Laura Bello wrote:
I really like the middle image, it's very soft and dainty and I love the DOF,styling and pose, it just gives a very girly innocent feel.

I have to agree but for very different reason. I'm really drawn in how you framed the shot & makes it the most interesting of the 3 you've posted.

WCR3 wrote:
As you well know, professional photographers are, first and foremost, problem solvers. Unlike us hobbyists, you can't just punt if the situation is difficult. So I think you lit the subject pretty well under the circumstances.

Without knowing what the actual assignment was, it's hard to say whether you did the overall challenge well or not. Of the three images, the third is the winner, and probably the only keeper, unless there was something in the assignment that made the others relevant.

By the by, I don't think any of them are worthy of your portfolio. You have much, much better stuff there. But get used to shooting under trying situations if you're going to do this for a living.

Yeah, I shot for many years (I'm 24, started at 16) locally in my hometown of Atlanta, and it was rough going this year in the intro classes, because I felt like I was extremely restricted-- up until the final project, we weren't even allowed to use more than a single continuous light, which was basically putting me in a creative strangle hold as a photographer that prefers people to still life. Almost all my experience back home was with natural light or alien bees, and having to scale back to fairly weak continuous lights was a bit of a culture shock-- I ended up with a lot of big ideas I couldn't really execute due to restrictions. I'm looking forward to next year, when I will be allowed to work with strobes on assignments.

Zack Zoll wrote:
I have a short answer, and a long one.

The short answer is that I too like the middle image. Definitely the most commercially viable of the three. Throw in a teddy bear or some cute shoes, and you've got a sale.

The long answer is that I really don't like any of them. And if you just posted pictures, I'd like the second one. But then you explained it, and now I really dislike them all.

You gave us this story about all your requirements, so we could judge your images 'considering.' That means YOU don't like them. And if you're not a fan, why are you showing them to us?

Outside of school and the Special Olympics, nobody gets an award for what they did 'considering.' It's good, or it's not. And even then, most Special Olympic athletes are better than we'll ever be without disabilities.

I certainly applaud you trying to stretch yourself for your assignments, and giving yourself a challenge. Well done. But those are assignments.  If you want us to give you a worthwhile crit, give us the best work you think you can do - not a bunch of stuff with some caveats. Otherwise, you're wasting everyone's time, and learning nothing.

What do you think you're going to get from a crit when someone says your image is underexposed, and you blame the equipment? That's pretty much the end of the conversation right there, and you've learned nothing.

I really didn't mean it as a caveat, I was really just explaining the lighting and equipment set up. I happen to like the images, but they aren't my best, certainly. Many other shoots were given far more time, money, and attention. This just happens to the be the last thing I've done and I don't think it hurts to get feedback, good or bad

Laura Bello wrote:
Woooo Rochester represent!  It's so rare you seen another local photographer posting on here.  And the images look pretty good for what it sounds like you were working with.  I started with continuous lighting and it really can be a struggle for model work.

I think the lighting in all three is nice and flattering, nothing outstanding but good for simple portraits like these.  That being said the first image and last to a lesser extent are a little bla depending on what you were going for, they just don't evoke any strong response from me and the styling is a little meh, they look more like testing shots. HOWEVER if you're trying for a more commercial look I think they work well, really it just depends what you were going for.  There's also a bit of crunchiness in the first image that I'm not a fan of, like the clarity was turned up to high or something, but who knows.

I really like the middle image, it's very soft and dainty and I love the DOF,styling and pose, it just gives a very girly innocent feel.

Have fun at RIT!!  Use all the equipment/space while you can, I went there for a semester 2 years ago and still miss the cage, northlight and the tons of studio space!

That's actually what I was going for! They are definitely a bit boring, I completely agree-- I based my final project on kind of the typical commercial look so I looked mostly at studio spreads in mags like Teen Vogue or Urban Outfitters catalogues to get that feel. Also I see what you mean about the 'crunchiness' of the first image, it's probably from the high pass filter.

edit to add:
Yes, I love the cage! It's too bad they don't get very much in the way of new Canon gear, though, it's like 85% Nikon (because Canon won't give the equipment away to RIT, unlike Nikon, who does).