Forums > Critique > Updated my portfolio

Photographer

Adam John Austin

Posts: 8

Denver, Colorado, US

I have been doing photography for about four years now, and I feel like my portfolio is really coming into its own. My background is in videography, at start I was only doing constant or natural light. I have just started using flash within the past three months and have already started seeing amazing results.

Aug 22 18 10:40 am Link

Photographer

JT Life Photography

Posts: 624

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Everchange Productions wrote:
I have been doing photography for about four years now, and I feel like my portfolio is really coming into its own. My background is in videography, at start I was only doing constant or natural light. I have just started using flash within the past three months and have already started seeing amazing results.

Be careful not to blow out the highlights, the wedding dress is an example of this. Also perhaps be a bit more prudent with your depth of field. Many of the images (IMO) have too wide a depth of field and have distracting backgrounds.
Good luck,
JT

Aug 27 18 09:26 am Link

Photographer

Mark Salo

Posts: 11727

Olney, Maryland, US

Splotches of light everywhere. Shadow between the thighs. The sign is too in my face - a larger aperture would have blurred it just a bit.
https://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/180507/19/5af1128a9004e_m.jpg

Burned out face and chest. Strong light on model's left casts a weird shadow on face. Suggest cropping clutter on camera right. Again, a larger aperture would soften the background a bit.
https://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/180301/16/5a989df1e9fd5_m.jpg

Aug 27 18 11:00 am Link

Photographer

asong

Posts: 76

Los Angeles, California, US

What the above mentioned with splotchy lighting.  Some of the pictures the skin looks way over-softened.  And the quality of the actual image (resizing issues? sharpening?) for some of the later pictures in your port are pretty bad.

Aug 28 18 04:23 pm Link

Photographer

Adam John Austin

Posts: 8

Denver, Colorado, US

JT Life Photography wrote:

Be careful not to blow out the highlights, the wedding dress is an example of this. Also perhaps be a bit more prudent with your depth of field. Many of the images (IMO) have too wide a depth of field and have distracting backgrounds.
Good luck,
JT

Thank you for you feed back JT

Aug 31 18 05:00 am Link

Photographer

Adam John Austin

Posts: 8

Denver, Colorado, US

Mark Salo wrote:
Splotches of light everywhere. Shadow between the thighs. The sign is too in my face - a larger aperture would have blurred it just a bit.
https://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/180507/19/5af1128a9004e_m.jpg

Burned out face and chest. Strong light on model's left casts a weird shadow on face. Suggest cropping clutter on camera right. Again, a larger aperture would soften the background a bit.
https://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/180301/16/5a989df1e9fd5_m.jpg

Thank you for your feedback Mark

Aug 31 18 05:01 am Link

Photographer

Adam John Austin

Posts: 8

Denver, Colorado, US

asong wrote:
What the above mentioned with splotchy lighting.  Some of the pictures the skin looks way over-softened.  And the quality of the actual image (resizing issues? sharpening?) for some of the later pictures in your port are pretty bad.

Harsh lol, but appreciated asong

Aug 31 18 05:08 am Link

Photographer

nbooshu

Posts: 11

Los Angeles, California, US

I think the top 4/first 4 photos are your strongest.  The models seem confident and comfortable with you.  They don't seem aware of the camera as much as the rest of the lot.  When I see a great portrait I look for how their shoulders are positioned (if they seem nervous or not), how big their eyes are (bigger eyes and tense muscles around the eyes show stress).  The model IS the photo, and it's your responsibility as the photographer to direct them.  The top 4 photos don't make me think about the background, they don't make me think about anything else except to put all of my attention on them. 

Some of the other photos are too busy, have too much going on in the background.  Take a look at Richard Avedon's In the American West portraits.  You don't need a lot to make a great portrait.  A lot of the other photos the people are way too aware of the camera, they don't seem natural.  Some of them feel like the model is in control of the picture, but you are the one that's the director, not them.  It takes time to study up on portraiture and get the kinks worked out, which the top 4 photos seem to be the culmination of all of that hard work.  Cheers!

Aug 31 18 12:09 pm Link

Photographer

Adam John Austin

Posts: 8

Denver, Colorado, US

nbooshu wrote:
I think the top 4/first 4 photos are your strongest.  The models seem confident and comfortable with you.  They don't seem aware of the camera as much as the rest of the lot.  When I see a great portrait I look for how their shoulders are positioned (if they seem nervous or not), how big their eyes are (bigger eyes and tense muscles around the eyes show stress).  The model IS the photo, and it's your responsibility as the photographer to direct them.  The top 4 photos don't make me think about the background, they don't make me think about anything else except to put all of my attention on them. 

Some of the other photos are too busy, have too much going on in the background.  Take a look at Richard Avedon's In the American West portraits.  You don't need a lot to make a great portrait.  A lot of the other photos the people are way too aware of the camera, they don't seem natural.  Some of them feel like the model is in control of the picture, but you are the one that's the director, not them.  It takes time to study up on portraiture and get the kinks worked out, which the top 4 photos seem to be the culmination of all of that hard work.  Cheers!

nbooshu, thank you for your evaluation. Not only did you tell me what I was doing right and wrong, but you also told me specifically how to improve and gave examples. I really appreciate you taking your time to help me.

Aug 31 18 12:48 pm Link