Andre Labonte wrote:
I agree, too much of the same old same old is boring, but breaking with good technique for the sake of it does not work either unless there is a compelling reason to do so, for instance, in #5, which works well. On the other hand, 1, 4, 6, 10, 12, and 14 would all be superior if you had gone with a more traditional framing ... I did not say close cropped, but more tradition in placement. On the other hand, shots like 2, 5, 7 and 13 work very well with the extra space as the backgrounds add to the composition and it is not so stark that it looks like you got bumped as you pressed the shutter. 6 and 12 in particular look are too stark ... part of it is you cut the natural flow of her body that forms a certain harshness.
Again, I think you have some excellent shots here, and your idea is working in some cases, but not so well in others ... it may be worth spending some time figuring out what elements make the difference.
I'm peeking at the Exif, was wondering if you use the 70-200 II or just the first one
I'm shocked to see this post resurrected! Thanks for looking. My 70-200mm is the first one. I regret not spending a little extra for the 70-200 II, but maybe I'll upgrade at some point.
I was a little uncomfortable with the cropping. In several images, there is a lot of open space on top, but legs cropped off at the bottom. I'd like to see more of her and less leaves, sky, etc.
Very nice set of photos though. Easy to comment when the model makes us feel so good with that smile! Wow!
morby wrote:
I'm shocked to see this post resurrected! Thanks for looking. My 70-200mm is the first one. I regret not spending a little extra for the 70-200 II, but maybe I'll upgrade at some point.
Hey not my fault! They have the featured thread winners posted up and you came in third or fourth or something. But I liked yours the best so I hunted this thread down.
Is the II that much better than the original? Was thinking about getting the first one, but decided a 200mm 2.8 prime will suit me just fine
I've never tried the II, but I've heard it's much sharper. I'm a sucker for better gear to get that extra edge when shooting.
swordfishphoto wrote:
Hey not my fault! They have the featured thread winners posted up and you came in third or fourth or something. But I liked yours the best so I hunted this thread down.
Is the II that much better than the original? Was thinking about getting the first one, but decided a 200mm 2.8 prime will suit me just fine
Very good series. Model seems comfortable with the shoot. Other than a few not worth mentioning nip picks, a fine job. If I were the parent of this young lady, I would be pleased with your work.
regards
Ed
