Quick opinion?

Richie1973

Member
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
Any feedback on these two pics? Was a recent prom shoot, actually my first real shoot. Good or bad, love to hear your opinions.



Outdoor, sunny day, under canopy.







Mum, messing pre shoot

Mum, messing pre shoot



Daughter on left with best friend

Daughter on left with best friend
 
Any feedback on these two pics? Was a recent prom shoot, actually my first real shoot. Good or bad, love to hear your opinions.

Outdoor, sunny day, under canopy.

Mum, messing pre shoot

Mum, messing pre shoot

Daughter on left with best friend

Daughter on left with best friend
I probably wouldn't keep the top one.

The second photo is OK, but with a few issues IMO:

1. They are a tad close together being squished up against one another like that. It feels a little awkward

2. At least from the copy you have uploaded, it looks a bit soft?

3. The stark white background is a bit of a distraction to me, but is not a deal breaker.

4. Rarely does a key light underneath your subject produce nice lighting in a portrait. Look what it does to the woman on the left, It creates a nose shadow that climbs UP her face... a very unnatural looking scene. This is because as humans, we are used to seeing shadows underneath features created by the sun. Rarely lit from underneath. Light your fill from underneath, key from somewhere above.

5. I have leaned I CANNOT spell "underneath" without using a spellchecker.
 
Last edited:
I probably wouldn't keep the top one.

The second photo is OK, but with a few issues IMO:

1. They are a tad close together being squished up against one another like that. It feels a little awkward

2. At least from the copy you have uploaded, it looks a bit soft?

3. The stark white background is a bit of a distraction to me, but is not a deal breaker.

4. Rarely does a key light underneath your subject produce nice lighting in a portrait. Look what it does to the woman on the left, It creates a nose shadow that climbs UP her face... a very unnatural looking scene. This is because as humans, we are used to seeing shadows underneath features created by the sun. Rarely lit from underneath. Light your fill from underneath, key from somewhere above.

5. I have leaned I CANNOT spell "underneath" without using a spellchecker.
I concur. Very good observation.
 
Any feedback on these two pics? Was a recent prom shoot, actually my first real shoot. Good or bad, love to hear your opinions.

Outdoor, sunny day, under canopy.

Mum, messing pre shoot

Mum, messing pre shoot

Daughter on left with best friend

Daughter on left with best friend
The first one looks like it has a bit of flare and is a little cold (cyan). Pose is kinda unusual and awkward.

The second has much better color and contrast. The intimate pose makes it look like they are a couple, which is fine, but if they aren't it might be a problem.

--
photojournalist
 
Any feedback on these two pics? Was a recent prom shoot, actually my first real shoot. Good or bad, love to hear your opinions.

Outdoor, sunny day, under canopy.

Mum, messing pre shoot

Mum, messing pre shoot

Daughter on left with best friend

Daughter on left with best friend
Pose is kinda unusual and awkward.

The second has much better color and contrast. The intimate pose makes it look like they are a couple, which is fine, but if they aren't it might be a problem.
Well said .... I was considering commenting but you were much more tactfully ...

I agree with all the comments.
 
Anyone?

Any help is truly appreciated
The photos are not bad - better than what I could do but I realize that's not a much of help.

The first one could be more interesting in some environment; I would have liked little more detail on the dresses on the second photo

I agree with all of the comments but am very curios to know if the subjects liked the photos? Sometime, at the end of the day, that's all that count...

And good luck to you.
 
Thank you so much people, not so many positives but much prefer the honesty.

Will try answer a few questions,

reason for background is that it was a garden shoot and garden under construction, best solution I could think of.

key light under subject? I didn't position any light in that way. Well didn't intend to anyway. I had reflector to my left, held by my wife and on camera flash with defuser fitted. Would have preferred off camera but had no way to secure it.

The first shot was just a settings check shot, mum was just fooling around. Not really part of the shoot, more setting up camera settings ect

No, they are not a couple. Just best friends, they are both just 16. Guess I placed the too close, oops.

Unable to ask their opinions yet as they are away in Florida, (we live uk) they only just left.

I am very new to photography , only picked up a real camera last July. (Sony a6000, changed to 80d 2 month ago) but appreciate the honesty. It's my first real attempt at anything like this as well as the editing side. I recently helped a friend at a wedding, mainly holding and carrying stuff, guess that's where I picked up the intimate poses, lol.

used 80d with 24-105 l lens. All raw and edited using Lightroom. That's one reason I included first pic for your opinions, it was edited removing lines under eyes as well as sides. Various enhancements and a tooth in right corner added, jokingly she asked if I could do anything to hide the missing tooth.

A huge thank you once again.
 
reason for background is that it was a garden shoot and garden under construction, best solution I could think of.
Fair enough.
key light under subject? I didn't position any light in that way. Well didn't intend to anyway. I had reflector to my left,
Here's a mark-up showing the strongest shadows (hair and nose) and direction of light that caused them. The eyes show just the flash but the shadows show that the reflector was too low.



0506fd148be94aca96a66c29be1c4e1a.jpg


held by my wife and on camera flash with defuser diffuser fitted. Would have preferred off camera but had no way to secure it.
If your wife could hold the reflector she could hold the flash, possibly one in each hand.
No, they are not a couple. Just best friends, they are both just 16. Guess I placed the too close, oops.
I see nothing wrong with the pose. Young girls are often naturally friendly. Unless you cajoled them into being so close I think it's fine.



116270092.jpg


I am very new to photography , only picked up a real camera last July. (Sony a6000, changed to 80d 2 month ago) but appreciate the honesty. It's my first real attempt at anything like this as well as the editing side. I recently helped a friend at a wedding, mainly holding and carrying stuff, guess that's where I picked up the intimate poses, lol.

used 80d with 24-105 l lens. All raw and edited using Lightroom.
It would be interesting to see the raw files (you can't post them direct but programs like DropBox let you post links).

The camera and lens should (and I think did) capture plenty of detail. However, your end result is far too smooth: the faces look more like Barbie dolls than human beings and the fine detail in dresses and hair is missing. I used Topaz Detail on the small image you posted: as it was a quick job on a small file I just applied the same settings all over, but for a proper job I'd have eased back on the facial shadows while bringing out more on hair and fabric. And, of course, I'd have evened out the background.



416d9d363aef4510a6abcb395937056f.jpg






--
---
Gerry
___________________________________________
First camera 1953, first Pentax 1985, first DSLR 2006
[email protected]
 
Thanks Gerry. Some real good info there, yeh I prob lost a little to much detail in post. The reflector is huge, wife couldn't hold both. Seems it may have been to low, it is oval and she had it part balanced on the floor leaning back to direct the light. Lesson learnt there then. Why do you think I lost detail? Too much - sharpness or clarity maybe? The background was creased badly, only got cheapish backdrop so may need to invest in a decent one, I did use brush in Lightroom to overexposed background to clean up, that acceptable in your opinion? Also, someone I showed said that her teeth look off colour and there seems to be a small shaded dot below her tooth on top right, thought initially this was shadow but the light wasn't overhead, any advice?



thanks again Gerry
reason for background is that it was a garden shoot and garden under construction, best solution I could think of.
Fair enough.
key light under subject? I didn't position any light in that way. Well didn't intend to anyway. I had reflector to my left,
Here's a mark-up showing the strongest shadows (hair and nose) and direction of light that caused them. The eyes show just the flash but the shadows show that the reflector was too low.

0506fd148be94aca96a66c29be1c4e1a.jpg

held by my wife and on camera flash with defuser diffuser fitted. Would have preferred off camera but had no way to secure it.
If your wife could hold the reflector she could hold the flash, possibly one in each hand.
No, they are not a couple. Just best friends, they are both just 16. Guess I placed the too close, oops.
I see nothing wrong with the pose. Young girls are often naturally friendly. Unless you cajoled them into being so close I think it's fine.

116270092.jpg

I am very new to photography , only picked up a real camera last July. (Sony a6000, changed to 80d 2 month ago) but appreciate the honesty. It's my first real attempt at anything like this as well as the editing side. I recently helped a friend at a wedding, mainly holding and carrying stuff, guess that's where I picked up the intimate poses, lol.

used 80d with 24-105 l lens. All raw and edited using Lightroom.
It would be interesting to see the raw files (you can't post them direct but programs like DropBox let you post links).

The camera and lens should (and I think did) capture plenty of detail. However, your end result is far too smooth: the faces look more like Barbie dolls than human beings and the fine detail in dresses and hair is missing. I used Topaz Detail on the small image you posted: as it was a quick job on a small file I just applied the same settings all over, but for a proper job I'd have eased back on the facial shadows while bringing out more on hair and fabric. And, of course, I'd have evened out the background.

416d9d363aef4510a6abcb395937056f.jpg


--
---
Gerry
___________________________________________
First camera 1953, first Pentax 1985, first DSLR 2006
http://www.pbase.com/gerrywinterbourne
[email protected]
 
Thanks Gerry. Some real good info there, yeh I prob lost a little to much detail in post. The reflector is huge, wife couldn't hold both.
OK. So you'd have to choose; or, on second thoughts, you could have held the flash yourself. With your left arm outstretched you'd have got some angled light; with a remote release you could have gone further.
Seems it may have been to low, it is oval and she had it part balanced on the floor leaning back to direct the light. Lesson learnt there then.
Definitely too low. I think you also needed more shots to balance the three light sources - ambient, flash and reflected.
Why do you think I lost detail? Too much - sharpness or clarity maybe?
Not those - they both increase details. I'd really need to see the actual raw file to see how much detail it holds (see my reply to your more recent post).
The background was creased badly, only got cheapish backdrop so may need to invest in a decent one, I did use brush in Lightroom to overexposed background to clean up, that acceptable in your opinion?
"Acceptable" is subjective. I think the version you posted looks OK (nothing jumped out at me).
Also, someone I showed said that her teeth look off colour
The colours - teeth, eyes and dresses - look OK to me. But fine details of colouring can depend on monitor calibration.
and there seems to be a small shaded dot below her tooth on top right, thought initially this was shadow but the light wasn't overhead, any advice?
It is a shadow; remember the arrows I superimposed - that shows that its a shadow from the curl of her lip, from the reflected light.

When it comes to small blemishes like that it's much easier to deal with them using a pixel-level editor. If your version of LR is CC you can use Photoshop; if it's a bought version you can buy Photoshop Elements. PSE is nowhere near as sophisticated as PS but for these sorts of shots it's god enough.

Using either of those you could select the backdrop (leaving a small safety zone round the hair) and take it to pure, even white. You could also, if she wants it, deal with the twisted tooth.



f949a508c7164ed3a4092bcb7f5311af.jpg






--
---
Gerry
___________________________________________
First camera 1953, first Pentax 1985, first DSLR 2006
[email protected]
 
Thank you so much people, not so many positives but much prefer the honesty.
key light under subject? I didn't position any light in that way. Well didn't intend to anyway. I had reflector to my left, held by my wife and on camera flash with defuser fitted. Would have preferred off camera but had no way to secure it.
Look at the girl on the left's face. Look at the shadow cast by her nose.. where does it go? It goes up towards her left eye... which means your primary light source is underneath you and to your left. These are the primary things you need to be looking for when doing portraiture... where are your key and fill light sources, and what are their relative ratios.

Even if you didn't PLACE a light down there... there is one there. Turn it off, move it, change it.. etc. It ruined this portrait.
 
Thanks Gerry. Some real good info there, yeh I prob lost a little to much detail in post. The reflector is huge, wife couldn't hold both.
OK. So you'd have to choose; or, on second thoughts, you could have held the flash yourself. With your left arm outstretched you'd have got some angled light; with a remote release you could have gone further.
Seems it may have been to low, it is oval and she had it part balanced on the floor leaning back to direct the light. Lesson learnt there then.
Definitely too low. I think you also needed more shots to balance the three light sources - ambient, flash and reflected.
Why do you think I lost detail? Too much - sharpness or clarity maybe?
Not those - they both increase details. I'd really need to see the actual raw file to see how much detail it holds (see my reply to your more recent post).
The background was creased badly, only got cheapish backdrop so may need to invest in a decent one, I did use brush in Lightroom to overexposed background to clean up, that acceptable in your opinion?
"Acceptable" is subjective. I think the version you posted looks OK (nothing jumped out at me).
Also, someone I showed said that her teeth look off colour
The colours - teeth, eyes and dresses - look OK to me. But fine details of colouring can depend on monitor calibration.
and there seems to be a small shaded dot below her tooth on top right, thought initially this was shadow but the light wasn't overhead, any advice?
It is a shadow; remember the arrows I superimposed - that shows that its a shadow from the curl of her lip, from the reflected light.

When it comes to small blemishes like that it's much easier to deal with them using a pixel-level editor. If your version of LR is CC you can use Photoshop; if it's a bought version you can buy Photoshop Elements. PSE is nowhere near as sophisticated as PS but for these sorts of shots it's god enough.

Using either of those you could select the backdrop (leaving a small safety zone round the hair) and take it to pure, even white. You could also, if she wants it, deal with the twisted tooth.

f949a508c7164ed3a4092bcb7f5311af.jpg


--
---
Gerry
___________________________________________
First camera 1953, first Pentax 1985, first DSLR 2006
http://www.pbase.com/gerrywinterbourne
[email protected]


You are helping loads buddy, thanks a million. Yeh, the pics on Flickr are transferred from camera to iPhone then to Flickr. I guess they are automatically changed to jpeg and they prob ain't original size when sent to phone via wi fi. Let's you see the original sort of anyway. Yeh have Lightroom cc. Pay yearly via Amazon, know how to use Lightroom alto a decent level but very little experience with ps. Your tooth shot looks impressive, esp that close up. Did you do that in ps ? I prob need to learn more about ps to be honest. I do understand the importance of post processing is equally a skill as taking the shot, ( prob gonna get shot for saying that, lol) In my situation, you'll you have gone just off camera flash? Or off camera flash as well as reflector? Looking at other comments from others as well as yourself, thinking back I think I may have used the wrong option, I chose silver, given the strong light( off and on) I prob should have used white to lessen the strength and even things a little more. Plus the appreciated comments on raising it altogether to give a higher key light.

what surprised me is that I used the reflector (too low) as we know and it cast a shadow as you kindly pointed out, but used the flash as a fill, why did I still struggle with the shadow? I was about 10 ft away, using ettl. Head aimed direct but with diffuser on.
 
Thank you so much people, not so many positives but much prefer the honesty.

key light under subject? I didn't position any light in that way. Well didn't intend to anyway. I had reflector to my left, held by my wife and on camera flash with defuser fitted. Would have preferred off camera but had no way to secure it.
Look at the girl on the left's face. Look at the shadow cast by her nose.. where does it go? It goes up towards her left eye... which means your primary light source is underneath you and to your left. These are the primary things you need to be looking for when doing portraiture... where are your key and fill light sources, and what are their relative ratios.
Even if you didn't PLACE a light down there... there is one there. Turn it off, move it, change it.. etc. It ruined this portrait.


Thanks my friend, yeh with the help of yourself and others I have realised I used a reflector positioned incorrectly. Used flash also in ettl but surprised it didn't fill.
 
Flickr ... let's you see the original sort of anyway.
Yes, but it doesn't help me find out where your softening comes from, which is one of the main problems with this picture.
Yeh have Lightroom cc. Pay yearly via Amazon, know how to use Lightroom alto a decent level but very little experience with ps. Your tooth shot looks impressive, esp that close up. Did you do that in ps ?
Yes. PS includes Adobe Camera Raw (ACR), originally just a raw converter but now virtually identical to LR. I don't use LR; ACR is what I use for the overall look of the photo and then - if necessary - the full PS for selective and/or pixel level work. The teeth aren't quite at the pixel level but I went down to about a 3px size brush in places.
I prob need to learn more about ps to be honest.
I think that's probably true. Many people say that LR does 95-99% of their editing; shots like this one are in the 1-5% that LR can't handle.

PS is huge but mainly graphics rather than photo editor - the PDF manual (see below) has almost 1000 pages and only about 90 of them are about photo editing. Even the 10% or so about photos is big, though. However, it's easy to learn in bite-sizes bits as you need them.

There are several sources of teaching: the Adobe website has this https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/tutorials.html (and a corresponding page for LR if you haven't already found it) but the videos are often quite general. There are plenty of other sites too.

I like this one http://www.ronbigelow.com/articles/articles.htm , partly because for many of the articles Ron gives transcripts so you can read as well as watch.

In PS (and LR) you reach, via the Help menu, Photoshop (Lightroom) Online Help ... That takes you to more or less the same lessons as the link above but it also has (near top left) a link to the full PDF user manual. I download that as each version is updated.

My way of learning new techniques is to use the videos to get a broad idea, then search the PDF for more detail. If that isn't enough I try Ron Bigelow.
I do understand the importance of post processing is equally a skill as taking the shot, ( prob gonna get shot for saying that, lol)
Not by me.
In my situation, you'll you have gone just off camera flash? Or off camera flash as well as reflector?
A disclaimer: I'm not well up in portraiture. My knowledge of lighting is mainly at a smaller size with things I don't have to talk to about their pose.



132972203.jpg


I don't know what I'd have used in your situation, but I'd start from the simplest possible arrangement. I think it was David Bailey who said some thing like "there's only one f****** sun". That's am extreme position but the less sources you have the easier they are to balance.

As you've learned here, shadows are a giveaway. So first look at the shadows from ambient light and see where they need brightening. Then place your next source to illuminate them, but keep a close eye on where this sources throws its shadows.

I suspect, but don't know, that I'd probably have used either the reflector - but higher and further back - or off-camera flash. I'd only use both if I wasn't happy with just one.
Looking at other comments from others as well as yourself, thinking back I think I may have used the wrong option, I chose silver, given the strong light( off and on) I prob should have used white to lessen the strength and even things a little more.
Perhaps; or from further back.
Plus the appreciated comments on raising it altogether to give a higher key light.

what surprised me is that I used the reflector (too low) as we know and it cast a shadow as you kindly pointed out, but used the flash as a fill, why did I still struggle with the shadow? I was about 10 ft away, using ettl. Head aimed direct but with diffuser on.
Every light casts a shadow. The reflector cast the upward shadows we've discussed. The flash, coming straight on, would cast its shadows away from the camera but on the faces etc it would brighten the shadow areas but also the bright areas, so while it might reduce overall contrast it wouldn't eliminate other shadows.

A diffuser softens shadows but doesn't eliminate them.

I don't know the algorithms ETTL uses (they may differ from maker to maker) but I never use anything but full manual to control flash in mixed lighting.

--
---
Gerry
___________________________________________
First camera 1953, first Pentax 1985, first DSLR 2006
[email protected]
 
Used flash also in ettl but surprised it didn't fill.
I read this after my recent post. The reason the flash didn't "fill" was because there was enough light on the faces - direct or from the reflector, or both - that there wasn't really anything for it to be filled.

Filling is for when a whole area (often a face) is dark. It won't help much if there's a mixture of dark and bright areas intermingled. Flash has quite a short range, so it has no effect on a bright background that's more distant than the main subject, but if the subject itself is dark and bright it acts equally to brighten both.

As I said, I don't know the ETTL algorithms but at a guess it saw the near faces as being reasonably bright so it used only very low power.
 
Any feedback on these two pics? Was a recent prom shoot, actually my first real shoot. Good or bad, love to hear your opinions.

Outdoor, sunny day, under canopy.

Mum, messing pre shoot

Mum, messing pre shoot

Daughter on left with best friend

Daughter on left with best friend
The first shot, you have framed from waist line to head, so that the half way level is around chest to shoulder height, and this should have been the height of your camera.

You seem to have shot from below chest height such that the perspective distortion makes her waist look large, while her head look small, exaggerating her extra weight.

-

Both shots, the white background kills the contrast with the white/light clothing.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top