These are my very best photos. Where do I go from here?

[jowensphoto]

^^^^ No kidding.

Creatively, you have SO much going for you. Personally, I value creativity over technical ability. It's just something that can't be taught. You can always read a book on exposure or take a class on lighting. The creative eye is something that can be improved with time, but it's not something you can learn.

 

[unpopular]

I agree. I think that we're kind of knit-picking technical aspects which can be summed up as technique.

People here talk a lot of "concept" - but what concepts are being conveyed here? They seem weird for the sake of it, visually striking for the sake of it - I think there is a lot of skill here and a good visual vocabulary, but I also think that it's being wasted on gimmicky trick photography that is artistically under developed.

 

[spacefuzz]

I think you have some interesting shots here, but shots like this (at least to me) feel like they need to convey a complete story, where every aspect of the image adds to it. So I agree with some of the others who mentioned working on your backgrounds and composition. I want everything to matter.

Also you appear to be good at photoshop, and I think you are using that as a crutch for poor lighting skills. Break out some speedlights, pocket wizards, reflectors, light painting, golden hour light, etc. I think once you get the hang of the lighting it could double the impact of your photos.

Your off to a great start, and keep it fun!

 

[Robin Usagani]

what poor lighting are you guys talking about??

 

[Robin Usagani]

For example #2.. someone said it is flat. Seriously, what do you think the OP should have done? Have you shot in a tiny room (bathroom) with white surface everywhere? Almost 100% of the light comes from the flash. How do you avoid lights not bouncing everywhere? On the top of that, OP had to take 2 exposures, one for background and one with something propping her up with shower running.

 

[unpopular]

I don't even really see the "flatness". I think people need to get over their Velvia-esque obsession.

In my opinion light should be subtle, it should carry an image not make one.

 

[fjrabon]

For example #2.. someone said it is flat. Seriously, what do you think the OP should have done? Have you shot in a tiny room (bathroom) with white surface everywhere? Almost 100% of the light comes from the flash. How do you avoid lights not bouncing everywhere? On the top of that, OP had to take 2 exposures, one for background and one with something propping her up with shower running.

I'm nto saying it's easy. It could have taken as many as 3-4 layers to pull that shot off. Furthermore, it's perhaps one of those "well, it could have been a great shot if it had been able to have been lit better." To get to the type of levels OP seems to be aspiring to, sometimes you just have to think "well, that's an awesome idea to catalogue, but I can't figure out anyway to get it lit dramatically enough."

I know i've been talking about Zack Arias a lot recently, but he's totally fired me up about lighting. He said that he probably sees hundreds of shots per week that he thinks would maybe be great shots, but there's no way he could light them the way he wanted at the time, so he just sort of catalogues the idea. He says he's had shots in his head for months, if not years, before, just waiting for an idea of how to get the lighting he wants.

And, of course OP's shots are great. Fully worthy of being called 'photography'. But he didn't ask "tell me how great my shots are!" he asked, "what is missing from them being complete, breathtaking works of art?" I think it's lighting. I mean it almost always is lighting that can be improved for anybody above intermediate, so that's not really earth shattering, it's not really specific to the OP at all either. Almost every very good photographer is on a quest to improving their lighting and gaining a more intuitive ability to see lighting and know exactly what to do, and sometimes if it can be done at all.

 

[unpopular]

These images are surreal. I find the almost hospital lighting well-suited. There is a sterility that I like, and even find refreshing. There is almost a sense of some kind of supernatural procedure going on. In 1 and 2, there is a sense of "three in the morning" that adds to their dreamlike/nightmarish quality.

Not everything needs to be, or should be, lit like it comes out of a magazine.​

 

[Sbuxo]

If you're still breathing, keep shooting, more bests can still be made.

 

[spacefuzz]

I know i've been talking about Zack Arias a lot recently, but he's totally fired me up about lighting. He said that he probably sees hundreds of shots per week that he thinks would maybe be great shots, but there's no way he could light them the way he wanted at the time, so he just sort of catalogues the idea. He says he's had shots in his head for months, if not years, before, just waiting for an idea of how to get the lighting he wants.

And, of course OP's shots are great. Fully worthy of being called 'photography'. But he didn't ask "tell me how great my shots are!" he asked, "what is missing from them being complete, breathtaking works of art?" I think it's lighting. I mean it almost always is lighting that can be improved for anybody above intermediate, so that's not really earth shattering, it's not really specific to the OP at all either. Almost every very good photographer is on a quest to improving their lighting and gaining a more intuitive ability to see lighting and know exactly what to do, and sometimes if it can be done at all.

Schwetty, Fjrabon summed up what I meant really well. If he wants to take it to the next level, it looked to me like control of light is where he should focus.

#1 looks like a straight on camera flash. It works for the in your face (pun) feeling, but would be interested in seeing the concept with different lighting. Make those suckers stand out more.
#2 it does look flat to me. Personal opinion, but I would light it with more emphasis on her and less on the tile.
The rest look like natural light to me, nothing wrong with that, but the OP asked.

And yes I know I suck at lighting myself and still have a lot to learn.

 

[unpopular]

The only issue I have with the lighting on #1 is the shadow. It's an assertive image that deserves aggressive, raw lighting.

What do you people want? Soft feathery shadows? Maybe we should add some butterflies and unicorns too.

 

[jowensphoto]

-know the rules and when to break them. Aka know how to use specific techniques to create a certain mood within a piece of art.

Everything, sans 1 shadow, seems completely deliberate and fitting for these images.

What is technically bad, when executed under proper circumstances, can literally make a piece of art.

 

[spacefuzz]

The only issue I have with the lighting on #1 is the shadow. It's an assertive image that deserves aggressive, raw lighting.

What do you people want? Soft feathery shadows? Maybe we should add some butterflies and unicorns too.

I want assertive lighting, I want all those little suckers to stand out! Dont confuse assertive with a grunge post processing effect.

 

[unpopular]

I am not even sure how you'd do that with lighting. Maybe if the source were slightly from above. But either way, it should remain harsh and unappealing.

 

[spacefuzz]

it should remain harsh and unappealing.

Agree


As to the approach, perhaps multiple lights or a side light with a snoot aimed at the suckers?