Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Fashion
- Thread starter br.avery
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Picture quality is fantastic. Great lighting and great technique. (although I find the 3rd could be framed a bit better with less headroom)
My only grudge is that they're a little too simple for my taste. I mean if that's what you're going for, then bravo. If it was me though, I'd try to spunk it up a bit. I'd have the model try to break the barriers. Your model seems somewhat bored and serious. I'd try to get her laughing, really have her enjoy the time she's modeling and just go crazy. I'm also a sucker for colour. I try to throw in as much colour into my photography. Be it by gelling my strobes to getting someone to spray paint my backgrounds to finding very colourful landmarks.
Of course, what I'm saying is all what I would do and probably isn't very helpful.
Like I said, excellent composition and well, stellar photos really.
Keep it up.
My only grudge is that they're a little too simple for my taste. I mean if that's what you're going for, then bravo. If it was me though, I'd try to spunk it up a bit. I'd have the model try to break the barriers. Your model seems somewhat bored and serious. I'd try to get her laughing, really have her enjoy the time she's modeling and just go crazy. I'm also a sucker for colour. I try to throw in as much colour into my photography. Be it by gelling my strobes to getting someone to spray paint my backgrounds to finding very colourful landmarks.
Of course, what I'm saying is all what I would do and probably isn't very helpful.
Like I said, excellent composition and well, stellar photos really.
Keep it up.
I definitely agree with what was said. In a model shooting the model's attitude is 80% of the photo
A few comments. First off, I really like the first set, the second set I like as well, but the first few are a little washed out and overexposed. The last one is by far the best (first one of set 2 is good as well), the colours are great, even though the background is bright, the clarity is magnificent and it is not over exposed. The photos have excellent composition, (Specifically set 1, pic 2, last one of set 2). The first poster said that the background is to simple, but I disagree. To me, its as if you were focusing on the model, and fashion. Its as if you were shooting a fashion magazine. The last picture of set 2 is really magnificient. The horizon is straight, and what I really love is her back goes up straight, and then she bends over her body. also over course her being in the left part of the shot is important. Her hair is flowing perfectly as well and frames her face beautifully. The DOF of the background is great as well. I cant stress enough how much I like this photo, you should submit it to a magazine. The first one of set 1 also has a lot of the same features.
Edit: Forgot to mention, the girl in the photos of course adds a lot, she is beautiful and has a great model attitude.
Are these self portraits or...? Are you an amateur?
PS: I would love to have a bigger size picture of set 1, pic 1, set 2, pic 2 for my folder with other peoples work that I enjoy.
Edit: Forgot to mention, the girl in the photos of course adds a lot, she is beautiful and has a great model attitude.
Are these self portraits or...? Are you an amateur?
PS: I would love to have a bigger size picture of set 1, pic 1, set 2, pic 2 for my folder with other peoples work that I enjoy.
There's 1 photo in the first set, and 3 photos in the second set where you chopped off her feet at a really bad place.
Sorry, but if you're going to include most of her leg, then you may as well include the feet. Footless models don't look good, and yes, people do notice.
Also, in the 2nd set, you chopped off her hand. If you're going to include her arm, don't chop off her hand!!!
And perhaps the biggest problem is that they're cropped too close, and inappropriately. That's why her feet are cut off inappropriately, so I guess it's not the feet that's the problem, but the framing. This is true for both sets.
1st Set: The photos are too dark. The background is OK as it is, but there could be more light on her. Her facial expression in photo #2 is really awful, like she's not interested in posing for you.
2nd set: It's overexposed. Well, perhaps not technically in terms of blown highlights, but it's higher than it needs to be, even if this was deliberate. Her skin is very very white/fair, and you're shooting in front of a cloudy sky. It's a poor background choice for her. Her legs just blend into the background in the 3rd and 4th photo from this set. However, I really do like the overall look. I guess if you had a model with slightly darker skin, and you turned down the exposure a tiiiiiiiny bit, they'd look really good. I think she looks good in the 1st photo of the set, but again, work on your framing. She's in a really awkward place in that photo.
Sorry, but if you're going to include most of her leg, then you may as well include the feet. Footless models don't look good, and yes, people do notice.
Also, in the 2nd set, you chopped off her hand. If you're going to include her arm, don't chop off her hand!!!And perhaps the biggest problem is that they're cropped too close, and inappropriately. That's why her feet are cut off inappropriately, so I guess it's not the feet that's the problem, but the framing. This is true for both sets.
1st Set: The photos are too dark. The background is OK as it is, but there could be more light on her. Her facial expression in photo #2 is really awful, like she's not interested in posing for you.
2nd set: It's overexposed. Well, perhaps not technically in terms of blown highlights, but it's higher than it needs to be, even if this was deliberate. Her skin is very very white/fair, and you're shooting in front of a cloudy sky. It's a poor background choice for her. Her legs just blend into the background in the 3rd and 4th photo from this set.
However, I really do like the overall look. I guess if you had a model with slightly darker skin, and you turned down the exposure a tiiiiiiiny bit, they'd look really good. I think she looks good in the 1st photo of the set, but again, work on your framing. She's in a really awkward place in that photo.
And perhaps the biggest problem is that they're cropped too close, and inappropriately. That's why her feet are cut off inappropriately, so I guess it's not the feet that's the problem, but the framing. This is true for both sets.
1st Set: The photos are too dark. The background is OK as it is, but there could be more light on her. Her facial expression in photo #2 is really awful, like she's not interested in posing for you.
2nd set: It's overexposed. Well, perhaps not technically in terms of blown highlights, but it's higher than it needs to be, even if this was deliberate. Her skin is very very white/fair, and you're shooting in front of a cloudy sky. It's a poor background choice for her. Her legs just blend into the background in the 3rd and 4th photo from this set.
I agree with some of the things said here, but a couple of things Id like to address. First, I agree with the cropping, but only to a degree. the 4th photo of the first set and the last photo of the second set, I think the close cropping actually works very well with the photos (on the first set last photo, you could have left a little more of the bottom though, her boot is slightly cut off). With the last/2nd set, you cut off her foot, though I still love the picture, I suppose you could have left her feet in there, though I feel the focus is not on the feet but her body and face. I agree about the exposure issues as well, but again, for the last/2nd I think this is the only photo that it doesnt bother me, mostrly because the DOF of the background, it just works (even though her leg doesnt blend in, because it is in focus it works)
1. Yes, in the 2nd set, the first and last photos didn't bother me as much in terms of exposure. She does look OK in them, but that's because the exposure is lower. You can tell from the sky. I think if you're going to shoot her in this lighting, you really need to use flash on her so that the background is just a tad darker like they are in the 1st and 4th photo, while keeping her well-lit. Instead, the background appears blindingly bright in the 2nd and 3rd photo, and she doesn't stand out. In fact, even in the 4th photo, where the exposure on her is good, she doesn't stand out. Look at her leg and the background. Perhaps everything about the exposure is decent enough, but its his choice of background that makes this more difficult than it has to be.
2. I agree about the cropping. Close cropping generally does work well, but it doesn't look quite right in these photos. The 4th photo of the first and second sets are the worst offenders. It's not just her feet. It's the entire bottom part of the photo/her body that's chopped off.
Oh, and while the focus may be on her face and body, I feel that it's important not to introduce anything that doesn't look natural. It's OK to not include hands and feet, but don't shoot the arm all the way up to the wrist, or the legs all the way up to the ankle, and then chop off the hands and feet. That's all. If you cut the arm off mid-way, then usually it's absolutely fine.
3. I just want to add that Photo 1 in the 1st set, and Photo 2 in the 2nd set, which were both shot in portrait orientation, should have been shot in landscape orientation. Always shoot to in the direction of their length. If they're sitting upright and her legs are underneath her, your photos could be shot in portrait. However, that's not the case here. Her legs are stretched horizontally.
If you're concerned about the framing looking really poor, or the crop not being tight enough, sometimes you can play with the cropping. Try a 4:3 ratio crop. You don't NEED to leave everything in 3:2 ratio just because that's the default setting on your camera (and the ratio of the camera's sensor).
You can tell from the sky. I think if you're going to shoot her in this lighting, you really need to use flash on her so that the background is just a tad darker like they are in the 1st and 4th photo, while keeping her well-lit. Instead, the background appears blindingly bright in the 2nd and 3rd photo, and she doesn't stand out. In fact, even in the 4th photo, where the exposure on her is good, she doesn't stand out. Look at her leg and the background. Perhaps everything about the exposure is decent enough, but its his choice of background that makes this more difficult than it has to be. 2. I agree about the cropping. Close cropping generally does work well, but it doesn't look quite right in these photos. The 4th photo of the first and second sets are the worst offenders. It's not just her feet. It's the entire bottom part of the photo/her body that's chopped off.
Oh, and while the focus may be on her face and body, I feel that it's important not to introduce anything that doesn't look natural. It's OK to not include hands and feet, but don't shoot the arm all the way up to the wrist, or the legs all the way up to the ankle, and then chop off the hands and feet. That's all. If you cut the arm off mid-way, then usually it's absolutely fine.
3. I just want to add that Photo 1 in the 1st set, and Photo 2 in the 2nd set, which were both shot in portrait orientation, should have been shot in landscape orientation. Always shoot to in the direction of their length. If they're sitting upright and her legs are underneath her, your photos could be shot in portrait. However, that's not the case here. Her legs are stretched horizontally.
If you're concerned about the framing looking really poor, or the crop not being tight enough, sometimes you can play with the cropping. Try a 4:3 ratio crop. You don't NEED to leave everything in 3:2 ratio just because that's the default setting on your camera (and the ratio of the camera's sensor).