dmacmillan Offline Upload & Sell: On
|
I agree with boshek's implication, time of day is a problem. I find the lighting harsh even with your obvious OCF.
I know some photos are meant to put the couple in context, but in some, the background is just cluttered for no apparent reason. For instance, in the first photo, is there any significance to the houses behind them? If not the couple should have been shot with a longer lens at a wider aperture. You could have still gotten the bench and the sign without all the clutter. #11, where he is seated, is another example of the background not lending anything to the photo. There's even trash in the grass. The lighting in this one is particularly harsh and unattractive, especially the sheen on his face and the large splash on sun spill on her nose.
There's also lack of attention to detail in posing. Going back to #11, look at the fingers of her right hand pressing on the slab. It makes her hand look unattractive. Speaking of attention to detail, her bra strap is showing in #5.
There is a trend nowadays to obliterate the background by shooting with long lenses with wide apertures. I think it is overused. However if the background is recognizable, it needs to bolster the subject instead of detracting from it. Also, I think these photos would have been significantly improved by shooting during the golden hour. Romantic images should have romantic lighting. The ones with the lampposts could be terrific if it was late enough that they were lit.
|