Based on comments from my Hill Country shoot a while back, I went out looking for a client and actually got one. Did a few shots indoors and then headed out for the golden hour. I made a lot of mistakes, but took enough to get a few I like and a couple I really like. These were well received by the client (thank goodness); now to try to turn them into more business...
this girl would probably look good in a burlap sack photographed with a disposable kodak but you did great work here.
I feel like the eyes are a little shaded in the studio shot, and the flower crown she has on really works better outside. Normally I'm not a fan of shots from behind like #3 but it works pretty good, if she gave a look back over her shoulder here I feel like it might be even better. lighting is a little hot on 4. 5 is awesome. 6 and 7 are wonderful, though the dust cloud in 7 does draw the eye (not much you can do about that sometimes, chasing light while you can).
Well worth whatever you were paid. Excellent work, #3 in particular. Beware of cropping hands as in the first of the second set. I also think #1 in the first set is also particularly strong. You seem to have a talent for these environmental sorts of portraits. I might have liked to have seen more emotion in the last shot. Some feeling related to her being alone on that gravel road. Was she left there or did she leave? Is she stranded or is she on the way somewhere? Maybe it could have been more candid with her seemingly unaware of the photographer. I might also warm up her skin tones especially in her legs lovely as they are. Still another very nice environmental shot.
I know you didn't ask for a critique but since you're fairly new to professional portrait photography (being as this is your first paid gig), when you do a "studio" shot with lights, you've got to those lights in her eyes. It looks like the lights were too high and you can see shadows over her eyes. You can see faint catchlights, but there's just not enough light in those eyes. On the other hand, it's too bright and too straight on with No. 4. If you didn't want c&c, just ignore what I just wrote.
The outdoor shots seem a little flat to me, perhaps a bit of curves adjustment to help them pop is in order. Unless, of course, this is your "style". Also on the seated on suitcase, I think the bright area reflecting from the road is a little distracting, perhaps that could be subdued a little.
Douglas
friscoron wrote:
Man, I would kill to have a dirt road like that leading into a valley. Nothing like that here in the Chicago suburbs.
Know what you mean, nothing like it where I am, either - I hunted for hours on Google maps to find a spot that would even sort of work (east-west road with a hill, not covered in trees). This one is a good half hour north of me, and the really good ones are 90 minutes away. I was lucky to get a client that didn't mind a short drive to get a good shot.
douter wrote:
The outdoor shots seem a little flat to me, perhaps a bit of curves adjustment to help them pop is in order. Unless, of course, this is your "style".
Douglas
I really struggled finding the right balance in post for these; I ended up opting for a softer look based on the subject, but I see your point.
friscoron wrote:
I know you didn't ask for a critique but since you're fairly new to professional portrait photography (being as this is your first paid gig), when you do a "studio" shot with lights, you've got to those lights in her eyes. It looks like the lights were too high and you can see shadows over her eyes. You can see faint catchlights, but there's just not enough light in those eyes. On the other hand, it's too bright and too straight on with No. 4. If you didn't want c&c, just ignore what I just wrote.
Thanks, I agree. We did some full body shots prior to the head and shoulder, and I didn't pull the light down enough when we switched over. I also messed up the full body shots - had to go to 35mm in the space I had, and got up too far above her - the head was out of proportion in nearly all of those. Live and learn.
Another great location, well used. Shooting at the end of the day like you did, I might want to see what warmer versions look like even if they aren't strictly accurate in color. The mood might surprise you. I don't disagree with the comment about contrast. It feels like they might benefit from a tad of snap. That's all subjective, but you're doing great. The second and the fourth images, for me, are the weakest, mostly due to the lighting. To my eye, the second image feels, at first glance, to have a warmish cast that would feel great outside but feels a bit dingy inside with artificial light. If you're going to use a black background it can be helpful to have a couple of kicker lights coming in from the back and sides. I love the expression in the fourth image but I'm not crazy about the light there. It feels too flash on camera to me. A softer light there I think would be wonderful on her. But overall, a really great effort and congratulation on finding a killer location. I'm sure you're probably aware of the various ephemeris applications for your phone that will use Google Maps but also give you sunrise/sunset, angles of sun and moon and shadow heights for any time of day on any day you plug in. I have LightTrac and The Photographer's Ephemeris.
Skin tones are one of the things I struggle with the most in post, as I'm new to it - I actually did warm those outdoor shots up quite a bit (to my eye).
Here are a couple where I've added warming and contrast, per comments above. Too much?
Peter Figen wrote:
Another great location, well used. Shooting at the end of the day like you did, I might want to see what warmer versions look like even if they aren't strictly accurate in color. The mood might surprise you. I don't disagree with the comment about contrast. It feels like they might benefit from a tad of snap. ... I'm sure you're probably aware of the various ephemeris applications for your phone that will use Google Maps but also give you sunrise/sunset, angles of sun and moon and shadow heights for any time of day on any day you plug in. I have LightTrac and The Photographer's Ephemeris. ...Show more →
Thanks for the help Peter, truly appreciated. I'm familiar with TPE, used it quite a lot for landscape and astro stuff in the past - though in this case, I didn't. It's so hard to find anywhere worth shooting around here that as long as the sun is setting generally west of where I'm shooting, I'm calling it a win.
Here's one more with contrast added, just for grins.
These are really nice and a good start for your paid gigs!
I agree with Peter, you might want to play with a little warmer skin tone on the sunset photos.
I think the lighting with her lying in the grass with the rose petals does not match the soft light of the other photos. It's harder and with it being close to the camera axis it has a "flash on camera" look.
I also suggest you slightly blur the layer on which the rose petals are placed. They look too "pasted on". I'm sure this kind of photo will be popular with some, but personally I find it pretty cheesy.
this is definitely professional result.
I would pay for those.
And i rarely see senior portraits where i could say it.
Probably most photographers do not like to shoot seniors?
dmacmillan wrote:
I also suggest you slightly blur the layer on which the rose petals are placed. They look too "pasted on". I'm sure this kind of photo will be popular with some, but personally I find it pretty cheesy.
Thanks for the suggestions. This shot was actually a request by the client (I had her send me some pics she liked prior to the shoot). I have a few where the light is a bit softer, but didn't like the expression in those as much and had to make a choice. Regarding the rose petals, those are actually part of the single shot (they're real, not added in post). Is that what you mean? Or you mean you'd just apply some blur to them?
JulietS wrote:
this is definitely professional result.
I would pay for those.
And i rarely see senior portraits where i could say it.
Probably most photographers do not like to shoot seniors?
