Critique Thread for Photographers

So these girls are providers? What's their contact info..if not how do you think they would feel knowing their images are on a hooker board? BD

Funny how low contrast became a "thing". I do agree with Ian though, well done images.

CC,
I think I'd like to see more of the lady in the corner's right foot & leg, that little bit of foot draws my eyes everytime I open it, but hiding it completely would look out of balance. A small point, I honestly doubt I would have even noticed she had a foot shooting that picture!

Hello, I'll introduce myself as a photographer from the Nashville area.
I am a commercial photographer mostly dealing in fashion and art fashion/nude.

I love the idea of shooting in my style with escorts or real people that want to look beautiful. I am a complete newbie though in this community.

Here are a couple of samples of what I do.
Also posting here to learn how to put an image in a post. Remember, this is my first post. CC is always welcome. I have tough skin and appreciate feedback good or bad.

Photos are of clients but not escorts. (IMG tag not working)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/dww8mj724u...-0195.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/500zk7tzf5...lm002.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/eqwtvg1970...-Edit.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/r0ms1a4el4...-Edit.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/z5w39b4mfj...-Edit.jpg?dl=0

More on my website: charleschristoph.tumblr.com

Thanks for looking. Originally Posted by CCphoto

I really like your style. I love the dreamy washed look of the first photo and the pic with the purple hair is very cool. Love the contrast.

First, I consider myself an amateur with Boudoir or any portrait style for that matter. I just recently started doing these types of shots.

I have a couple of pictures I wouldn't mind finding out if I should have done anything different or not. I will create another comment for the other picture another day.

For lighting, I used constant lighting with a gold umbrella reflector and another with a white umbrella diffuser. I also had a flash behind another white umbrella diffuser. This picture was shot on a Canon 70D with a 16-300 Tamron lens at 82mm, 1/60 at f 5.6, ISO 100. There is no cropping, and the only photoshopping, besides the watermarks (I'm not trying to advertise her or myself here, she had her old pictures hijacked that's why they are on this one) is that there were 3 very VERY small spots where whipped cream had splattered from the spray can that I didn't notice until after the shoot so I used the spot healing tool. Had to kind of get these shots in quick because that whipped cream was melting.

Because of the room I was in, I wasn't able to get more depth of field for this shot and am wondering if Maybe I should have given it a little more in Photoshop. My 50mm f1.8 lens wasn't giving me the depth of field that I wanted for this shot either.

If you have any other suggestions for anything else in this photo, I would be happy to hear it. I can't post this on my normal critique board because they restrict suggestive shots. My avatar I have at the time of this posting was also from the same shoot.

Thank you in advance.

that's a very difficult type of shot to pull off, especially with your lighting, and you failed on all fronts. composition, lighting, and processing are all terrible.

i know that's harsh, but i'm doing you a favor here. spend some time looking at good images of this type and comparing them to yours.

also, i'm not sure you fully understand depth of field.

all other things being equal, shorter focal length produces greater dof, although that's not what a shot like this needs.

also, find a new critique board if this isn't allowed. try fredmiranda.com.

that's a very difficult type of shot to pull off, especially with your lighting, and you failed on all fronts. composition, lighting, and processing are all terrible.

i know that's harsh, but i'm doing you a favor here. Originally Posted by john_deere

What kind of favor is that? I've seen some of your photos and I am impressed. I have no problem with harsh criticism, after all, I am not a professional and know that I need improvement. I was actually hoping for constructive criticism though, not just "you failed on all fronts".

I was trying to focus on the first strawberry, I had about 3 feet of space to backup from her feet, I was trying to go back farther and zoom in to get the depth of field, getting closer seemed to ruin the shot. I had no natural lighting available and I think I did need to improve the lighting on "her" right side and less on her left.

For this photo, I wasn't looking for photoshop tips, I was looking for camera and lighting technique (I should have said that) tips so except for cropping and those watermarks, that is the original image.

also, find a new critique board if this isn't allowed. try fredmiranda.com. Originally Posted by john_deere

Not sure what you meant by "if this isn't allowed". I was asking here because I thought that's "part of" what this thread was for. Sorry if I am wrong. I will check out fredmiranda.com. I am in another group but boudoir photos aren't allowed there. I know there are groups out there that have no problem with it, but haven't found any yet, but I haven't really looked to hard either.

BTW, my shots are for profile shots of women that can't afford to hire a professional photographer or pay for a nicer location for a shoot. Yes, I know, a professional should be able to walk into any place and make it work, but I am not a professional, hopefully in time.

John_Deer, how bad is this shot?

First, I consider myself an amateur with Boudoir or any portrait style for that matter. I just recently started doing these types of shots.

I have a couple of pictures I wouldn't mind finding out if I should have done anything different or not. I will create another comment for the other picture another day.

For lighting, I used constant lighting with a gold umbrella reflector and another with a white umbrella diffuser. I also had a flash behind another white umbrella diffuser. This picture was shot on a Canon 70D with a 16-300 Tamron lens at 82mm, 1/60 at f 5.6, ISO 100. There is no cropping, and the only photoshopping, besides the watermarks (I'm not trying to advertise her or myself here, she had her old pictures hijacked that's why they are on this one) is that there were 3 very VERY small spots where whipped cream had splattered from the spray can that I didn't notice until after the shoot so I used the spot healing tool. Had to kind of get these shots in quick because that whipped cream was melting.

Because of the room I was in, I wasn't able to get more depth of field for this shot and am wondering if Maybe I should have given it a little more in Photoshop. My 50mm f1.8 lens wasn't giving me the depth of field that I wanted for this shot either.

If you have any other suggestions for anything else in this photo, I would be happy to hear it. I can't post this on my normal critique board because they restrict suggestive shots. My avatar I have at the time of this posting was also from the same shoot.

Thank you in advance.

Originally Posted by skbinks

When you try it again, I'd advise moving her hands out of the picture all together, also pose her at a slight angle so the line from her right eye to the line formed by her legs form a diagonal across the image.

Dodging and burning using a 50% grey layer in PS would add a lot to this with an overall brightening. This may also be one of those rare images where conversion to B&W along with selective saturation (one of the strawberrys) might work, though it's a long shot.

As for depth of field, to my taste less would be better than more here.
Thanks for sharing.

John_Deer, how bad is this shot?

Originally Posted by skbinks

this shot is more successful than the other one. you've got creative instincts, you just have to work on your execution. the major fail on this one is the large white square in the background. as a rule, the human eye always seeks the brightest object in an image first. you want that to be the subject, not some garbage in the background.

you can clone that out, obviously, but the better practice is to always be aware of what's behind the subject when you're shooting.

as for your other comments, the reason i'm doing you a favor is because in the photography world, blunt and direct feedback is very difficult to come by. it's especially true in the so-called critique forums. you're going to get a lot of bullshit telling you you made a great capture, nice work, blah, blah, blah… or you'll get silence. the problem is it's a culture of not hurting anybody's feelings, and that doesn't do anything to improve your skills.

some images are just so bad that no amount of critique is ever going to make them any better. as an internet commentor with a new person, you also have no idea how somebody is going to deal with it. so, when an image is like that i'm going to tell you straight up that it's a failure. it's not personal, and it's up to you to decide if you want to come back and learn more or be butthurt. doesn't matter to me either way. you seem serious about doing better, so now i feel like maybe it's worth my time to help you. make sense?

what i meant about it not being allowed is if you are participating in a so-called critique thread that doesn't allow images like that, it's a waste of your time.

as to your depth of field issues… we've all had that problem in a small hotel room. you seem to understand that all other things being equal, getting further away from the subject increases dof.  if your back is against the wall, at that point you have two decrease the aperture size. f/8 instead of f/5 .6 for example. that obviously means you need more light. in your case, that's difficult with the setup you have so you have to increase your iso. you may have to live with the noise you get as a result.

my point was that a 50mm lens has more depth of field… all other things being equal… than the 82mm you chose to shoot at.

When you try it again, I'd advise moving her hands out of the picture all together, also pose her at a slight angle so the line from her right eye to the line formed by her legs form a diagonal across the image.

As for depth of field, to my taste less would be better than more here.
Thanks for sharing. Originally Posted by Iaintliein

Thank you, this is what I needed. I have some from that pose and shoot without any depth of field, different angles, and a different lense, I will look through those and see if there is one that might look more like your suggestion. There was a reason for the hands there, but I agree, I should have left them out and used photoshop if necessary.

I started before any Photoshop was available. I know that photoshop can and does, do a lot, but I believe that a good picture starts with the original shot and am trying to get better at that. Another reason for that is that most of the guys where I am from are complaining of profile pics that that you can easily tell have been photoshopped and don't really give as accurate a photo of the provider for what they want to see. I would love to do more artistic shots and have a few providers that are going to help me with that this summer where there will be a lot of photoshop but still need a good image to work off of.

Besides dime store cameras in the 60-70's, my first 35mm's were the Minolta XD-7 and XG-M back in the early 80's when I was in the NAVY over in Japan. I had to get rid of them 20 years ago and haven't even tried to do any real photography with my own cameras until just a few months ago. I have done some commercial (in a very controlled environment), landscape, and a few other things but never worked with posing people before. I Love it, but have a LOT to learn.

I've been reading and watching everything I can get my hands on for it and will always have more to learn. There are a lot of ladies here that need new profile pictures that can't afford to pay for them or for some, can't afford a nice place to take the pictures. I don't charge them, mostly because I don't consider myself good enough to receive any kind of payment but also because I love helping people and also because I can't afford to hire models or a studio at the moment and don't think it will help if my camera, direction for posing, and lighting skills aren't ready for it yet. It's hard (for me) when in such a small room where I can't use natural lighting, that I can't get all of my lighting setup the way I want because there just isn't enough room. I rarely, if ever, use on camera flash if I can get away without it unless I need just a little fill flash set very low.

this shot is more successful than the other one. you've got creative instincts, you just have to work on your execution. the major fail on this one is the large white square in the background. as a rule, the human eye always seeks the brightest object in an image first. you want that to be the subject, not some garbage in the background.

you can clone that out, obviously, but the better practice is to always be aware of what's behind the subject when you're shooting. Originally Posted by john_deere

Thank you, I will clone that lamp out or at least make it less distracting. I wasn't even thinking of that when in photoshop. We removed as much clutter as we could before the shot but those were attached to the table.

BTW, I understand your original harsh comments. I don't mind someone calling me an idiot (you didn't), etc., as long as it is also constructive, like for the lamp in the background.

Question, do you think I should have left a little (very little) more light on her right side?

it's a purely artistic choice about how much light to put on the short side. try different things and see what works for you.

as for the "over photoshpping" subject...keep in mind most of those commenters have no idea what they're talking about. neither of your images here have much post in them, but neither is an "honest" look at the girl in question, either.

it's always about interpretation, and it's not the AMOUNT of photoshop, it's what you DO with it.

just never touch the liquefy tool and you'll be fine.

I'll try to kick start this thread again. My opportunities to shoot providers may end soon as the SO's trips out of town may be coming to an end. So I'll post these before I have to put the lights away for good.

The lovely Angela S graced my living room last month. Lighting is 8' octabox camera left 7" grid on boom behind her and camera left for hair and spill onto background and 8' x 8' white reflector camera right.. Shot with D300, Sigma 30 1.4 & Softar II filter:

Sexy Steph came by a few weeks ago. I used the same set up as Angela S above but except didn't use the big reflector for fill, trying for a little more dramatic light.

If I had a higher ceiling I'd move the 8' octabox up considerably for the vertical poses.