rule of thumb, need to be shot at 100 or lower.

That's a stupid rule. It's rules like that that encourage people to not actually learn to understand and make their own decisions. Shoot portraits at whatever ISO is right for the shot. That's the only rule.

As for the shots, some are pretty underexposed, other are massively underexposed. The posing looks pretty stiff and a lot of the crop are awkward. Also, the lighting is really flat and the focus seems to be off in a few. Good effort, keep practicing!

Every photography rule is meant to be broken. The point is to know that you're breaking the "rule" and having a specific reason for doing so. In music, going flat or sharp on a note once is a mistake; going flat or sharp on the same note in the same place every time is jazz.

Generally speaking the rule of thumb for portraits is that you want as little noise/grain as possible to give the most flattering image of the subject. If you choose to break that rule, it should be a CHOICE, not an accident, not based on bad advice, but a choice that you as the photographic artist are making to achieve an effect, fit a scenario, adapt to your environment, etc...

Just my two-bits... your mileage may vary...

 

[NateWagner]

well, it seems like an odd rule, especially considering with many cameras you can't go below 100 even if you wanted to. I do agree that using a lower ISO is preferable in general, but with most DSLR's today I would think pretty much anything 400 and below is pretty safe.

 

[NateWagner]

by the way, I agree that I think her arm is fine in the edited image. There is still detail through the whole image and it seems to be about right for me.

One other thought I have about these images is that she looks cold in each of them. I mean physically cold, maybe it's the stiffness or the clothing or something, but that's the feeling I get. brr.

 

[ANDS!]

Really more of a contrast issue than anything else. I don't find the images soft at all. No need for any more aggressive sharpening.

 

[Shockey]

Compositions are weak, exposures are very dark, color practically nonexistant.
Spend some time looking at a lot of photos by people who really know what they are doing when it comes to taking portraits, it will be time well spent.
Keep working at it you will get there.

 

[Nikkor]

Just a little too dark. And I agree that those slippers need to go! Granted, she dressed herself, but still.