IF you don't remember that (or my comments in your "Clown and Bride" post), then you may mistake my comments below as "hostile" or "critical" or "negative." That is not my intent or goal.
My Comments that follow are not a criticism of you, your model, your talent, or your skill. I focus my comments only on the image itself and its strengths or weaknesses.
And...my comments are only offered in a friendly tone of voice to help you.
I think these are not at the same "level" of "professional" quality seen in your earlier posted images. Those I admire for their skilled use of the figures, story, light, and composition...and their "creativity."
So these following comments are based on seeing images that "have a hard act to follow." This simply means, your earlier images give a very "high quality" "no mistakes" "flawless" and "perfect" impression.
So...anything else below that level is likely to be seen as "weaker."
Here is how I would see these images (regardless of knowing who produced them):
The #2 and #3 images look like "poor exposures" that have caused part of the figure to be lost or "blown out" to white. Because of the random placement of those "blown white" areas, I don't think they "add" to the images and instead look like "flaws" due to poor exposure or poor metering.
Of course, these are YOUR images and they may look exactly like YOU want them to look. That "blown out" look could be YOURchosen "style."
But, from a "general observer" (me) the lost visual content seems more like a flaw and the images seem more like a miss.
I hope you understand all of the above comments are offered in a friendly tone of voice and with the sole intent or goal to help you with an honest observation and a different set of eyes.
I think what I see here is a rare talent.
Where some photographers would expose the scene and have some areas blown out accidentally, in #3, I see you have chosen to carefully blow out some areas. We see the shoulder disappear as it blends into the background. We are left to view just what you want us to see. The face and dress are exposed well and we are forced to view just that area because the other areas have been blown out.
I don't see any part of these 3 pictures as a 'mistake'. I think you have full control of your results and good perception of what you want.
This is not my usual type of photo to admire. I tend to like more realistic photos without blown areas, and I often critique blown areas as "faults".
TO: Steady Hand: In fact, I do not mind any criticism and comments, this is my one year ago as a customer business models take her picture while I take personal pictures, she is not a model. Because she must face looks very ordinary, so I intend to use this kind of lighting, in order to remove the outline is not perfect, to a sense of twilight. This is a try.
I will soon have new pictures made here today has just finished filming, I would like to be better than those for some of the old.
Thank you very much for the recommendations and to discuss
I think the discussion above has it covered. I am beginning to think Steady was a lawyer in a previous life. My only issue is the hat, I find it distracting. I think her hair would allow you your vision of light better, JMO....mike
