Forums > Critique > Critique my hotel room shots with Violet

Photographer

Fist Full of Ish

Posts: 2284

Pasco, Washington, US

I did my first hotel shoot ever, and with a model who goes by "Violet".  If why she's called "Violet" jumps out at you from the pictures, then give me some credit, because that is something I was trying to do.  Also, I didn't want it to look like a hotel shoot because she already had that "genre" covered in her portfolio, and I'm not a fan of the "hotel look" anyway.
Also, if anyone could give me a tip on this:  These photos generally are sharp full size, but they seem to get softer when reduced.  It would be nice if I could avoid that loss.  'Anyone?
https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/46068973 (18+)

edit: Also, I had four speedlights with me, but two decided not to work.  Otherwise, I would've had a minor light source  behind me.

Mar 24 20 12:23 am Link

Photographer

Camera Buff

Posts: 570

Maryborough, Queensland, Australia

Fist Full of Ish wrote:
Also, if anyone could give me a tip on this:  These photos generally are sharp full size, but they seem to get softer when reduced.  It would be nice if I could avoid that loss.  'Anyone?
https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/46068973 (18+)

Photos posted on MM that are wider than 1000px will automatically be resized, which will also strip EXIF and colour space info.

Since loading macOS Catalina on my mac, I can no longer resize my images using Photo Elements 14. This and other programs which no longer work properly as a result of Catalina has taught me a costly, but valuable, lesson about Apple products.   

My tip - After I downsize and/or save a file as a JPEG for posting on the web, I'll reopen the saved JPEG and re-edit/sharpen it and then save/replace the original.

Mar 24 20 01:04 am Link

Photographer

Mark Salo

Posts: 10840

Olney, Maryland, US

https://www.modelmayhem.com/faqs#images
"We recommend that you resize your photos to be 800 pixels wide or less."

Reducing image size softens the image. Sharpening should be the last step in post processing and will need to be evaluated individually for each image size.

Mar 24 20 05:36 am Link

Photographer

Michael DBA Expressions

Posts: 3711

Lynchburg, Virginia, US

Mark Salo wrote:
https://www.modelmayhem.com/faqs#images
"We recommend that you resize your photos to be 800 pixels wide or less."

Reducing image size softens the image. Sharpening should be the last step in post processing and will need to be evaluated individually for each image size.

This. Never allow the web site to monkey with your images. Make sure they are both at the pixel size and file size the site demands so that they don’t have to do ANYTHING to your work.

Mar 24 20 06:46 am Link

Photographer

Michael DBA Expressions

Posts: 3711

Lynchburg, Virginia, US

Camera Buff wrote:
Since loading macOS Catalina on my mac, I can no longer resize my images using Photo Elements 14. This and other programs which no longer work properly as a result of Catalina has taught me a costly, but valuable, lesson about Apple products.

Do you think OS upgrades making old software obsolete is strictly an Apple problem? Oh, young grasshopper, have you got things to learn.

Mar 24 20 06:49 am Link

Photographer

Camera Buff

Posts: 570

Maryborough, Queensland, Australia

Michael DBA Expressions wrote:
Do you think OS upgrades making old software obsolete is strictly an Apple problem? Oh, young grasshopper, have you got things to learn.

Lesson #1: Turn off all automatic downloads.
Lesson #2: If everything works the way you want and expect, don't change a thing.
Lesson #3: Wait, let other grasshoppers rush into OS upgrades and learn from their mistakes.
Lesson #4: (Anyone care to add?)

Mar 24 20 07:39 am Link

Photographer

Brooklyn Bridge Images

Posts: 12940

Brooklyn, New York, US

Camera Buff wrote:

Lesson #1: Turn off all automatic downloads.
Lesson #2: If everything works the way you want and expect, don't change a thing.
Lesson #3: Wait, let other grasshoppers rush into OS upgrades and learn from their mistakes.
Lesson #4: (Anyone care to add?)

That just about covers it smile

Mar 24 20 12:19 pm Link

Photographer

epsilon images

Posts: 143

Bellevue, Washington, US

Back to the OP question -- in addition to softness, there is some kind of weird low-bit-depth light/dark color halo around the model.  Look at the arm in the first image -- see the lightness/darkness/weirdness that surrounds it?  Looks like a result of a very large unsharp mask.  It feels "cooked" to me.

Mar 24 20 02:34 pm Link

Photographer

Fist Full of Ish

Posts: 2284

Pasco, Washington, US

Camera Buff wrote:
...

My tip - After I downsize and/or save a file as a JPEG for posting on the web, I'll reopen the saved JPEG and re-edit/sharpen it and then save/replace the original.

Mark Salo wrote:
https://www.modelmayhem.com/faqs#images
"We recommend that you resize your photos to be 800 pixels wide or less."

Reducing image size softens the image. Sharpening should be the last step in post processing and will need to be evaluated individually for each image size.

I don't know why that hadn't dawned on me.  I always finish the picture, sharpen it, and then resize it. 
Now I see that I need to end with an unsharpened, full-size  copy, reduce it and sharpen it before posting.
OK!  Thanks!

Thanks also to Michael DBA Expressions.

Edit: Actually, a lot of them seem to be pin sharp and I've just skipped sharpening.  I always assumed reduction wouldn't do damage.

Mar 24 20 06:04 pm Link

Photographer

Fist Full of Ish

Posts: 2284

Pasco, Washington, US

epsilon images wrote:
Back to the OP question -- in addition to softness, there is some kind of weird low-bit-depth light/dark color halo around the model.  Look at the arm in the first image -- see the lightness/darkness/weirdness that surrounds it?  Looks like a result of a very large unsharp mask.  It feels "cooked" to me.

Yeah.  I noticed that, but haven't tracked it down yet.  'Something unintended.

Mar 24 20 06:11 pm Link

Photographer

Dan OMell

Posts: 1377

Charlotte, North Carolina, US

I see what you're saying. I was thinking hard, returning back again and again, and  looking at the model.
The best I can come up with, in how to approach this, in term of style, at least to me, is
style by the Holland artist Mariska Karto. Something in the lines of
https://www.pinterest.co.uk/aapictures/ … tographer/

You could easily use the bed sheets as togas etc.

May 23 20 02:04 pm Link

Photographer

AE Photography

Posts: 129

Pullman, Washington, US

as to resizing, I use an online resizer, this article explains: https://layersmagazine.com/photoshop-re … mages.html

May 28 20 11:55 am Link

Photographer

Fist Full of Ish

Posts: 2284

Pasco, Washington, US

Dan OMell wrote:
I see what you're saying. I was thinking hard, returning back again and again, and  looking at the model.
The best I can come up with, in how to approach this, in term of style, at least to me, is
style by the Holland artist Mariska Karto. Something in the lines of
https://www.pinterest.co.uk/aapictures/ … tographer/

You could easily use the bed sheets as togas etc.

Hey thanks.  You noticed some chiaroscuro,  That's in the style you mention.  Now I'm wanting to make that an objective in a maternity shoot about five or six months away.  BTW, that's a common thing among the Dutch masters; not invented anywhere near this century.  'Love it.  I have one shot of a pregnant couple in my port featuring that effect.

May 28 20 04:13 pm Link

Photographer

Fist Full of Ish

Posts: 2284

Pasco, Washington, US

AE Photography wrote:
as to resizing, I use an online resizer, this article explains: https://layersmagazine.com/photoshop-re … mages.html

Thanks!  The article talks about sampling and the check box.  It turns out that you can't change the pixel dimensions in PS unless the box is checked.  This is great info. 
What resizer do you use?  Is it free?

May 28 20 04:40 pm Link

Photographer

Rik Williams

Posts: 3909

Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Please help me out here. How do these shots constitute a "hotel shoot"?
Just saying they were shot in a hotel room doesn't mean anything. I see no hotel setting, all I see is bland lighting and a boring backdrop.
The model is reasonably pretty and her hair does evoke a sense of violet to a fair degree, but otherwise, it all screams GWC to me.
IMHO you need to get more creative with your work, try something new, something that gels, something that speaks to people.
This is all pervy work and does very little to advance the art of photography in any way, shape or form.

May 29 20 08:14 am Link

Photographer

AE Photography

Posts: 129

Pullman, Washington, US

Fist Full of Ish wrote:
Thanks!  The article talks about sampling and the check box.  It turns out that you can't change the pixel dimensions in PS unless the box is checked.  This is great info. 
What resizer do you use?  Is it free?

most welcome!

I use http://www.simpleimageresizer.com/

it IS free, it's basic, fast, and gives back high quality images - and I always use an adblocker, makes this page so clean and simple

May 29 20 06:28 pm Link

Photographer

Fist Full of Ish

Posts: 2284

Pasco, Washington, US

Rik Williams wrote:
Please help me out here. How do these shots constitute a "hotel shoot"?
Just saying they were shot in a hotel room doesn't mean anything. I see no hotel setting, all I see is bland lighting and a boring backdrop.
The model is reasonably pretty and her hair does evoke a sense of violet to a fair degree, but otherwise, it all screams GWC to me.
IMHO you need to get more creative with your work, try something new, something that gels, something that speaks to people.
This is all pervy work and does very little to advance the art of photography in any way, shape or form.

Wow, Rik.  You apparently got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.  Like I said, it was my first shoot in a hotel room ever.  Cut me some slack.  I also plainly said that "I didn't want it to look like it was shot in a hotel". 
  I agree on the "boring" backdrop, although "exciting" backdrops aren't very common.  I take some offense at your use of the word "pervy".  I don't know where you get that.  If it's from the bondage shot, that part of the shoot was at her request, as she has a long bdsm enthusiast background.  I'm sure I haven't "advanced the art of photography", but how many of us do that?  I think you are venting something, and you certainly are not aligned with the spirit or intent of this forum today.

In addition, Rik, I want to point you to the forum guidelines, available near the top of the forum.  It states:

"KEY GUIDELINES*
...
{3} Do not call anyone a GWC or put down any person in the critique section. ...
... "

Rik, you and I have actually had cordial conversations many years ago, although I had a different pseudonym back then.  I know you are capable.  Pause and take a deep breath.

Now, if you are going to tell someone they have "bland lighting" , the spirit of this forum is that you put forth the effort to help them improve.  Answer "What should I have done differently".  Otherwise, this is clearly just a "put down".

May 30 20 03:32 am Link

Photographer

Fist Full of Ish

Posts: 2284

Pasco, Washington, US

AE Photography wrote:

most welcome!

I use http://www.simpleimageresizer.com/

it IS free, it's basic, fast, and gives back high quality images - and I always use an adblocker, makes this page so clean and simple

I like the result!   I'm a fan!  Thanks!

May 30 20 03:42 am Link

Photographer

Fleming Design

Posts: 1316

Hartford, Connecticut, US

Fist Full of Ish wrote:
Wow, Rik.  You apparently got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.  Like I said, it was my first shoot in a hotel room ever.  Cut me some slack.  I also plainly said that "I didn't want it to look like it was shot in a hotel". 
  I agree on the "boring" backdrop, although "exciting" backdrops aren't very common.  I take some offense at your use of the word "pervy".  I don't know where you get that.  If it's from the bondage shot, that part of the shoot was at her request, as she has a long bdsm enthusiast background.  I'm sure I haven't "advanced the art of photography", but how many of us do that?  I think you are venting something, and you certainly are not aligned with the spirit or intent of this forum today.

In addition, Rik, I want to point you to the forum guidelines, available near the top of the forum.  It states:

"KEY GUIDELINES*
...
{3} Do not call anyone a GWC or put down any person in the critique section. ...
... "

Rik, you and I have actually had cordial conversations many years ago, although I had a different pseudonym back then.  I know you are capable.  Pause and take a deep breath.

Now, if you are going to tell someone they have "bland lighting" , the spirit of this forum is that you put forth the effort to help them improve.  Answer "What should I have done differently".  Otherwise, this is clearly just a "put down".

Well said.  I don't agree with Rik's post.

May 30 20 09:15 am Link

Photographer

Rik Williams

Posts: 3909

Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Fist Full of Ish wrote:
Wow, Rik.  You apparently got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.  Like I said, it was my first shoot in a hotel room ever.  Cut me some slack.  I also plainly said that "I didn't want it to look like it was shot in a hotel". 
  I agree on the "boring" backdrop, although "exciting" backdrops aren't very common.  I take some offense at your use of the word "pervy".  I don't know where you get that.  If it's from the bondage shot, that part of the shoot was at her request, as she has a long bdsm enthusiast background.  I'm sure I haven't "advanced the art of photography", but how many of us do that?  I think you are venting something, and you certainly are not aligned with the spirit or intent of this forum today.

In addition, Rik, I want to point you to the forum guidelines, available near the top of the forum.  It states:

"KEY GUIDELINES*
...
{3} Do not call anyone a GWC or put down any person in the critique section. ...
... "

Rik, you and I have actually had cordial conversations many years ago, although I had a different pseudonym back then.  I know you are capable.  Pause and take a deep breath.

Now, if you are going to tell someone they have "bland lighting" , the spirit of this forum is that you put forth the effort to help them improve.  Answer "What should I have done differently".  Otherwise, this is clearly just a "put down".

Dude stop playing a victim here, you asked for a critique.

I'm not going to sugar coat it or blow smoke up your ass.
I don't like the work, the lighting is bland and the finish is awful. I would first try ordering 'Light Science and Magic' from Amazon and read it from cover to cover. Then apply the new knowledge to future projects. Also practice up your skin and color technique in Photoshop.
Also, maybe next time try to style your models to their environment, so it tells a story or at least becomes a little more cohesive.
It helps to invoke some emotion from models to suit the storyline too, otherwise it looks pervy.
I didn't call you a GWC, I said the work screams GWC. And I said this because that's exactly what it looks like to me. You're the one who had assumed the shoe size, not I.
I also challenged your 'announcement of location', because to me, and I'm certain 99% of other photographers would associate a 'hotel shoot' with  ...well a hotel. Do you see my dilemma here, or is this not making any sense to you?
The work looks cheap and nasty, it's unimaginative and cliche, it's like you've put as little effort into it's creation as possible. ie:here is a model, ill throw a spotlight on her and position her in front of a boring as batshit back drop then click away.
There is no storyline, no direction, no style, just a scantily clad female under said circumstances.
I'm sorry if you are sensitive to this line of critique, but if someone doesn't tell you, you'll continue making the same ordinary images over and over, not knowing any better  ..or getting any better.

Try learning some new lighting  and Photoshop skills or at least brushing up on what you do know and next time, think about what you're trying to say.

Ultimately the work is good or it's bad, but it's always your personal statement on the subject.

But of course there will always be boorish admirers of near naked females regardless of style and taste, it's a primal instinct no less.
It all comes down to where you'd like to sit with your work.

May 31 20 07:37 am Link

Photographer

Rik Williams

Posts: 3909

Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Fleming Design wrote:

Well said.  I don't agree with Rik's post.

Please, I'd love to know what you think. .as no doubt the OP would be curious also.
Perhaps I've missed something here?

Cheers.

May 31 20 07:47 am Link

Photographer

Fist Full of Ish

Posts: 2284

Pasco, Washington, US

Rik Williams wrote:
Dude stop playing a victim here, you asked for a critique.

I'm not going to sugar coat it or blow smoke up your ass.
I don't like the work, the lighting is bland and the finish is awful. I would first try ordering 'Light Science and Magic' from Amazon and read it from cover to cover. Then apply the new knowledge to future projects. Also practice up your skin and color technique in Photoshop.
Also, maybe next time try to style your models to their environment, so it tells a story or at least becomes a little more cohesive.
It helps to invoke some emotion from models to suit the storyline too, otherwise it looks pervy.
I didn't call you a GWC, I said the work screams GWC. And I said this because that's exactly what it looks like to me. You're the one who had assumed the shoe size, not I.
I also challenged your 'announcement of location', because to me, and I'm certain 99% of other photographers would associate a 'hotel shoot' with  ...well a hotel. Do you see my dilemma here, or is this not making any sense to you?
The work looks cheap and nasty, it's unimaginative and cliche, it's like you've put as little effort into it's creation as possible. ie:here is a model, ill throw a spotlight on her and position her in front of a boring as batshit back drop then click away.
There is no storyline, no direction, no style, just a scantily clad female under said circumstances.
I'm sorry if you are sensitive to this line of critique, but if someone doesn't tell you, you'll continue making the same ordinary images over and over, not knowing any better  ..or getting any better.

Try learning some new lighting  and Photoshop skills or at least brushing up on what you do know and next time, think about what you're trying to say.

Ultimately the work is good or it's bad, but it's always your personal statement on the subject.

But of course there will always be boorish admirers of near naked females regardless of style and taste, it's a primal instinct no less.
It all comes down to where you'd like to sit with your work.

It isn't out of" sensitivity" that I object to  "this line of critique".  It is that your "critique" doesn't meet the stated guidelines and intent of this forum.

I do think these were good:
"It helps to invoke some emotion from models to suit the storyline too, otherwise it looks pervy."
"try to style your models to their environment, so it tells a story or at least becomes a little more cohesive."

However, you are being profoundly hypocritical when you take five of my photos out of a much larger set and say:
1)  The work is unimaginative and cliche;
2)  "here is a model, ill throw a spotlight on her and position her in front of a boring as batshit back drop then click away."
3)  There is no storyline, no direction, no style
It isn't hard to identify good photos everywhere that don't meet your ideal.  ( You are going to say that you "don't use a spotlight".  Well, neither do I.)

I would also add "the lighting is bland" to that list, but admittedly I was one light down in my setup, as noted.  Still, "bland"?  I really want to leave that on the list.

You were blatantly fibbing when you said: "I also challenged your 'announcement of location', because [fibs]" .  No.  What you did was "fail to read my request".  You can't be honest with yourself.  You can't admit your mistake, yet you can dish-out general negative feelings about others when they ask you for help. You remind me of that self-important SNL  computer tech character who voiciferously puts his coworkers down with every request.   "I'm not going to sugar coat it or blow smoke up your ass." is something that character might say.  Something has changed about you in the past decade.

In another fib, you deny calling me a GWC.  It's pretty clear that you DID call me a GWC.  That was my work and you said it looks like the work of a GWC.  You are the one with the wrong shoe size - not meeting the spec here.

You gave me a flip recommendation to "order 'Light Science and Magic' from Amazon and read it from cover to cover."   Was that a sincere recommendation?  Was is sincere when you said "I'm sorry if ..."?  We both know we aren't sensitive.  Just answer this:  "How would you like to be addressed when you need help?"

May 31 20 01:59 pm Link

Photographer

Rik Williams

Posts: 3909

Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Fist Full of Ish wrote:
It isn't out of" sensitivity" that I object to  "this line of critique".  It is that your "critique" doesn't meet the stated guidelines and intent of this forum.

You are being profoundly hypocritical when you take five of my photos out of a much larger set and say:
1)  The work is unimaginative and cliche;
2)  "here is a model, ill throw a spotlight on her and position her in front of a boring as batshit back drop then click away."
3)  There is no storyline, no direction, no style
It isn't hard to identify photos that don't meet your ideal.  ( You are going to say that you "don't use a spotlight".  Neither do I.)

I would also add "the lighting is bland" to that list, but admittedly I was one light down in my setup, as noted.  Still, "bland"?  I really want to leave that on the list.

You were blatantly fibbing when you said: "I also challenged your 'announcement of location', because [fibs]" .  No.  What you did was "fail to read my request".  You can't be honest with yourself.  You can't admit your mistake, yet you can dish-out general negative feelings about others when they ask you for help. You remind me of that self-important SNL  computer tech character who voiciferously puts his coworkers down.   Something has changed about yo in the past decade.

In another fib, you deny calling me a GWC.  It's pretty clear that you DID call me a GWC.  That was my work and you said it looks like the work of a GWC.  You are the one with the wrong shoe size - not meeting the spec here.

You gave me a flip recommendation to "order 'Light Science and Magic' from Amazon and read it from cover to cover."  Just answer this:  "How would you like to be addressed when you need help?"

I think this was good: "It helps to invoke some emotion from models to suit the storyline too, otherwise it looks pervy."

Don't be a cry baby and concentrate more on improving, don't give excuses, give results. For all the years you've been on this site, do you feel your work has improved much?
If you can't take criticism, you'll remain exactly where you are, I'm sure you've heard about the Dunning-Kruger effect.
I don't want to be the one giving you ideas, but why don't you try investing in one cohesive theme for a series and work around that.
Start with the Shibari concept, find an appropriate location, plan out some ideas for a series, get a professional hair and makeup artist, use more directional lighting to add drama, work the model to bring out some emotion and then don't over cook your models in Photoshop.
Voila, you're now a thousand miles ahead of where you are now.

May 31 20 02:19 pm Link

Photographer

Fist Full of Ish

Posts: 2284

Pasco, Washington, US

Rik Williams wrote:

Don't be a cry baby and concentrate more on improving, don't give excuses, give results. For all the years you've been on this site, do you feel your work has improved much?
If you can't take criticism, you'll remain exactly where you are, I'm sure you've heard about the Dunning-Kruger effect.
I want to be the one giving you ideas, but why don't you try investing in one cohesive theme for a series and work around that.
Start with the Shibari idea, find an appropriate location, plan out some ideas for a series, get a professional hair and makeup artist, use more directional lighting to add drama, work the model to bring out some emotion and then don't over cook your models in Photoshop.
Voila, you're now a thousand miles ahead of where you are now.

You caught my post in mid-edit.
This sounds much better.  No, I haven't done much photography.  'Just an occasional duffer.

May 31 20 02:35 pm Link

Photographer

Tony Lawrence

Posts: 21438

Chicago, Illinois, US

The images are frankly dull and bland to look at.  Beyond a few technical issues they aren't shot well.   Going forward if you do this again try and find a more interesting location.  Some Airbnb's are really cool.   Violet is very pretty but her face lacks emotion and she looks the same in almost every shot.   Look at the images on this website for inspiration.   https://scene360.com/art/97256/rope-bon … otography/    You can create drama with well placed shadows for example.

Jun 01 20 08:54 am Link

Photographer

Fist Full of Ish

Posts: 2284

Pasco, Washington, US

Tony Lawrence wrote:
The images are frankly dull and bland to look at.  Beyond a few technical issues they aren't shot well.   Going forward if you do this again try and find a more interesting location.  Some Airbnb's are really cool.   Violet is very pretty but her face lacks emotion and she looks the same in almost every shot.   Look at the images on this website for inspiration.   https://scene360.com/art/97256/rope-bon … otography/    You can create drama with well placed shadows for example.

OK Tony.  How are you suggesting remedying the dullness?  How about the blandness?
Not shot well?  What would be better?
I shot in a HOTEL ROOM.  At this point, that was a constraint. 
Thought about the air bnb.  'Done that.  Some of my pregnancy photos were done in an air bnb.  I would do some outrageous stuff, but this is not the time for it.  I did do some things with the Shibari, but she's an enthusiast, and, well, for various reasons, I only have the one shot.  She is a very stoic person.  You would need to read her profile to begin to understand.  But I think you're right.  I should've tried to get more.
Edit:  Her profile doesn't discuss some of the important details anymore, but it still says a lot.

Jun 03 20 09:23 pm Link

Photographer

KEKnight

Posts: 1871

Cumming, Georgia, US

Fist Full of Ish wrote:
OK Tony.  How are you suggesting remedying the dullness?  How about the blandness?
Not shot well?  What would be better?
I shot in a HOTEL ROOM.  At this point, that was a constraint.

Shooting in a hotel room shouldn't be a constraint.  If you are shooting in a hotel room, the hotel room is your background.
From your pictures, you could have shot the pictures from any location. 
Here's a few of pictures I've shot in hotels.  I'm not saying they are the best pictures, just giving you an idea of what Tony and Rik were saying. 
I love shooting in hotels. No location should be a "constraint". It should be an opportunity to learn and expand your photography skills.
https://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/180617/12/5b26b274b1396_m.jpg

https://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/170507/23/59100ae682338_m.jpg

https://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/170505/17/590d1cbe0627e_m.jpg

Keep shooting!!!   =o)

Jun 25 20 01:24 pm Link

Photographer

Fist Full of Ish

Posts: 2284

Pasco, Washington, US

KEKnight wrote:
Shooting in a hotel room shouldn't be a constraint.  If you are shooting in a hotel room, the hotel room is your background.
From your pictures, you could have shot the pictures from any location. 
Here's a few of pictures I've shot in hotels.  I'm not saying they are the best pictures, just giving you an idea of what Tony and Rik were saying. 
I love shooting in hotels. No location should be a "constraint". It should be an opportunity to learn and expand your photography skills.
https://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/180617/12/5b26b274b1396_m.jpg

https://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/170507/23/59100ae682338_m.jpg

https://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/170505/17/590d1cbe0627e_m.jpg

Keep shooting!!!   =o)

Thanks!

Seriously though, my use of word "constraint" was accurate.

I like your photos!  They're far from my style, in that I don't think I would ever end up with anything that resembles your style in those shots.

Also, like I said, I intended that the background NOT look like a hotel room. 

I'm not seeing a remedy to "dullness" or "blandness".

Thanks again!

[Edit] Wow!  I really like your other work.

Jun 30 20 01:56 am Link

Photographer

KEKnight

Posts: 1871

Cumming, Georgia, US

The best advice I could give you has already been said:

Rik Williams wrote:
I would first try ordering 'Light Science and Magic' from Amazon and read it from cover to cover. Then apply the new knowledge to future projects. Also practice up your skin and color technique in Photoshop.

Jun 30 20 05:41 am Link

Photographer

Mark Salo

Posts: 10840

Olney, Maryland, US

Fist Full of Ish wrote:
I did my first hotel shoot ever, and with a model who goes by "Violet".  If why she's called "Violet" jumps out at you from the pictures, then give me some credit, because that is something I was trying to do.  Also, I didn't want it to look like a hotel shoot because she already had that "genre" covered in her portfolio, and I'm not a fan of the "hotel look" anyway.

edit: Also, I had four speedlights with me, but two decided not to work.  Otherwise, I would've had a minor light source  behind me.

Fist Full of Ish wrote:
Also, like I said, I intended that the background NOT look like a hotel room.

Next time don't even mention the hotel room.

My condolences about the speedlights. As a speedlight user myself, did you ever discover the problem?

Jun 30 20 07:50 am Link

Photographer

Fist Full of Ish

Posts: 2284

Pasco, Washington, US

Mark Salo wrote:

Fist Full of Ish wrote:
I did my first hotel shoot ever, and with a model who goes by "Violet".  If why she's called "Violet" jumps out at you from the pictures, then give me some credit, because that is something I was trying to do.  Also, I didn't want it to look like a hotel shoot because she already had that "genre" covered in her portfolio, and I'm not a fan of the "hotel look" anyway.

edit: Also, I had four speedlights with me, but two decided not to work.  Otherwise, I would've had a minor light source  behind me.

Next time don't even mention the hotel room.

My condolences about the speedlights. As a speedlight user myself, did you ever discover the problem?

Ha!  You're right.  I shouldn't have mentioned the hotel room and just said I didn't have a studio; just a cramped shooting space.
Yes; partially.  After looking at these lights carefully, one, a YN560 IV that I got on Amazon was just not working/ wouldn't stay on.  The other one DOES currently work, so I'm not sure what happened.  I've had better luck with cheaper speedlights.  At least they are reliable slaves for what I'm interested in.

Jun 30 20 02:37 pm Link

Photographer

Mark Salo

Posts: 10840

Olney, Maryland, US

Mark Salo wrote:
Next time don't even mention the hotel room.

My condolences about the speedlights. As a speedlight user myself, did you ever discover the problem?

Fist Full of Ish wrote:
Ha!  You're right.  I shouldn't have mentioned the hotel room and just said I didn't have a studio; just a cramped shooting space.

Don't even mention the cramped space. See if anyone makes a critique based on the cramped space.

Fist Full of Ish wrote:
Yes; partially.  After looking at these lights carefully, one, a YN560 IV that I got on Amazon was just not working/ wouldn't stay on.  The other one DOES currently work, so I'm not sure what happened.  I've had better luck with cheaper speedlights.  At least they are reliable slaves for what I'm interested in.

For a long time I was using Nikon SB800s with Cactus triggers (V3, I believe). I was having reliability problems when using rechargeables in the triggers. Changing to alkalines in the Cactus triggers solved that.

Jun 30 20 04:08 pm Link

Photographer

Fist Full of Ish

Posts: 2284

Pasco, Washington, US

Mark Salo wrote:
For a long time I was using Nikon SB800s with Cactus triggers (V3, I believe). I was having reliability problems when using rechargeables in the triggers. Changing to alkalines in the Cactus triggers solved that.

Thanks.  I only use alkalines, but I've been using that rule so long, I've forgotten why.  You've got it.  The voltage isn't up to snuff for photographic equipment.

Jul 02 20 12:47 am Link

Photographer

KEKnight

Posts: 1871

Cumming, Georgia, US

Mark Salo wrote:
For a long time I was using Nikon SB800s with Cactus triggers (V3, I believe). I was having reliability problems when using rechargeables in the triggers. Changing to alkalines in the Cactus triggers solved that.

Fist Full of Ish wrote:
Thanks.  I only use alkalines, but I've been using that rule so long, I've forgotten why.  You've got it.  The voltage isn't up to snuff for photographic equipment.

So to go off topic here from the original post ...
I am very curious about both of you using alkaline batteries vs rechargeable batteries. 
I have 4-SB800s that I pretty much use exclusively on most all my shoots.
When I first purchased my SB800's, I would go to Home depot and buy 2 packs of 20 duracells for around $20 which was about 50 cents per battery.  Each SB800 takes 5 batteries so I could refill each speedlight 1 time with 40 batteries.  Back in the day when I was doing 5 or more shoots a month it was costing me $100 per month just for batteries. This caused me to switch over to rechargeable eneloops and i have never looked back. 
I use the eneloop pro battery which is 2500mAH vs 2000mAH for alkalines.
Other benefits of eneloops vs alkaline:
-they recycle 50% faster
-have longer max discharge power
-they never discharge and ruin equipment if left inside for long periods
Soooooo .........  with all that said, I'm curious why alkaline?
https://scantips.com/lights/flashbatteries.html

Jul 02 20 05:56 am Link

Photographer

Mark Salo

Posts: 10840

Olney, Maryland, US

Yes, the SB800s have faster recycle time with the rechargeables.  I suspect that applies to all speedlights but I don't know. The rechargeables have different discharge characteristics.*

I was SOLELY talking about my old Cactus triggers. It certainly was a problem because of the lower voltage in the recyclables. 2.3v vs 2.5 and then 2.7 in the Energizer Ultimate Lithium.

*The rechargeables can supply more "juice" in a shorter time. I guess that the recycle time in speedlights is more dependent on amperage than voltage..

Jul 02 20 11:24 am Link

Photographer

KEKnight

Posts: 1871

Cumming, Georgia, US

Sorry Mark,  I see that now.  My reading comprehension isn't what it used to be.   =o)
That's interesting though what you said about the triggers as rechargeables are slightly lower voltage.
I used Catus triggers at one time..... even had the peanut.  I guess I too used alkalines.

Jul 02 20 11:38 am Link