Teenager

midnitejam · Dec 29, 2006

C&C, please

Canon EOS 20D/Kit Lense
F- 5.6
1/125
ISO 200
51 mm
WB Custom
Exposure Manual

LaFoto · Dec 30, 2006

Please explain what sort of critique you want here, is it about the lighting, composition, framing, exposure, her expression --- when you place your photo into Photo Critique and not into Portaits and Weddings then you must want to know something quite, quite specific. General critique and comments are also to be had in Portraits and Weddings. Tell us. Else I might have to move it.

midnitejam · Dec 30, 2006

LaFoto said:
Please explain what sort of critique you want here, is it about the lighting, composition, framing, exposure, her expression --- when you place your photo into Photo Critique and not into Portaits and Weddings then you must want to know something quite, quite specific. General critique and comments are also to be had in Portraits and Weddings. Tell us. Else I might have to move it.

This is a candid shot--neither studio portrait shot nor a wedding shot. I was hoping for a normal/usual/standard issue of critique which includes all the elements that are wrong or could be improved. These elements would consist of lighting, composition, framing, exposure, expression, pose, skin tone, focus, subject interrest, etc. Did I mention subject appeal? Also, A description of what is liked and/or disliked about the image is usually included in most critiques.

LaFoto, better yet--please delete the entire thread. Thanks.
Midnitejam.

LaFoto · Dec 30, 2006

No, why would I ... I fear I came across as a bit harsh. But it is ok that you state what you want to know, so everyone can give you the replies you hoped for.

I, for one, liked this photo instantly. Her look, i.e. her communication with the camera and consequently US, the viewers, is very direct and open and friendly. The colour of her eyes is really attractive, and I find the lighting good. More so now that I know that this one is a CANDID photo! Both her eyes get light and I like it!

Actually I find lighting particularly good, there even is some light behind her head to distinguish hair from background.

This is a total amateur speaking and I know we have a good many portrait experts here who might see things all different. But I like this photo very much and if it were mine I'd be really proud!

And I am sure that your subject likes her photo here very much, too, doesn't she? She might even want you to take more of her, less candid ones? To be your "guinea pig" on all sorts of portrait pics and different lighting situations? That could be interesting.

She is very pretty!

Azuth · Dec 30, 2006

Frankly I think that "general critique" should be an acceptable genuine request for this forum so long as people don't post their every image here. However one should expect that people will focus on what could be improved and they may not like what they hear.

Btw: the fact that it's not a studio portrait really doesn't make this less of a portrait, it is after all an image solely about the person.

I think subject appeal is a difficult and slippery slope for critique, particularly where people are concerned. To me, this is a picture of a pretty young girl, but everyone has biased opinions when it comes to those they know and the rest of the world doesn't need to find the same things appealing.

On to the critique:
The turn of the head and the angle of the glasses make her appear alert and intelligent, the folded in hand is somewhat distracting. She has fantastic clear eyes that do immediately draw some attention. The focus seems fine.

The lighting is a little flat but the angle of the face to the light counteracts that somewhat. The shadow around the edges of the images frames the face well but seems to be too deep, while the skin tones don't look too bad I think overall the image is under exposed, there are few highlights and a lot of detail lost in the dark.

Her expression is fine, she doesn't appear unhappy.

On my screens at least it benefits from a levels tweak and a little sharpening.

PNA · Dec 30, 2006

I like the shot, however.....it's just a little too red for me and if you can lighten up the area through the glass under her left eye to blend with the coloring of her face.......

The_Traveler · Dec 30, 2006

Since others have said what I thought about this picture, I'll skip that. What I did like very much is the immediacy and directness of this picture. Her face and personality is right up front and very appealing.

The downside if the ligting is the redness under her eyes; it attracts attention and I would remove it.

midnitejam · Dec 31, 2006

The_Traveler said:
Since others have said what I thought about this picture, I'll skip that. What I did like very much is the immediacy and directness of this picture. Her face and personality is right up front and very appealing.

The downside if the ligting is the redness under her eyes; it attracts attention and I would remove it.

The_Traveler, Thanks for the advise. I'm not sure I know how to effectively remove the redness under her eyes behind the glasses. Can you help. Editing is ok--you do incredible edits.

The_Traveler · Dec 31, 2006

It's too hard to get a good result on a low-res picture.
Send me a high-res version and I'll try my best.
My email in PM to OP

This is a try with the low-res image posted above.

Tyson · Jan 1, 2007

Very pretty, but too dark for my liking. Beauty should be more colorful

Emma Flavell · Jan 1, 2007

Hi...It's a nice shot, however, you have gone way over the top on her eyes with Adobe. You have a film over her sweater from over processing. Sorry to be negative, but this photograph has been Adobied off the face of the planet. Im sure she didnt need it, she seems like a good looking girl, and you seem like a competent photographer... PUT THE ADOBE DOWN AND MOVE BACKWARDS WITH YOUR ARMS IN THE AIR!

Tyson · Jan 1, 2007

Emma Flavell said:
Hi...It's a nice shot, however, you have gone way over the top on her eyes with Adobe. You have a film over her sweater from over processing. Sorry to be negative, but this photograph has been Adobied off the face of the planet. Im sure she didnt need it, she seems like a good looking girl, and you seem like a competent photographer... PUT THE ADOBE DOWN AND MOVE BACKWARDS WITH YOUR ARMS IN THE AIR!

When I first started reading and posting to this forum, I noticed that most photos that get good feed back are not photos at all. They are adobe created images. Which is ok if you like that kind of post processing. I don't I like to see good photos with slight retouching ar something like that. I have only got good feed back twice one on a water shot and hear http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=67698 These images where taken with a point and shoot S40 Optio on a RC airplane. Both times I might have had to add a little fill light and nothing else. I don't even have a copy of adobe photoshop. I guess I'll never be what most would call an artist or pro photographer. I like natural light and color, when done right you don't need photoshop. I realize that post processing is not new but it is a very very small part of my photos. Point adjust and shot thats what I do.

I have taken several new photos of a farm and covered bridge and I will not post them here because I feal this is more of a art type of thing rather than photography. I'm confident my photos will be slaghtered by the artist and pros. I don't mean this in a negative way either, I is just my opinion. If adobe was taken away from some of these people they would go through withdraw.

I still enjoy the tech parts of this forum though. Sorry for hijacking your thread, I still think its too dark.

LaFoto · Jan 1, 2007

Tyson, your post could be placed in Photographic Discussions where we might have yet another discussion on whether photos that went through some post processing by whichever kind of computer software no longer are "the real thing" or not. There you will hear that photographers have for all times worked on their exposures even AFTER their camera took the exposure, for also the camera has for all times only been ONE tool in the process of creating an image, followed by a good many others. Even in the "good old times".

But that discussion is for over there and you are welcome to start yet another thread on it, since it seems to be an issue for many, and an issue at all times, and just WANTS to be discussed over and again.

For this very photo I do agree with Emma that the sweatshirt shows signs of some later work on the light on this person's face in Photoshop, but I must also admit that I am only seeing it now, after you pointed it out to me, Emma. Maybe I don't look at photos in great enough detail. But I was more enthralled by her engaging eye-contact she's making here, and given the fact that this is not a planned portrait shot but a candid moment I find it quite good.

Tyson · Jan 1, 2007

LaFoto said:
Tyson, your post could be placed in Photographic Discussions where we might have yet another discussion on whether photos that went through some post processing by whichever kind of computer software no longer are "the real thing" or not. There you will hear that photographers have for all times worked on their exposures even AFTER their camera took the exposure, for also the camera has for all times only been ONE tool in the process of creating an image, followed by a good many others. Even in the "good old times".

.

I agree post processing is an important part of history lasting image but do they always have to be perfict? I like they eyes and comp of this portrit. Did it need the added PS? Is there any way we can see the before and after pictures?
You know I would like to see the before pic. Just for learning sake.

LaFoto · Jan 1, 2007

Well, you can always ask the poster if he/she is willing to post the original for comparison.
Somewhere in the Photo Themes we also have a (at present deep down in the "vaults") thread on Before-and-After pics where PSed photos are being presented ... I might go and dig that one up for you ... hoping that not too many photos have long been taken off the individual members' picture servers, which may well happen with old threads.

I'll go look for you.

And just feel free to discuss matters of post processing in the Photographic Discussions. That's what they're there for

.