Yajhil Alvarez wrote:
Looks like you posted this twice by mistake!  Anyway, my issues with them are this.  In the middle two she is clearly not in focus, the rocks are, that really bothers me.  In the last one the focus on her is ok, in the first it's better.  The images need some retouching, there are little bumps, pimples, tiny little stretch marks, and some skin discoloration, there's no good reason to not clean those things up.  Also, while the lighting might not look all that interesting, I bet that if you played with curves and the levels these would pop.  I'm all for natural looking images but leaving them to look like they were taken right out of the camera to me comes across as lazy, specially when you can make something that isn't quite in focus look like it is by perhaps blurring the background that is too in focus so it's not as distracting and then sharpening her, etc.  At least try to fool us!  With these you are showing your slight flaws as a photographer and doing the same to the model.  Why did you choose to not work on them?  I'm curious.

Thanks , Yes No editing except for one photo cropped

I thought they looked good enough as is but I will rework them

AJScalzitti wrote:
I don't understand how so many of your models have such flat or even annoyed expression?  I feel you may have squandered another opportunity.

The OP may need to employ fireworks......... LOL

Studio36

AJScalzitti wrote:
I don't understand how so many of your models have such flat or even annoyed expression?  I feel you may have squandered another opportunity.

Because I wear this t- shirt that says

No Smiling Allowed

Garry k wrote:

Because I wear this t- shirt that says

No Smiling Allowed

Stop that and spend some time encouraging them to emote more

Garry k wrote:
Second row of my port

Shot yesterday

Thoughts ?

Why the rush in putting these up?

#3 is the best of the 4 but the focus is off

Garry k wrote:

Thanks , Yes No editing except for one photo cropped

I thought they looked good enough as is but I will rework them

good enough as is.....are you a Used car salesman?

Digiography wrote:
Flatly lite snapshots of a beautiful model that scream for the need to be retouched properly.

Also it looks like a guerrilla shoot, a quick couple of topless shots before you were noticed.  I say this because the model still has the lines that her clothing made on her visible. I would assume from the lines she had a bikini type top on with two strings that went up and around her neck shortly before the shoot.

The model needed to wear loose fitting clothes before the shoot and avoid sitting down which probably caused the lines across her torso.

Have a good retouching artist work on these and they can do some skin smoothing, sharpening (carving and light liquify) and hopefully make the lighting pop more.

I wouldn't call 90 minutes in the same location ( working with the different available lighting )  a guerilla shoot

And as visible lines from a bikini top - I really don't see much except for a faint line on the left side of her upper chest

Admittedly my photoshopping is weak ... I have really not tried anything with any of them ( except for some basic cropping and the replacement of a shot that was clearly out of focus ) I am going to start working on them tonight - fixing blemishes and such , maybe bump up the contrast a bit ....And if I am not satisfied - I will consider your idea of connecting with a retoucher

Thanks

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:
I noticed that he miraculously seemed to get her nipples in focus.

Blame the Autofucus -- Not Me

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:
I noticed that he miraculously seemed to get her nipples in focus.

Closest to the camera, see that a lot when people use auto - take control

David Stone Imaging wrote:
Can you PM me that rock location?  It'd be worth the drive.

In the top line of your port..."I shoot Fashion , Glamour and Beauty."  To achieve this some touch up is required.  And even a small amount of skin smoothing would go a long way...IMHO.  I personally would recommend Imagenomic's Portraiture.  It can keep skin looking like skin while still blending the various tones.

Whats in in for me ?

I will check out the Portraiture Program , Thanks !

Garry k wrote:

Blame the Autofucus -- Not Me

Well, it's your responsibility to control the tool as opposed to the other way around.
If your auto-focus is not discriminating enough, maybe you should go to single point and recompose. Or, (don't know if your camera supports this), but what I do for fashion where there's continuous movement is do continuous auto-focus, but use the limited 9-point mode, so it's only using a small area and not jumping around to outlying areas you don't want focus on. But also I think my camera and lens is considerbly sharper anyway, so I get away with more latitude.

Garry k wrote:
I will check out the Portraiture Program , Thanks !

Oh geez - just when it appeared it couldn't get worse (exaggerating a bit).

You don't need a fix-it-in-post solution, you need to become better at basic photography.

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:

Oh geez - just when it appeared it couldn't get worse (exaggerating a bit).

You don't need a fix-it-in-post solution, you need to become better at basic photography.

Your lens was sharp enough to capture all the player's faults, her physical ones and your compositional and also your inability to rise to the occasion. Agency models usually have great legs and since you had ninety minutes you really could have produced something very good. You need to direct with a clear and strong vision in your head or you risk doing bland injury to the call of the wild.

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:
I noticed that he miraculously seemed to get her nipples in focus.

Nipples Rock!!!

Blimey Studios wrote:
Yet again (sigh).... no credits to the model.... (perhaps it's a blessing)

I am not here to help you find Models Mr Blimey

If a Model asks me to credit her I will

Sandra Vixen wrote:
Re: the second row pics:

First one the head is cut off.

Second one (see problem in first one). The model needs to look to her right since the light is coming from that angle, it would make the composition so much stronger.

What lens did you use, may I ask? It feels like the model is very strangely proportioned (large head, caved in chest, tiny waist, big hand).

Third one, head cut again.

Fourth one, head cut again. X.X

I don't think the light is soft like what the other said, but rather I'm not sure where the focus or power of the composition is coming or going. In other words, the frame looks neither here nor there.


One big and common problem I see in all your frames is that the model looks "cramped" into the frame, and other times you crop off body parts too much. The model has to drop their head and cave their chest in to fit into the frame, it just looks uncomfortable.

You are also not using light as effectively as you could in most of your frames, tell the model to look towards the key light, especially in frames with high shadow/contrasts.

The top of the head is often cropped to bring more attention to the eyes

MDWM wrote:

good enough as is.....are you a Used car salesman?

No , are you an astronaut ?

DVP Photography wrote:
A lot of comments about the flat lighting, but it is worse than that.  The model's eyes are black dead holes.  No light or highlights.  Just awful.  If the model's eyes are not good she looks dead.  Outdoor lighting must... repeat must... put light in the model's eyes as the first priority.  Should have used a good reflector, or even fill flash, something.

Next Edit I will make the eyes pop a bit more

thanks

David Stone Imaging wrote:
Can you PM me that rock location?  It'd be worth the drive.

In the top line of your port..."I shoot Fashion , Glamour and Beauty."  To achieve this some touch up is required.  And even a small amount of skin smoothing would go a long way...IMHO.  I personally would recommend Imagenomic's Portraiture.  It can keep skin looking like skin while still blending the various tones.

Garry k wrote:
Whats in in for me ?

I will check out the Portraiture Program , Thanks !

Tit for tat...I suppose.  Are you looking for any good WA locations? 

Once you see what that Portraiture program can do for you in a matter of minutes (it's a CS6 plugin), you'll be thankful I brought it up.

David Stone Imaging wrote:

David Stone Imaging wrote:
Can you PM me that rock location?  It'd be worth the drive.

In the top line of your port..."I shoot Fashion , Glamour and Beauty."  To achieve this some touch up is required.  And even a small amount of skin smoothing would go a long way...IMHO.  I personally would recommend Imagenomic's Portraiture.  It can keep skin looking like skin while still blending the various tones.

Tit for tat...I suppose.  Are you looking for any good WA locations?

I am looking to make some Seattle connections for locations and studio space  as there are a few models down your way that have caught my eye

You can PM me if you wish