LA StarShooter wrote:
I don't think you've developed at all. You're fixated on one thing, lighting that is okay but what about the model-posing and styling. I didn't see a shot that was worth even considering having a retoucher work some magic on. It looks like you can't direct and that you specialize in the cheap look.

At first I thought you were being rather harsh... BUT... after I've correctly re-evaluated this multiple critique inquiry situation... I've came to the conclusion that you're probably right on the money.  I'm beginning to wonder if someone who generates multiple fuck-up threads is covertly utilizing them as some form of attention whore tactics...

Fleming Design wrote:
Philip,
Don't let Select Models get to you.  He is undoubtedly the biggest Attention Whore on MM.  You are new to photography and enthusiastic about learning and taking further steps.   Ask anything you want, you may or may not get helpful responses.

His response is just honest and reflects the frustration of some here with the OPs posting style. If you have responded to more than a couple of his posts you can see why people get irked. While the OP is enthusiastic he has done a lot of posts and received a lot of advice and its sad to see the lack of progress.

LA StarShooter wrote:

His response is just honest and reflects the frustration of some here with the OPs posting style. If you have responded to more than a couple of his posts you can see why people get irked. While the OP is enthusiastic he has done a lot of posts and received a lot of advice and its sad to see the lack of progress.

BINGO!...

LA StarShooter wrote:
His response is just honest and reflects the frustration of some here with the OPs posting style. If you have responded to more than a couple of his posts you can see why people get irked. While the OP is enthusiastic he has done a lot of posts and received a lot of advice and its sad to see the lack of progress.

If you're "irked", then just stop replying to my threads.

Philip Brown wrote:
If you're "irked", then just stop replying to my threads.

I didn't say I was irked but a number of people who have regularly read posts obviously are. However, I will not offer you any advice anymore as I don't think you will improve. Goodbye.

Garry k wrote:
I absorbed years of beatdowns when i used to post my pictures for crituque

but I took some of the advice offered

and became a better photographer

BINGO #2!   Beatdowns aren't honestly dished out here... I mean come onnnnnn!   Those who are extemely thin skinned and not sincerely receptive to input... and get all butt-hurt over a few recommendations... probably shouldn't participate in the critique forum...

Select Models wrote:
BINGO #2!   Beatdowns aren't honestly dished out here... I mean come onnnnnn!   Those who are extemely thin skinned and not sincerely receptive to input... and get all butt-hurt over a few recommendations... probably shouldn't participate in the critique forum...

Personally I only consider it a beatdown if the critiquinig photographer is better than myself



and Yes - I believe that overly sensitive aspiring photographers should not be requesting critiques

roger alan wrote:
...
2) in 8 the lighting is flat
3) in 8 the subject is centered in the frame
4) in 8 the background is shade of grey or black
5) in 7 the subject is square to the camera
6) in 6 the subject has the same non-expression

in other words, and to be brutally honest ...boring in almost every way that images can be boring
...

Fair critique. I have no problems with honest evaluations of "this specifically is wrong with your photos".
That is after all, what this forum is for.

I should have given more context for the shoot, I suppose. I'm working with limited resources here:
I only have black and white backgrounds at present.
So, it looks like the cheapest possible setup, because it IS the cheapest possible setup.
Limited lighting, limited space, limited backdrops. no changing that at present

I wasnt trying to tell a story and "create art" with this shoot. i was vaguely trying to go for a plain glamor cover style.
My primary purpose was to hit the basics for a studio style shoot, with lighting and focus basically correct, as opposed to my prior indoor attempt, which I am fine in admitting was abysmal

So, I guess my takeaway from this one is: I actually hit the basics correctly! Awesome. Mission accomplished.
Now I can start aiming on adding in the more artistic levels that you mentioned.

Philip Brown wrote:
in other words, and to be brutally honest ...boring in almost every way that images can be boring
...

Fair critique. I have no problems with honest evaluations of "this specifically is wrong with your photos".
That is after all, what this forum is for.

I should have given more context for the shoot, I suppose. I'm working with limited resources here:
I only have black and white backgrounds at present.
So, it looks like the cheapest possible setup, because it IS the cheapest possible setup.
Limited lighting, limited space, limited backdrops. no changing that at present

I wasnt trying to tell a story and "create art" with this shoot. i was vaguely trying to go for a plain glamor cover style.


Money any lack of it should not be an excuse to not create a good image. I have no studio space or any budget. I use outdoor locations and find spaces that can become a studio setting. I don't use any lighting equipment other than the biggest light source we have which is our Sun. Your images all appear rather flat in lighting as well as content. It feels as though your main concern in photographing some one is the technique rather than  working on all aspects of creating an image which involves the subject, the framing, the composition, the dynamics which is where lighting comes into play.
You say you are not trying to create art which is all well and good, but if you have no vision in your.mind or any inspiration then the photograph is merely a documentation of what is in front of you and anyone with a phone, camera can do that.

Philip Brown wrote:
PS: yeah, the redundant expressions was definitely on point.
So I added this to the mix.

--Now, get rid of these (honestly, they should have never made it on):



--Just imagine what that folder would look like with just these. 


At least that album would be a little more presentable; but you still have lighting issues and editing issues.  If you continue to work with this model or as you do more quality photos, start getting rid of these ones as well.

--Stop making excuses about your lighting and/or setup.  If it doesn't look right, it's because you didn't do it right.

--She's only 19, but she looks like she's in her mid to late 20's in a lot of those images in that whole album.  I attribute that to the lighting, expression, and editing (or lack off).  Pay attention to the light on the face.

--Edit your photos.  Stop posting SOOC (straight out of camera) images.  I hate editing, too.  But, that's part of the deal.  Either you do it or have someone else do it.

Black Z Eddie wrote:
...

--Now, get rid of these (honestly, they should have never made it on):

Huh....
could you explain your mental process for picking please?

Black Z Eddie wrote:
--She's only 19, but she looks like she's in her mid to late 20's in a lot of those images in that whole album.  I attribute that to the lighting, expression, and editing (or lack off).  Pay attention to the light on the face.

Actually, it was mostly her self-done makeup, I believe. Very heavy, and not in a good way. and she had dark areas under her eyes, before any lighting was attempted.

She seemed kind of.. new to modelling, to me, in many ways. Make up is one of them. Expression is another.
I had **THREE HUNDRED** photos to choose from. Most of them, the expressions were terrible. I made do with what I could.
Had to keep telling her to lift her chin, btw. in response to the other poster.

I would appreciate tips on what about the lighting you believe contributed to her looking older.
Other people have commented that it was flat lighting.
I always read that flat lightning was good for reducing age? So... i'm confused there.

Eagle Rock Photographer wrote:
...
– hair obscuring one eye and part of face.

yeah, that was one reason why I went so strong on lighting. I liked the look of the hair over one eye... however, it cast really strong shadow so I kinda overcompensated :-/

Although additionally.. (edit: posting this because someone criticised "you're making her look old") her face doesnt look young to start with.
Here's a "makeup wiped off, single source lighting" shot of her. Unprocessed.

Wigs and Makeup Allison wrote:
I’m not surprised to hear you had to keep telling her raise her chin.  If you were just a step or two up on a small step ladder, I think it might force her to look up at the camera and get more light into her eyes.

My favorite by far is the one where she is squatting down.  She looks so much more relaxed in that shot.  I think having her squared off to the camera in the other shots isn’t doing her any favors.  I know that is more of a traditionally masculine pose.  Angling her into more traditional feminine poses might flatter her more.

Hm. Interesting point about camera height.Although probably not good to do all the time(ie: not with every model)
She definitely loosened up when my kitty came into the picture
But that was the end of the shoot.
Another good point about masculine poses. guess I have to think more about that.
Its just going to be tough, while I'm trying to get lightning and focus right, to also remember to bug the model,
"Hey! Be more girlie, would you??"

heh.

Guess I need to more carefully pick expressive models, since I'm not particularly good at directing.
Looking back at her portfolio now, I could have realized what I was getting into.

Wigs and Makeup Allison wrote:
If you were just a step or two up on a small step ladder, I think it might force her to look up at the camera and get more light into her eyes.

Yip,

Her angle is from slightly above.



I use an aerobic step indoors as a shooting platform.

FIFTYONE PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:
I use an aerobic step indoors as a shooting platform.

HA! I saw that edit... you tried to make it all fancy with wording

I currently actually have a treadmill as a *cough* "shooting platform".
Its an industrial one, so a solid 6 inches high at least

Philip Brown wrote:

HA! I saw that edit... you tried to make it all fancy with wording

I currently actually have a treadmill as a *cough* "shooting platform".
Its an industrial one, so a solid 6 inches high at least

It should work for You,  just don't turn it on.

FIFTYONE PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:
It should work for You,  just don't turn it on.

I'd recommend the opposite... turn it on to the 'high speed setting'... put your models on it and shoot away!   That would be a HUGE improvement over all the static poses we've seen...

Black Z Eddie wrote:
...
--Now, get rid of these (honestly, they should have never made it on):

Philip Brown wrote:
Huh....
could you explain your mental process for picking please?

All the ones with the white top:
1.  The lighting is crap, plus
2.  The posing is crap, plus
3.  The styling is crap, plus
4.  They all look the same.  You don't need multiple images that look the same in your portfolio.
5.  Basically, what everyone else has been saying.

The monochrome one because her face is underexposed.

Black Z Eddie wrote:
--She's only 19, but she looks like she's in her mid to late 20's in a lot of those images in that whole album.  I attribute that to the lighting, expression, and editing (or lack off).  Pay attention to the light on the face.

Philip Brown wrote:
Actually, it was mostly her self-done makeup, I believe. Very heavy, and not in a good way. and she had dark areas under her eyes, before any lighting was attempted.

No, actually, what I should have included on my earlier post about stop making excuses, "--Stop making excuses about your lighting and/or setup; and the models.  If it doesn't look right, it's because you didn't do it right."

Just to future proof that statement, add these:  "; and the makeup artist; and hair stylist; and wardrobe stylist; and designer."

She seemed kind of.. new to modelling, to me, in many ways. Make up is one of them. Expression is another.
I had **THREE HUNDRED** photos to choose from. Most of them, the expressions were terrible. I made do with what I could.
Had to keep telling her to lift her chin, btw. in response to the other poster.
-----------------
Although additionally.. her face doesnt look young at all.
Here's a "makeup wiped off, single source lighting" shot of her. Unprocessed.

Lol, seriously, you're going to stoop this low as to point fingers.  You took the shot, you posted the shot.  It's 100% on you.

I would appreciate tips on what about the lighting you believe contributed to her looking older.
Other people have commented that it was flat lighting.
I always read that flat lightning was good for reducing age? So... i'm confused there.

For me, it's the shadows.  There's all kinds of random shadows on her face.  Looks like dirt.  It's a mess. 

Here's a photo of her in her portfolio, and compare it to one of yours.  Look at the lighting on her face.  If you can't see the difference, then, I'm afraid there's probably no hope for you.

JordanK wrote:
I think it's in VERY poor taste to post a picture of the model with no makeup like that and keep going on how she doesn't look young trying to point the finger at her.

I'm trying to learn.
Im fine with fair criticism of my photos. Some of it doesnt quite seem fair though, so I'm asking for clarification.

One criticism was "you're making her look older than she is".
but given the no-makeup look on that day.. she already looked older. So was that a fair criticism? Seems like not?

Now the criticism about shadows. I'm not trying to deflect blame. I'm honestly just trying to find out truth, and learn here, so I have a question about it.

Z just referenced this photo of mine, and said too many shadows on her face, lighting is horrible.


I completely own the shadow on (her) right side of her face :-}
But the dark patch on her left cheek, I have questions about.

As you can see by the highlights in her eye, I HAD that side of her face lit. Yet that area was still dark.
Thats why it seems like I'm pushing back:
Not because I'm trying to avoid blame, but because it isnt making any sense to me whats going on, on that side.


Yes I own that I should have noticed it and done more. My question is, would it really have made the most sense to try to pull more lighting on it? Or would it have made more sense instead to tell the model, "hey could you go adjust your makeup please, it's too heavy"?
or.... maybe I just needed the lighting moved down a foot and to the right?