I like them a lot and location is great. Wish you had a few more close-ups. One with her in the tree trunk I'm not loving the position of her feet merging into his neck. Had great potential though. The other that needed minor adjustment was the one where he jumped in the air. I just didn't love the position of her feet/legs. Not a flattering female stance. Just my .02
andyjh wrote:
I like them a lot and location is great. Wish you had a few more close-ups. One with her in the tree trunk I'm not loving the position of her feet merging into his neck. Had great potential though. The other that needed minor adjustment was the one where he jumped in the air. I just didn't love the position of her feet/legs. Not a flattering female stance. Just my .02
Thanks Andy, I appreciate the critique. This is all I have, it's without the guy
:
Elijah wrote:
200 f/2?
Yes Sir.
---------------------------------------------
sanjayg wrote:
The 200 f2 is an incredible tool especially in the hands of a competent photographer like Dentx
Many of the shots are almost 3D looking, superb photography.
yoshidude wrote:
Really lovely, and quite good. I like these a lot.
Did you use some off camera flash, good processing technique, or just mastery of the natural light? All of the above?
I'd love any comments about your lighting.
Kind Regards,
Scott
Thanks Scott, #8 was the only one I posted where I used flash. Of course there are more in the full series of photos I surrendered to them. The rest are just natural light.
So, with 2, 5, and 7, the bright sky or backlighting would have easily caused ME to end up with silhouetted subjects or a seriously washed out or blown out sky and leaves. So, I'm intrigued.
I guess I'm wondering about that balance of dynamic range. I'm figuring that maybe it's a combination of a camera with a quality sensor and a decision to expose for the highlights, then bring up the underexposed couple in post?
Or, maybe I'm making it harder than it is? I may just need to work on my technique and exposure!
yoshidude wrote:
So, with 2, 5, and 7, the bright sky or backlighting would have easily caused ME to end up with silhouetted subjects or a seriously washed out or blown out sky and leaves. So, I'm intrigued.
I guess I'm wondering about that balance of dynamic range. I'm figuring that maybe it's a combination of a camera with a quality sensor and a decision to expose for the highlights, then bring up the underexposed couple in post?
Or, maybe I'm making it harder than it is? I may just need to work on my technique and exposure!
Thanks for any feedback,
Scott
Actually, I do the opposite, I expose for the couple. Whentt aking shots like this, make sure that you are in the shade. Make sure your lens is shaded. If not, have someone shade you with a big reflector. You will get better dyanmic range.
