Want C&C please!!

[kitkatdubs]

Practiced taking maternity photos for a friend. Yay? Nay?

 

[Parker219]

For photo 1, I get the whole peaking out thing, but I don't think it quite works here. Maybe because the wall is boring, maybe because she takes up so little of the frame? I would rather see both eyes completely. Also the near eye looks red, can you clean up the redness in that eye a little?

For photo 2, why so much space above her head, but yet cut off her belly and hands? I would also crop off some of the wall, frame right.

I would give them a 6 out of 10.

Keep at it.

 

[Peeb]

Won't rate them 1-10, but I agree that they are almost good. First one doesn't show quite enough, and the second one cuts off the bottom of the baby bump.

 

[tirediron]

Agree with them above... The concept of #1 is very good, but the execution does leave something to be desired. I think she needed to move forward about six inches so that more of 'her' was visible. Additionally, your choice of location might not have been the best. The left-half of the image is plain, featureless, but bright wall which really grabs the eye, and the background is both bright and busy, which also provides visual distractrions. #2 really should have been framed in portrait orientation, and desparately needed some fill light to lift the shadows of her black outfit and bring some detail back into the blown sky & background.

You're definitely on to something here, but I think just a little more refinement is needed.

 

[kitkatdubs]

Thanks everyone. Here is the original. I really liked the b/w because it has a vintage feel to it and she was dressed sort of "pinup" if you will. I still really love the image. I actually have a portrait version of her against the wall to just haven't had a chance to edit it yet. Will post when I'm done.

 

[PropilotBW]

I thought the first photo didn't upload completely...it feels incomplete.
The 2nd photo cuts off the bottom of the baby bump and her hand. It may have helped going to mid-thigh.

 

[john.margetts]

While I do not like a slavish adherence to the rule of thirds, the lass's eyes need to be close to a vertical third (probably a horizontal third as well). That expanse of wall in both pictures is adding nothing.

Currently, both pictures are of a wall with a lass near it. Should be a picture of a lass near a wall.

www.johns-old-cameras.blogspot.co.uk

 

[annamaria]

I agree with tirediron and what some of the others have said.

 

[Derrel]

The use of the compositional space is odd in all three shots. In the original "jovana.jpg" image, her hands are cropped off a bit oddly, and there's a huge amount of wall and a lot of empty space above her head...the net effect is that she is "riding low in the frame". In the first shot, jovana1.jpg, she's peeking out from around the corner, but not a lot, and her eyes are wayyyyy at the top of the frame. john.margetts makes the same observations as I do in the post above, propilot mentions the cutting off in the post above john's. I just recently reviewed all of your on-line portfolio for a thread you started a couple of days ago, and I think that you need to start visually scanning the top and bottom edges of the frame as you shoot, to get the right amount of top space and bottom spacing...learning where to place a person's eyes as far as frame height is a critical skill. In terms of portrait posing, where the photographer determines the pose "ends" at the bottom of the frame is another major concern that extends to pretty much every shot of a portrait session. In the shots of her and her husband from the earlier post, you had the same issue of cutting the bottom of the frame off too close, but allowing a lot of top space. You've got to work on visually scanning the frame and mentally asking yourself, "How are my edges?"

 

[kitkatdubs]

You've got to work on visually scanning the frame and mentally asking yourself, "How are my edges?"

I totally agree that I need to get better at framing my shots and making sure everything is aligned.

But also wouldn't you agree that all photography is subjective? Take for example, the Jovana1 photo- I absolutely love all the blank space in the front with just her peeking out. I had seen an image similar that I absolutely loved and wanted to try to recreate it. I will post it below. I know I have a lot to learn but I don't feel like my pictures are horrible. To each his own?? haha

 

[vintagesnaps]

Derrel made a good point; you need to see everything that's in that rectangle of a viewfinder//viewscreen, it seems like you need to check sides/corners when you frame a shot. It would probably help to get out with your camera and practice framing.

You seem to have good ideas, but the photos look like you'll need to keep learning how to achieve what you intend. The original would be nice but her hand's chopped off and that tree to the left makes for a visual distraction that doesn't need to be in the picture. That background probably made for a tricky exposure because your camera's meter may have been reading that light instead of where she's standing.

The photos look like in general you could use more practice in seeing the whole picture - subject and background, framing and composing, and getting proper exposures.

 

[vintagesnaps]

Look at your picture compared to the example you posted. What differences do you see? edit- That might help figure out what worked.

 

[john.margetts]

But also wouldn't you agree that all photography is subjective? Take for example, the Jovana1 photo- I absolutely love all the blank space in the front with just her peeking out. I had seen an image similar that I absolutely loved and wanted to try to recreate it. I will post it below. I know I have a lot to learn but I don't feel like my pictures are horrible. To each his own?? haha

the problem is not so much the space in front as the space behind. I don't think anyone said your pictures are horrible but there is room for improvement.

Might I make a suggestion? Cut two 'L' shaped pieces of card and place them over one of your pictures. You can then move them about to produce 'frames' of various sizes and shapes - changing the composition as you go. You can then see your ideal composition without taking dozens of pictures. When you have found your ideal, the picture will be 'right' - they are your pictures and you get the final say.



www.johns-old-cameras.blogspot.co.uk

 

[Derrel]

You've got to work on visually scanning the frame and mentally asking yourself, "How are my edges?"

I totally agree that I need to get better at framing my shots and making sure everything is aligned.

But also wouldn't you agree that all photography is subjective? Take for example, the Jovana1 photo- I absolutely love all the blank space in the front with just her peeking out. I had seen an image similar that I absolutely loved and wanted to try to recreate it. I will post it below. I know I have a lot to learn but I don't feel like my pictures are horrible. To each his own?? haha

No, I do not in any way at all agree that "all photography is subjective." No. It is intersubjective.

" ... intersubjectivity refers to agreement. There is intersubjectivity between people if they agree on a given set of meanings or a definition of the situation. Similarly, Thomas Scheff defines intersubjectivity as "the sharing of subjective states by two or more individuals."[2]

More subtly intersubjectivity can refer to the common-sense, shared meanings constructed by people in their interactions with each other and used as an everyday resource to interpret the meaning of elements of social and cultural life. If people share common sense, then they share a definition of the situation." (from Wikipedia)

So, again, in answer to the question, "wouldn't you agree that all photography is subjective?" Again, my answer is NO, photography is intersubjective. There are a number of commonly agreed-upon ways of composing photos. The reason I mentioned that multiple people in this thread, and myself, all found fault with your compositional choices is that we all share similar opinions on what it is that you are doing in a less-than-optimal, or less-than-pleasing, way. We share an intersubjective opinion. We agree on the language of visual communication, as it has been established over hundreds of years, by trained, dedicated people in painting and photography and the visual arts.

Your pictures are not horrible. I never said they were, and I do not think others said that they are. I saw the photo you based your jovana1 shot on, which was not done all that well. YOUR interpretation of that other photographer's shot was better in most ways!

Imagine if you were a student, a student who was learning Spanish, and multiple Spanish speakers, in their 40's and 50's, told you that you had some problems or issues with your Spanish language skills. Would you tell them that, "Spanish is all subjective anyway. To each his own!"

 

[Donde]

I'm sorry but i think your application of the concept of intersubjectivity to photography is a huge stretch and wishful thinking. Comparing it to language doesn't work either. I think some people who have learned good digital photography and post processing skills go way overboard in trying to set themselves up as aesthetics authorities.