So I took on my first senior a few weeks ago and I'm just getting to editing them up. Please give me your comments and criticism, of which I imagine there will be both.
Brandon

#2

#3-She's a dancer and wanted something like this. I don't know how I feel about it but what do ya'll think?

Total amateur here, so take my impressions with a grain of salt.

I love #3. Seems very natural and light is nice. I'm on the fence about #4, I like it but there's something I can't put my finger on at the moment which bugs me a tiny bit.

I would like #5 but I find the fact she has her left arm, raised upwards and resting on a railing a bit strange.

I don't really care for the ones where she's leaning against the tree (especially the one where she's lying against it).

Dave

Hi Brandon.

I noticed your post here has had over 240 views and only one person posted any comments before me.

Since it appears you want some comments in order to learn from this "first time," I will post some honest comments for you to try to help you.

My Simple Suggestions:

1. Take a look at all images and select those that show the face looking the best because it shows the shape of her face in a good way. Consider discarding the rest.

2. Take a look at all images that show the face well and look for those that show the figure or body looking the best. Consider discarding the rest.

3. Take a look at all images that show the face and the body best and pick the ones that show the eyes the best. Consider discarding the rest.

OK...you don't want to discard any.

I understand.

But "ruthless editing" is what will get you to improve faster as you identify (for yourself) the stronger and weaker images. Then only produce the stronger type images and eliminate (or "discard") the weaker images. This process is obviously difficult for some or most photographers to do.

Then take a look at the last small set of images and compare them to the others (the "discard pile"). See what caused those in the discard group to be weaker. Avoid those "mistakes" next time.

Example: The "look" of her face in image number two does not "look" like the same girl in several of the other images. In short, the pose and POV has created an "odd" look to her face that I find "unflattering" when viewed with the other images of the same girl. In this image, her face looks "oddly shaped" and "wide" and like she has no neck. It makes her look "heavier" and "puffy" in the face. She looks much "prettier" and more slender in most of the other images. compare the face in #2 and in #3. She looks very different in #3 and much nicer/prettier/thinner. So I would put this "no neck" photo in the "discard" set.

Since both "tree" shots seem to share similarities with the same light and the same types of poses and unflattering angles, I would discard both. And...for the future I would avoid "tree poses."

I hope these comments help you.

Nice first attempt. #3 and #4 are the nicest of the lot. As for the dance theme, if it's "her" image vs. solely trying to convey a dancer theme, I would select one that is recognizably her.

Simply stated - the posing seems very unatural and uncomfortable. The processing does not pop and is subdued for my taste. The exposure is on or very close on all. The scenes are really nice also but the ranch is super. I take clients to what i think are to many locations on engagement shoots and am looking to cut down. I think you should also concentrate more on finding shots at your best location and move around less location to location. This will give you way more time to concentrate on posing and picking the perfect spots to shoot in. That ranch could have been made to look like 4 different spots easy anyway. 3 is a great detail shot.

Great first "attempt". Actually I wouldnt' call this an attempt it's officially a shoot, its worthy

#1 - nicely lite - would make a good h&s - either show the hands or don't just don't show a part of one hand - might have put a bit more light on her face just to soften the shadow on her left eye a bit
#2 - Steady's comments +1 - I don't like "tree hugger" shots especially with her head at such a weird angle -more harsh light than in #1 - she is squinting a bit
#3 - very nicely lit - not sure about the boot in the BG - woner if better if boot PS'd out - again maybe a bit more light since light seems to be coming from the left so the model on the left has a shawdow on her left cheek & hand
#4 - love the BG - clone out the John Deere (ie green tractor) - again wonderful lighting - have any where you stepped more to the right to shoot more down the fence to get rid of brown building - would shooting at f8 or less been better f13 to me seems alittle high
#5 - nicely lite - again hiding one hand - clone vent out - have her arch her back alittle more since she looks big around the middle & I know she isn't...just her pose
#6 - harsh light - not a very good pose - squinting
#7 - love this one - I'd clone the slippers a bit since they seem a bit dirty & ratty

Great work overall for a first time. Had beautiful models for a first time.

Thank you guys very much for your response. I have read and given thought to everything that was said and for the most part, it was what I was expecting and hoping to hear, though it's nice to have it made more specific and tangible.

Is the "stay away from tree posing" pretty much a universal opinion? Basically what I did for these, so that I wouldn't be too lost, was I went through all the senior pictures I could find on here from the last few months, and put them onto my iPod. I brought my iPod out while I was figuring where I wanted to do the shots, and looked at each shot and basically tried to replicate what I had copied from this board. I found some cool "posed-on-a-tree" shots on here that I liked so I went with it. But I agree, many of the in-tree poses look slightly contrived.
As for the process Steady Hand just went through, that sounds great. It's probably the way we all subconsciously edit out, but it's enlightening to see it explained like that and I will try it like that, in that order.

One question I've got for those that do a lot of PP on portraits: Other than bumping down the saturation, bumping up the contrast, and vignetting, how else do you recommend I PP these to get cool results. She requested some "artsy" edits, and that's what I told here she would get. Any more suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks a TON.
Brandon

Any thoughts on alternative edits?

You asked for some specific comments on the last one -- the dance slippers -- so here goes. I like the idea, the depth of field and the B&W conversion. And I could "see" the story you wanted to tell when I first looked at the image. But when I looked at it a while longer the shapes somehow didn't seem right. Her feet look a bit like. . .stumps. . .until the viewer figures out the orientation. Maybe try for more foot and less pants? Some ankle would help.

On the mountain range/fence shot, consider trying it as a vertical crop. The mountains are beautiful, but I would think the girls should be the focus here and I find my eyes following the fence to the horizon. A vertical crop will get rid of the green tractor too.

Hope these comments are helpful to you.

Adam

steady hand, my thoughts exactly.

BrandonRussell wrote:
Any thoughts on alternative edits?

You asked twice so I will try to offer at least one suggestion.

1. Do the shoot again.

2. Do it against a simple background (or a "paper roll seamless background") and forget the trees this time.

3. Let the light and use of shadows and light be the only things you change along with expressions. This can be accomplished with a large window so you don't need to have studio flash (if you don't own it). Or you could do it under a roof such as a "overhang" carport or overpass or pedestrian tunnel or parking deck etc..

4. Work "closer" (not just a head) and let her be herself.

IF you do that, I think you will get much more interesting "artsy" and "individual" images of your model/girl/client/friend.

That is what I would do.

Or...you could just buy some Photoshop actions and add those on top of all the images to give them the current trendy (here on FM at least) "faded 1960s color print" or "photographer pointed camera at sun" look.