Second row of my port Shot yesterday Thoughts ? Aug 17 14 11:47 am Link Images are static. Lighting is flat and uninteresting. Just snapshots of a topless women. There's no energy. Aug 17 14 12:03 pm Link 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. Aug 17 14 01:05 pm Link Yajhil Alvarez wrote: Thanks , Yes No editing except for one photo cropped Aug 17 14 01:11 pm Link 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. Aug 17 14 02:15 pm Link First of all, what a lovely model and figure. As far as the images, they are good as a straight representation of the natural raw beauty of the model herself. I do agree that the photographs fall into the static description. Not knowing the real intention of the images, I have to say they are not spectacular but good as a reference shot(s) for her portfolio. Aug 17 14 02:15 pm Link 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. Aug 17 14 02:25 pm Link AJScalzitti wrote: The OP may need to employ fireworks......... LOL Aug 17 14 02:29 pm Link AJScalzitti wrote: Because I wear this t- shirt that says Aug 17 14 02:32 pm Link Out of focus Flat lighting Her face looks like she is in pain or holding her breath Aug 17 14 02:38 pm Link I wish you'd pay more attention to your focus (or get a better lens or...). I also don't get the feeling you're engaging with your models much. And... the lighting again is drab - You're outside in the (presumably) harsh sun - take advantage of that to get your contrast up (but maybe we're back to your lens) P.S. I looked at your portfolio as a whole again - I think (besides your other problems) you have a poor quality lens - It's like I want to buy you a lens just so you'll stop posting this stuff. lol! Aug 17 14 02:41 pm Link Yes she is female and topless, but she looks like she would rather be elsewhere. Try for more connection with the model, you are not just shooting reference photographs. There needs to be some emotion coming from the model. Some minor retouching might help, but the main problem is the lack of emotion. Aug 17 14 02:46 pm Link mehhhh, I think others have pretty much covered the major issues. But my question would be, why did you feel the need to add in your title "Agency Model"? what difference does that make? Aug 17 14 02:50 pm Link If I posted what I really think, I'd be living in the brig again. The sad thing is, most people familiar with your critique threads can predict what they are going to see before they go to look at the pics you're asking about. More important than what we think, Garry, what do YOU think of your new photos? Aug 17 14 02:59 pm Link Garry k wrote: Stop that and spend some time encouraging them to emote more Aug 17 14 04:20 pm Link Garry k wrote: Why the rush in putting these up? Aug 17 14 04:44 pm Link Garry k wrote: good enough as is.....are you a Used car salesman? Aug 17 14 04:49 pm Link 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. Aug 17 14 04:51 pm Link I noticed that he miraculously seemed to get her nipples in focus. Aug 17 14 04:52 pm Link Digiography wrote: I wouldn't call 90 minutes in the same location ( working with the different available lighting ) a guerilla shoot Aug 17 14 05:25 pm Link J O H N A L L A N wrote: Blame the Autofucus -- Not Me Aug 17 14 05:26 pm Link J O H N A L L A N wrote: Closest to the camera, see that a lot when people use auto - take control Aug 17 14 05:27 pm Link David Stone Imaging wrote: Whats in in for me ? Aug 17 14 05:30 pm Link Garry k wrote: Well, it's your responsibility to control the tool as opposed to the other way around. Aug 17 14 05:36 pm Link Garry k wrote: Oh geez - just when it appeared it couldn't get worse (exaggerating a bit). Aug 17 14 05:39 pm Link J O H N A L L A N wrote: 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. Aug 17 14 05:47 pm Link Yet again (sigh).... no credits to the model.... (perhaps it's a blessing) Aug 17 14 08:55 pm Link 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. Aug 17 14 09:16 pm Link 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. Aug 17 14 09:22 pm Link J O H N A L L A N wrote: Nipples Rock!!! Aug 17 14 10:23 pm Link Blimey Studios wrote: I am not here to help you find Models Mr Blimey Aug 17 14 11:42 pm Link Sandra Vixen wrote: The top of the head is often cropped to bring more attention to the eyes Aug 17 14 11:43 pm Link MDWM wrote: No , are you an astronaut ? Aug 17 14 11:50 pm Link Re worked them all - based on some of the feedback here thanks Aug 18 14 12:04 am Link DVP Photography wrote: Next Edit I will make the eyes pop a bit more Aug 18 14 12:05 am Link David Stone Imaging wrote: Garry k wrote: Tit for tat...I suppose. Are you looking for any good WA locations? Aug 18 14 12:15 am Link David Stone Imaging wrote: David Stone Imaging wrote: 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 Aug 18 14 12:20 am Link Beautiful woman, great location. Lighting is quite flat facial expressions are seemingly blank. like she's unsure what to do or emote. Body posture/pose does nothing for the photo. She's just standing there? topless? Cropping seems off, for this kind of photo. What's your true opinion of the photos you want us to critique? Aug 18 14 12:24 am Link I think they might look better as B&W, especially given her expression. Aug 18 14 06:57 am Link In this series the energy and the model is just too flat and uninteresting. You have done a much better job with stoic and passionate in you other photographs such as "Coco Rocha in Recline". Aug 18 14 07:24 am Link |