Discussion
matt gravy said:
406 said:
Excuse me for saying, but that expresion does nothing for her.
Dave
406
I strongly disgree with this. Cheers for the comment though.
Matt
Disagree too, she looks hot mate!
Any picture of my woman usually is of her hand fast approaching the lens to cover it.
edit to add - the top right one is best I reckon, her hair nicely frames her face.
>> Edited by _dobbo_ on Friday 23 September 15:13
[quote=matt (gravy)]
I strongly disgree with this. Cheers for the comment though.
Matt[/quote]
No worries mate. The comment was the first thing I thought when I saw the pics. That is often the best way to comment. 1st reactions. Sorry
Dave
406
406 said:
Excuse me for saying, but that expresion does nothing for her.
Dave
406
I strongly disgree with this. Cheers for the comment though.
Matt[/quote]
No worries mate. The comment was the first thing I thought when I saw the pics. That is often the best way to comment. 1st reactions. Sorry
Dave
406
How can you agree with 406 (not liking the expression), but like the bottom 3? Either you agree with him (you dont like the expression) or you like the bottom 3. To do both is a contradiction isnt it?
I accept that you dont like the expression, good to have the feedback for her and me, but to have her smiling with the more dramatic downlighting would look, for want of a better word, crap. (IMO).
Matt
I accept that you dont like the expression, good to have the feedback for her and me, but to have her smiling with the more dramatic downlighting would look, for want of a better word, crap. (IMO).
Matt
No, the two rows are quite distinctly separate for me. I didn’t like the models expression in the top row. Her expression in the bottom row is far more pleasing. Perhaps expression is the wrong word?
If I had to try and explain it I would say that the lowered chin is unflattering to her neck and jaw line, creating the hint of a double chin and giving the impression that something is in her cheeks.
That’s probably a poor explanation and I would be the first to admit that I am poorly qualified to critique your work but I hope that is taken in the constructive vein that it is intended.
Mark
If I had to try and explain it I would say that the lowered chin is unflattering to her neck and jaw line, creating the hint of a double chin and giving the impression that something is in her cheeks.
That’s probably a poor explanation and I would be the first to admit that I am poorly qualified to critique your work but I hope that is taken in the constructive vein that it is intended.
Mark
Doesn't do it for me I'm afraid.
I don't see any drama in the lighting in the top row and it's challenging for me in that I can't see anything special about them so just wander around wondering what it's about. (bit like life really)
In the bottom three, the pose is much more flattering but in each one the stray hairs cross the pupils and that's drawing my eye away from the eyes and is very distracting.
If that's the point and it's what you were going for, but I've missed it, sorry - I don't get it.
I don't see any drama in the lighting in the top row and it's challenging for me in that I can't see anything special about them so just wander around wondering what it's about. (bit like life really)
In the bottom three, the pose is much more flattering but in each one the stray hairs cross the pupils and that's drawing my eye away from the eyes and is very distracting.
If that's the point and it's what you were going for, but I've missed it, sorry - I don't get it.
On a generic note Babs is more photogenic, to my way of thinking, in the bottom set. It is possible that the lighting is more attuned to her bone structure for those shots. Almost everyone, absent the airbrush, has a good side and a less good side. Some have a bloody poor side! Robert Redford for one I seem to recall.
So the lower shots work better imho EXCEPT that I am not a great fan of randomly wild hair. Structured wild hair can be great - but then it isn't really wild. The hair in the top right shot looks better (less distracting) and would take just a little more wildness if required.
The head-on shots, to me, look like they could do with a touch more soft front lighting OR need to be quite a bit more shadowy for dramatic effect. I'm sure PS could provide some experimental tools for both effects until the studio calls again.
On the other hand they are all much better than anything I've ever taken in the portrait field. So feel free to ignore my comments totally.
So the lower shots work better imho EXCEPT that I am not a great fan of randomly wild hair. Structured wild hair can be great - but then it isn't really wild. The hair in the top right shot looks better (less distracting) and would take just a little more wildness if required.
The head-on shots, to me, look like they could do with a touch more soft front lighting OR need to be quite a bit more shadowy for dramatic effect. I'm sure PS could provide some experimental tools for both effects until the studio calls again.
On the other hand they are all much better than anything I've ever taken in the portrait field. So feel free to ignore my comments totally.
Matt, consider it a compliment that you get such honest critiques of your work - this posted from us normal bods would have resulted in praise, but we've come to expect work from you that's a few notches above many of us.
Sorry to join the bandwagon, but I too am turned off somewhat by the look - I guess it's more pouty lips than wholesome girl, which is not really my thing. As a result I find it hard to appreciate the pictures on an aesthetic level.
Technically speaking, I would've preferred if the eyes were not obscured by shadow from the downlighting in the top row - gives her a sort of "eyebag" effect.
The bottom row would've been particularly haunting for me had there been a bit more emphasis in the eyes (a touch of Photoshoppery maybe?) and if the hair wasn't in the way - I'm okay with wild hair, but I think under no circumstances should it block the eyes when the subject is looking at the camera.
But in any case, the quality of these pics are better than anything I've ever taken, so fair play. I just don't think they're your best.
Sorry to join the bandwagon, but I too am turned off somewhat by the look - I guess it's more pouty lips than wholesome girl, which is not really my thing. As a result I find it hard to appreciate the pictures on an aesthetic level.
Technically speaking, I would've preferred if the eyes were not obscured by shadow from the downlighting in the top row - gives her a sort of "eyebag" effect.
The bottom row would've been particularly haunting for me had there been a bit more emphasis in the eyes (a touch of Photoshoppery maybe?) and if the hair wasn't in the way - I'm okay with wild hair, but I think under no circumstances should it block the eyes when the subject is looking at the camera.
But in any case, the quality of these pics are better than anything I've ever taken, so fair play. I just don't think they're your best.
Hi Matt!
I'm a major fan of your car photography, so please allow me to be hyper-critical of your portraits. They are not what I would deem portraits, but are more glamour shots.
My instant reaction to the top row was, "God! She looks rough!" Her hair is a mess in all but the third one. It is hard to do hair and make-up. It is always best to get a professional make-up artist in if this job is to be done well. Worth the investment too if it is a model portfolio that you are doing. The model usually funds this by way of your inclusive fee.
As far as the lighhting is concerned, in the top three it does not suit her face, neither does her head's positioning. It makes her head look square. If it is indeed so, you need to adjust the lights, get her to raise her chin and turn slightly to one side. She also has dark shadows under her eyes and in the sockets. A reflector or a bit of Photoshop could rectify this. She doesn't look at all sexy in my opinion. Some models who aren't used to doing this sort of work always fall short here. Get her to imagine that she is making love to her man of the moment. That usually helps
The pose and the lighting on the bottom set are better, but I find her hair still messy and somewhat distracting. Again, she needs to think about what she is doing in with her mouth. Her lips and mouth are sexier in these three, but are sadly obscured by her hair. Her eyes are beautiful and they really do come alive in these shots, but again that hair just obscures them.
Find her best feature, her eyes in this case, and really focus on them. I would like to see the full range of shots from the shoot - lots of different poses, framing, expressions, vantage points, varied lighting, focal lengths and focusing.
Have another session, go really wild, shoot loads of different portraits and get her to be more relaxed. She should be after doing one session with you already.
Have fun and I shall look forward to seeing the results of your next shoot.
I'm a major fan of your car photography, so please allow me to be hyper-critical of your portraits. They are not what I would deem portraits, but are more glamour shots.
My instant reaction to the top row was, "God! She looks rough!" Her hair is a mess in all but the third one. It is hard to do hair and make-up. It is always best to get a professional make-up artist in if this job is to be done well. Worth the investment too if it is a model portfolio that you are doing. The model usually funds this by way of your inclusive fee.
As far as the lighhting is concerned, in the top three it does not suit her face, neither does her head's positioning. It makes her head look square. If it is indeed so, you need to adjust the lights, get her to raise her chin and turn slightly to one side. She also has dark shadows under her eyes and in the sockets. A reflector or a bit of Photoshop could rectify this. She doesn't look at all sexy in my opinion. Some models who aren't used to doing this sort of work always fall short here. Get her to imagine that she is making love to her man of the moment. That usually helps
The pose and the lighting on the bottom set are better, but I find her hair still messy and somewhat distracting. Again, she needs to think about what she is doing in with her mouth. Her lips and mouth are sexier in these three, but are sadly obscured by her hair. Her eyes are beautiful and they really do come alive in these shots, but again that hair just obscures them.
Find her best feature, her eyes in this case, and really focus on them. I would like to see the full range of shots from the shoot - lots of different poses, framing, expressions, vantage points, varied lighting, focal lengths and focusing.
Have another session, go really wild, shoot loads of different portraits and get her to be more relaxed. She should be after doing one session with you already.
Have fun and I shall look forward to seeing the results of your next shoot.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff