If people inquire, I politely inform them that I don't photograph people.....period!
Wild animals are my subjects....especially because they never complain if I make an unflattering photo of them.
The one person on earth that can bend me to her will is my daughter Katia so I guess I am photographing a people now.
Will a 500mm wildlife lens even work for people?
Thank you guys very much for taking time to comment and for the kind words.
I plan several more sessions with her and hope to improve. She is a tall one, 6'2" but I haven't figured out how to position her giraffe legs to flatter her.
With the critters, I am used to making the best of what they offer me and this business of being able to move my subject and being able to wait for lighting to improve is beyond my normal thought process.
Tony, she is a "wild animal" Kind of like a young fawn. They say be careful because your kids should give you a dose of what you gave your parents but so far I am waiting for that shoe to drop.
I can echo one of your sentiments. I've definitely found it to be an adjustment to go from shooting "things out there" to posing people. It's an adjustment I haven't entirely made. Fortunately, many of the people I have worked with have had their own good ideas--which I am borrowing. This is definitely one of the harder parts. For me, at least.
I don't remember ever hearing any girl ever complaining about how long their legs were. You did a decent job in #3. I notice that she doesn't have legs in any of the other pictures. That removes a lot of posing options.
Did you really use the 500mm for all of these? I have heard that really long lenses are good for portraiture, but I don't have anything near that long.
Great start , lovely expressions in the first images
I find the poses could be a little less clunky though . Just as an example it would have been nice to have seen in the first image a little more of the far shoulder and arm, so just a tiny twist of he body towards the camera . When considering the body think about the whole form, what makes sense in three dimensions doesn't work so well as a 2d image ..
I think more use of the angles and body form , the shapes are a little uninteresting and heavy looking ( and I dont mean this in a body weight way) .
See how she rests her arms on the log , she looks like she is resting her limbs very heavily and it needs a lighter touch as the picture lacks energy. She grasps her neck very strongly and it makes her lose her neck and becomes a tumble of hands instead . More Delicate hand placemt of the hand by the neck might have been more successful .
The strong horizontal of the log is to too overbearing , affecting the rthymn of the eye over the frame.
The last two especially are a bit awkward for me .. Don't like the armpit shot at all and in the last she seems to be sprouting strangely from the the undergrowth.
Anyway just my take on the set ..
she has a beautiful face and that hair is absolutely gorgeous , definitely worth finding some dramatic lighting , maybe even more twilight and making more images and exploiting the red colour in her hair with dusty backdrops and interesting colour combinations ., think simpler .. Much more simpler and get in closer.
Jane
Dave, yes, these are all with the 500f/4. I have time for experimentation yet and will be working my way down to some shorter focal lengths.
Jane, thank you so much for taking time to offer specific critiques and suggestions. Especially as her parent, I found myself focusing entirely on her eyes, face and expressions to make sure they reflect the kid we know and love and this tunnel vision may have lead to neglecting the rest of the frame. Your objective view is much appreciated and I look forward to improving the presentation on the next round.
They appear underexposed on my monitor. I would guess that you used matrix metering, but her skin is too light compared to the rest of the tones in the frame. Easily corrected in post. Nice expressions overall. FWIW