Lighting is lacking in quality. Often too dark.
Sometimes it looks like you are trying to be too creative in your lighting (the slit of light things), when the lighting basics aren't there. Looks like you also may be looking at old 80s lighting/model posing books. Although there are some good basics in some - better to put them in a box in the closet. Look at current fashion magazines, look at store displays.
nwprophoto wrote: I don't see that you are trying to tell a story in any of your images
"Storytelling" in commercial imagery is vastly overrated, not to mention totally subjective. Unless you are trying to sell a product - in which case you're actually selling a mood - it should come fourth to (1) how good the model looks (1, tie) how well the sitter 'connects' with the viewer, and (3) how good of a job you did as a photographer.
Your biggest issue is figuring out exactly when to take the photograph. Or at least deciding which version of a photograph to run. You have several good images (the best is the young black woman with only one button on her white jacket buttoned), but almost all of your images look like the model wasn't quite ready, or was holding the pose so long that it isn't natural anymore.
And of course, work on your lighting. It's not terrible, but it's not phenominal. Once you can light well enough that it's second nature, you'll be able to snap any photo the moment it happens, without worrying about making someone hold a pose while you fiddle with your lights.
So yeah. Step 1 is to practice lighting enough that you never have to think about it. That sets you up for Step 2, which is to spend all your time focusing on the model and how they look. And when they look just right, hit the shutter.
It's like setting a trap. You do all the prep work beforehand, and the second they make a move or an expression that you like, BANG, you got it.
I would also point out your several of your photos are lacking somehting, skin and pores. Photoshop can be a tool to enhance images, not blur them. My suggestion is to use actual models with good skin and a good makeup artist before you ever click the shutter and layoff the surface blur.
I don't see consistency. Some images are much better than others, some have bad lighting, some have poor retouching. If I were a model or client I wouldn't know what to expect to receive as a finished product... Which isn't reassuring.
I don't know..... I guess I would say I don't see anything real adventurous in your port. It all looks to be in a tight wheelhouse in regards to theme, mood and lighting.
I would think in the work you do with your studio that you would be like "Damn, if I have to shoot another portrait or simple glamour shot in the studio, I will go crazy". That you would maybe try different themes, maybe more stylized shots, maybe more outside work.
One image is composed of several shots of a model whose shoes you cut off. You really cut her down to size. You showed her. Composition. I drew a bit as a kid. There were and still are these great books. Walter Foster. For little children and grownups, he explained things like the vanishing point and perspective and angles and all sorts of good things. Framing is easy. Lighting is easy but you do actually have to think about it so it becomes easy, otherwise, if you don't think about it, it can be hard. Very difficult. Have you ever painted and or drawn and just thought about light sources and shading? Hmmm? Ideally, the camera should be more than just something that records an image of reality. It should reflect creativity and even if its commercial, a realization of a vision. Good luck.
Guys ... I have been lighting for more than 30 years ... yes really (I started really youing ). I have several merit prints that have scored in the high 90s PPA in competitions... I do many portrait and product shoots a months. I am struggling to understand the look that is prevalent here ... there was a mention of the 4 shot panel. Those images were shot in 2004 ... and looks like it frankly... but to evolve I need unbiased feed back.
I need specifics on what you guys are seeing.
Seeing this image and reading this, it does not compute
“””Guys ... I have been lighting for more than 30 years ... yes really (I started really youing ). I have several merit prints that have scored in the high 90s PPA in competitions... I do many portrait and product shoots a months. I am struggling to understand the look that is prevalent here ... there was a mention of the 4 shot panel. Those images were shot in 2004 ... and looks like it frankly... but to evolve I need unbiased feed back.
I need specifics on what you guys are seeing.”””
You are not showing the knowledge gained in 30 years, I would expect to be blown away by your work
You know that bright areas attract the viewers eyes, here you have a bright area on the wall distracting the viewers eyes away from the model
Composition, show me the knee then show the foot
You have a small centered catch light in the models eyes, could almost be on camera flash
Since you shoot product, surprised the wrinkled garment of the model would pass your quality check
In this image your model has a great “S” curve, would like to see the hips on an angle as you know it has a slimming effect and would add dynamics to photo.
The exposure on her face looks a bit hot compared to her arms
But you still have a relatively small catch light in her eyes, but it is better in that it is not dead center in her eyes
Could center the belt buckle some
Would like to see the background more out of focus
Thanks for the reply your critique is technically spot on and your observations are valid. Allow me to reply though
The first ... actually it is a recent shot ... one that the client LOVES . (20x30 metallic sold) The color spash is intentional ... yes it needs to be hit with the iron - unfortunately it was damaged beyond use the night before (nothing survives being dropped in my studio - concrete floors)
The second that you selected is a odd bird - it was shot in 2006 - the background is laid in in photoshop and the blown out lighting is also post processed in (angel glow) . NOT done in camera . I agree on straight on I don't normally shoot girls straight on to the camera except for effect
Select Models wrote: You shoot too much 'waist up' stuff... also too much eye contact with the camera... also need to go out on location and shoot more available light and off camera strobe stuff...
I haven't shot on camera strobe in YEARS... but ... I am a portrait shooter ... so waist up stuff is natural for me ... you point is well taken though
ALSO eye contact is essential. My rule is ... eyes down the lens or down the body line ... simple. See above excuse