Forums > Critique > New Photos - Can't Decide!

Photographer

RachelReilly

Posts: 1730

Washington, District of Columbia, US

New Photos! I have them collaged because I can't fit them all on here so just pick the ones you love or hate, maybe give me some feedback as well! :-) and please treat them all as if they were individuals. thanks smile

http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/121018/15/508084ba6ba3b_m.jpg 1

http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/121018/15/508083f16a735_m.jpg 2

http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/121018/18/5080abc71b163_m.jpg 3 4 5 6

http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/121018/20/5080c2cf11f3b_m.jpg 7 8 9 10

http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/121018/18/5080b093e5a1d_m.jpg 11 12 13

http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/121018/17/50809eb0e4039_m.jpg 14 15 16 17

Oct 18 12 08:37 pm Link

Photographer

RachelReilly

Posts: 1730

Washington, District of Columbia, US

Bump

Oct 19 12 04:00 am Link

Photographer

Mmmfire photography

Posts: 27

Chelmsford, England, United Kingdom

Hi Rachel,

I think my favourites are 2, 6 and 15.
2 is just a beautiful shot
6 shows a more sultry mood which the others don't have, although I maaaay be tempted to crop it just beneath the breast...?
15 (meaning the top right) is more playful and in my opinion the best of that last series as it's a better crop than 16 (bottom left)

And the more I look at them, I would probably also find a place for number 5...

Oct 19 12 04:27 am Link

Model

Ms Georgia May

Posts: 9

Chapel Hill, North Carolina, US

2, and 789-10. Definitely.

Oct 19 12 07:29 am Link

Photographer

RachelReilly

Posts: 1730

Washington, District of Columbia, US

Thanks Mmmfire, the crops aren't perfect bc I stuck them in a Picassa collage and it cuts some of the picture out

Oct 19 12 07:29 am Link

Photographer

RachelReilly

Posts: 1730

Washington, District of Columbia, US

Thanks for your imput Georgia :-)

Oct 19 12 11:26 am Link

Photographer

730372

Posts: 1952

Abbeville, Alabama, US

For me they're fatally flawed and I wouldn't use them. Any chance of getting something worthwhile is ruined by the shooting angle. Sorry sad

Oct 19 12 11:38 am Link

Model

Ashley Riot

Posts: 120

Chicago, Illinois, US

3 and 4  are you strongest, take the other two out of the collage because they're a little distracting.

Oct 19 12 12:09 pm Link

Photographer

RachelReilly

Posts: 1730

Washington, District of Columbia, US

T B O L wrote:
For me they're fatally flawed and I wouldn't use them. Any chance of getting something worthwhile is ruined by the shooting angle. Sorry sad

They're shot at different angles.
Specify

Oct 19 12 12:32 pm Link

Photographer

RachelReilly

Posts: 1730

Washington, District of Columbia, US

Ashley Riot wrote:
3 and 4  are you strongest, take the other two out of the collage because they're a little distracting.

Thanks for the advice! I don't think ill keep any of them collaged, I'll probably have 4 by itself

Oct 19 12 12:35 pm Link

Photographer

RachelReilly

Posts: 1730

Washington, District of Columbia, US

Oct 19 12 05:28 pm Link

Photographer

Poulsons Photography

Posts: 4451

Duchesne, Utah, US

My favorites are 1 and 2. By the way, just copy and paste the MM forum code right below the image to show the image here.

Oct 19 12 05:31 pm Link

Photographer

RachelReilly

Posts: 1730

Washington, District of Columbia, US

Thanks for the feedback!

I know this is probably a stupid question but what do you mean and whats the forum code?

Post an example

Oct 19 12 05:36 pm Link

Photographer

Poulsons Photography

Posts: 4451

Duchesne, Utah, US

Rachel Reilly wrote:
Thanks for the feedback!

I know this is probably a stupid question but what do you mean and whats the forum code?

Post an example

if you go into your port, then click on a picture, it will make it larger. Right below the image it will say mm forum code. Select it and copy and paste the link it has there to this forum.
http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/121018/15/508084ba6ba3b_m.jpg

Oct 19 12 05:40 pm Link

Photographer

RachelReilly

Posts: 1730

Washington, District of Columbia, US

Thanks so much!^

Oct 19 12 06:00 pm Link

Photographer

Julie Anne McGuinness

Posts: 88

Brantford, Ontario, Canada

Number 2

Oct 19 12 06:04 pm Link

Photographer

Poulsons Photography

Posts: 4451

Duchesne, Utah, US

Rachel Reilly wrote:
Thanks so much!^

Your welcome.  Thats much better.

Oct 19 12 06:06 pm Link

Photographer

Mark

Posts: 2893

New York, New York, US

let me help you- none of them.  All they show to me is that you lack lighting ability(seem under exposed and unattractive shadows), poor posing directions, bad cropping, poor make up decisions, bad camera angles,

Oct 20 12 12:06 am Link

Photographer

RachelReilly

Posts: 1730

Washington, District of Columbia, US

I have to disagree mark but thanks for imput!
:-)

Oct 20 12 04:21 pm Link

Photographer

Joey B Photography

Posts: 235

Syracuse, New York, US

#5

Too many of a similar pose, though, IMo

Oct 20 12 04:37 pm Link

Makeup Artist

Kim L Makeup

Posts: 33

Montreal, Quebec, Canada

I don't like the cropping of the photos. Most of them are missing part of a hand, part of a foot, part of an elbow, part of the top of her hair, etc.

Oct 20 12 04:45 pm Link

Photographer

M Pandolfo Photography

Posts: 12116

Tampa, Florida, US

Were all these shots purposefully taken of your back?

Oct 20 12 04:55 pm Link

Photographer

RachelReilly

Posts: 1730

Washington, District of Columbia, US

Mandarin Art wrote:
I don't like the cropping of the photos. Most of them are missing part of a hand, part of a foot, part of an elbow, part of the top of her hair, etc.

Like I said most of them are cut off bc I put them in Picassa collages

Oct 20 12 06:58 pm Link

Photographer

ArtGlo

Posts: 506

Peru, Illinois, US

Mark wrote:
let me help you- none of them.  All they show to me is that you lack lighting ability(seem under exposed and unattractive shadows), poor posing directions, bad cropping, poor make up decisions, bad camera angles,

i would agree with this.

Oct 20 12 07:10 pm Link

Photographer

Mark

Posts: 2893

New York, New York, US

Rachel Reilly wrote:
I have to disagree mark but thanks for imput!
:-)

OK. have it your way though I work for a top fashion magazine and have modeled with some top photographers in the world, but not good enough for you

smile)

Oct 20 12 07:18 pm Link

Photographer

RachelReilly

Posts: 1730

Washington, District of Columbia, US

My pictures aren't perfect so obviously things are wrong with them, but I disagree with your statement because I don't think EVERYTHING is wrong with them,I like the lighting and some the angles and its paramount lighting.. I like those shadows and the shadow in the bkgrnd

And I respect your experienced opinion, i agree that they are somewhat flawed

Oct 20 12 08:49 pm Link

Photographer

Orca Bay Images

Posts: 32234

Woodinville, Washington, US

I love the peekaboo looks of 11 and 14. The rear view of the rest of the model in 11 weakens the image as port material, though.

I find 12's pose and angle interesting.

I love the whole set of 14 through 17, but the fingers entwined with the taut chains in 16 really grab me. Framing is a bit off on 16, but the model is still fascinating in that set.

Oct 21 12 12:02 am Link

Photographer

RachelReilly

Posts: 1730

Washington, District of Columbia, US

Thanks orca bay!

Oct 21 12 04:21 am Link

Photographer

B R U N E S C I

Posts: 25319

Bath, England, United Kingdom

No, no, no!! hmm

Kudos for trying a different lighting setup, but you've ruined the whole shoot by shooting from the wrong angle(s).

Ditch them all, and next time don't shoot DOWN at the model.




Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano
www.stefanobrunesci.com

Oct 21 12 04:41 am Link

Photographer

RachelReilly

Posts: 1730

Washington, District of Columbia, US

Ill keep 2 , 4, 13 and one of the 14, 15, 16, 17 for now

Eh, I see what you guys mean by the angle, I usually wouldn't shoot down on a model but I had some studio limitations decided to do some shooting down and it didn't work, lesson learned

Thanks, Stefano

Oct 21 12 04:59 am Link

Photographer

B R U N E S C I

Posts: 25319

Bath, England, United Kingdom

Rachel Reilly wrote:
Eh, I see what you guys mean by the angle, I usually wouldn't shoot down on a model but I had some studio limitations decided to do some shooting down and it didn't work.

Occasionally, shooting down can work, but you need to be doing it to deliberately enhance the shot rather than to get around a limitation.

Generally also, when shooting down, I find that getting in fairly close, cropping to lose the legs below the thigh and angling the camera diagonally to emphasise diagonal compositional elements helps to make it a 'strong' image with a sense of dynamism and purpose rather than just a "this was the only option I had" kind of affair.

Hope that helps! smile



Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Oct 21 12 05:11 am Link

Photographer

RachelReilly

Posts: 1730

Washington, District of Columbia, US

-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:
Occasionally, shooting down can work, but you need to be doing it to deliberately enhance the shot rather than to get around a limitation.

Generally also, when shooting down, I find that getting in fairly close, cropping to lose the legs below the thigh and angling the camera diagonally to emphasise diagonal compositional elements helps to make it a 'strong' image with a sense of dynamism and purpose rather than just a "this was the only option I had" kind of affair.

Hope that helps! smile



Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

I will definitely intentionally try this technique. ;-)

And I actually quite like photo 6, should I crop it? Although I prefer if full body.
This is why I asked for critiques because my eye isn't trained well yet, obviously.

Oct 21 12 05:16 am Link

Photographer

Mickle Design Werks

Posts: 5949

Washington, District of Columbia, US

-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:
No, no, no!! hmm

Kudos for trying a different lighting setup, but you've ruined the whole shoot by shooting from the wrong angle(s).

Ditch them all, and next time don't shoot DOWN at the model.




Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano
www.stefanobrunesci.com

I agree but I want to be more constructive here.

I hate to be discouraging but the camera position is important here. A common mistake that some Photographers make when shooting fashion is to shoot at head level or shoot down on their subject. Not so say this couldn't work but the emphasis is more focused on the person (as in portraits) rather than the story of the styling and posing when you shoot from that angle.

I think the lighting attempt is not bad but not great either. I don't see a hair/kicker/rim light for subject separation or evidence of a fill for paramount lighting. Looks like a one light with some diffusion (possibly a small soft box or beauty dish with diffusion sock, just guessing here) high camera left. If I were shooting this setup using one light I would make it very large and close to wrap down around the model and shoot close to the background to bring it in or grid it to focus it so the background goes dark if I'm shooting away from the back ground.

Don't have tender ears here. I know its hard to take in some of the critiques  but this is how you get better.

Oct 21 12 05:24 am Link

Photographer

RachelReilly

Posts: 1730

Washington, District of Columbia, US

Well hello neighbor! ^

I understand what you're saying! I will definitely follow all of this advice about  angles for my next shoot.

Thanks, Mickle

Oct 21 12 05:32 am Link

Photographer

Martin St James

Posts: 565

Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

#2 & #19
smile

Oct 22 12 01:00 am Link