This is from a recent session in Mt. Shasta City park. Your critique is very welcome. My nerves are steel and my heart is understanding, so it is excellent for you to be specific. Thanks.
The first 3 are closer than what I personally like to shoot, but if you and your clients like them, I wont argue.
The last one is really kinda bad. Way too much post processing. Plus I would crop down a bit so you dont have all the wasted space around here, especially that chair on the right side of the frame.
Clean and sharp. I'd like to see a mix of tight and wide, but the first few are sharp and well done. Eyes might be a bit processed in the first few (but very believable), uber-cranked in the last one. Photos are too big on my laptop, but that might not be the target for all.
Awesome, and awesome. Thank you all, thus far, for the feedback. I do have medium and wide shots. I am presenting the closest for detail. And for the last in this series, I pulled clarity down to max, leaving the eyes in the other direction for effect only. I realize it is vverry processed, but by design for fun. The client actually liked it in comp. to other shots. The client's eyes are true blue as I have every seen. A photographer's dream to photograph. Thank you for the very accepted critiques. And my nerves are still in tact. No problem.
I like the first 3, nice lighting. The tight shots are well done. Pity about the chipped nail polish in the 2nd. You could also consider touching up the blood vessels in her eye in the 2nd.
The 4th looks a bit soft?
I'd like to see a variety of poses and a mix of tight and wider (3/4 or full body)
- the 5th isn't a bad pose but has been way overprocessed (skin smoothing + radioactive eyes); you could also move a little to get the chair out of the BG
EDIT ignore my comments on the 5th photo; the OP replaced this image with a different one for some reason
I have to second Chris' comment - It's not up to you how your client shows up for the shoot but the the hands should not be in the pose in this condition. Kinda' jumps out at you if not in the first shot, then no later than in photo #2. The model does have pretty eyes though.
Most of these shots are over-exposed to the point that the red channel is clipping in the face.
I'm not sure if it was the lighting or your post-processing (I suspect both) but the eyes are very dark on these. If you were using a reflector or off-camera flash, you probably should have lowered it a bit to get light in the eyes. Some of this effect could be due to your lightening the skin and not the eyes. I just think it does not look very flattering to have the whites of the eyes a dull grey while the skin is glowing.
If you are going to get this close, I would recommend staying at the long end of that zoom. 50mm is wide for a portrait, particularly for close-up portraits like these.
On the plus side, I think you have the DOF about right although I certainly wouldn't go any shallower at this distance.
Eyeball, et al: Thank you for your comments. This is what I was hoping for. I think it is mostly a slight overpush on exposure. I left the eyes as is and did a few blemish removals on the skin, but no other surface blur or the like. The lighting was the low sun and one bounce umbrella. The hands were a problem. She is a typical basketballer and kid at heart. Hand washing was overlooked. Nail polish: I actually PP some of the shots to fix. Lastly, I am surprised that no one thus far pointed out the biggy on #4, second curtain shadow. I am not filtering these for best of group because I want to get the straight-up critique even on the obvious. Your help is appreciated. Thanks again.
These pics are posted rather large. That means many of us need to scroll to see the whole picture. 800 (or even 1000) pixels on the long side usually works well.
Cropping through the fingers or the flower in her hair is usually not best.
Great series, you definitely captured nice detail in the eye area. Based on these, that seems to have been one of your primary areas of interest.
Other than what others and OP have mentioned, I'd also maybe PP some of those hair flyaways (just the major ones - some of them look very easy to fix). I'd also work a different pose in #4, as I think the pose makes her arm look huge. Maybe that's just me, though
In the last photo, the shadow on the right eye distracts me a bit, especially since the shadow of her eyelashes is so crisp.
Also, the ring is distracting to me in #2 and #3, kinda pulls me away from the eyes.
I had written a paragraph about the makeup, but figured that was too much to get into
I bet the subject loves these photos. Love those eyes!
Jim Rickards wrote:
These pics are posted rather large. That means many of us need to scroll to see the whole picture. 800 (or even 1000) pixels on the long side usually works well.
.
I'm seeing only the eyes on a laptop - a little over exposed but they are sharp
the pictures are really sharp and have great lighting. I just think they are too up close and I can see that you had a lovely green background, you could have made use of it
No problem.
