# Kelsey S. (Pic Heavy)



## e.rose (Jul 3, 2014)

From my first senior session of the year! 

1.



2.


3.


(Con't in next post...)


----------



## e.rose (Jul 3, 2014)

4.


5.


6.


7.


8.


(Con't in next post...)


----------



## e.rose (Jul 3, 2014)

9.


10.


11.


(Con't in next post...)


----------



## e.rose (Jul 3, 2014)

12.


13.



14.


15.


16.


17.


----------



## tirediron (Jul 3, 2014)

Very nicely done Emily.... EXCEPT for those with the blown sky; I really wish you would have brought in some supplemental light and knocked the background down a couple of stops.


----------



## e.rose (Jul 3, 2014)

tirediron said:


> Very nicely done Emily.... EXCEPT for those with the blown sky; I really wish you would have brought in some supplemental light and knocked the background down a couple of stops.



That was intentional. We tried it that way, didn't like it. There was a pool back there and some other stuff, but we loved the gate.

If we were able to, I would have loved to have blown it out MORE, but that was pushing the boundaries of the gear a bit.


----------



## e.rose (Jul 3, 2014)

But thank you (and thank you for your feedback) :sillysmi:


----------



## tirediron (Jul 3, 2014)

e.rose said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > Very nicely done Emily.... EXCEPT for those with the blown sky; I really wish you would have brought in some supplemental light and knocked the background down a couple of stops.
> ...


Okay... I can see where that would have worked.


----------



## ORourkeK (Jul 3, 2014)

Looks like you have a lot of cool locations nearby and it also looks like you two had a lot of fun. I have a question which will help me learn. I am still confused when it comes to highlights and exposure. When I look at #9, the first thing that comes to my mind is that its overexposed around the back of her head. Now, you are a much better and more experienced photographer than me, so my question is... is that the look you were going for? If not, what could be a way to prevent that from happening? Fill light or a reflector? Thanks for any information you can give!


----------



## e.rose (Jul 3, 2014)

ORourkeK said:


> Looks like you have a lot of cool locations nearby and it also looks like you two had a lot of fun. I have a question which will help me learn. I am still confused when it comes to highlights and exposure. When I look at #9, the first thing that comes to my mind is that its overexposed around the back of her head. Now, you are a much better and more experienced photographer than me, so my question is... is that the look you were going for? If not, what could be a way to prevent that from happening? Fill light or a reflector? Thanks for any information you can give!



Having a fill light and dropping the "ambient light" exposure would have certainly prevented that, however, it would have also taken away from the light, airy, feel we were going for with those.

I don't mind if there are strong highlights in the hair, coming from behind like that, but that's a stylistic choice. Some people will yell at me and tell me it's wrong, and others will like it.


----------



## tirediron (Jul 3, 2014)

e.rose said:


> ....Some people will yell at me and tell me it's wrong...



Now who would do that? :bigangel:


----------



## e.rose (Jul 3, 2014)

tirediron said:


> e.rose said:
> 
> 
> > ....Some people will yell at me and tell me it's wrong...
> ...



CERTAINLY not 80% of TPF.


----------



## tirediron (Jul 3, 2014)

e.rose said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > e.rose said:
> ...



You're right; 90 maybe, but certainly NOT 80!


----------



## e.rose (Jul 3, 2014)

tirediron said:


> e.rose said:
> 
> 
> > tirediron said:
> ...



Touché, my friend. Touché.   :lmao:


----------



## Designer (Jul 3, 2014)

I'll go with #17 FTW.:hail:


----------



## e.rose (Jul 3, 2014)

Designer said:


> I'll go with #17 FTW.:hail:



Thanks! That was a fun series for sure.


----------



## Braineack (Jul 3, 2014)

e.rose said:


> I don't mind if there are strong highlights in the hair, coming from behind like that, but that's a stylistic choice. Some people will yell at me and tell me it's wrong, and others will like it.



The sky looks well outside of the -/+ 2EV give on your sensor.  You should have HDR'd it.


----------



## snerd (Jul 3, 2014)

Gotta agree on #9 being just as cute as it can be!


----------



## e.rose (Jul 3, 2014)

Braineack said:


> e.rose said:
> 
> 
> > I don't mind if there are strong highlights in the hair, coming from behind like that, but that's a stylistic choice. Some people will yell at me and tell me it's wrong, and others will like it.
> ...



Wasn't what I was going for. 

I could have kept sky detail, and tried in some of them, but I just didn't like the way it looked.

Some people are vehemently against detail-less skies. I'm not. 

Sometimes I will keep it. Sometimes I will blow it away. It's the "natural light" vs. "flash photographer" fighting within me on every session. Or. You know. Just the photographer, in general. Because I don't identify with JUST "natural light" or JUST "flash" photography. It's just me. Making stylistic choices. 

I knew before I even posted these that some people would take issue with it. It's okay if you're not into it.



snerd said:


> Gotta agree on #9 being just as cute as it can be!



Thank you! :sillysmi:


----------



## Derrel (Jul 3, 2014)

In #9 on the swingset, her face is out of focus, but the back of her hair is in focus, but it doesn't show that badly at web size. I like the look (light/bright/airy/fun) of the swingset shots, with the nice, light background, but I wish the swing chains and her, herself, were more sharply separated from the background. I get the desire to have a fully ROUND bokeh-ball type background, but I think this would look cooler shot with a longer lens that would have much bigger OOF circles, rather than being so close and using a shorter lens and having depth of field be so thin.  I guess what I'd love to see is a longer lens, a fast one, shot wide open, to make the bokeh more "big and bold", and have her be really sharply focused and the backdrop more "out".

The "dead eye" with the big, black, featureless eye so close to the hand with the large ring drawn up to her face makes #7 a B-list shot...the eye desperately needs at least a little bit of a visible pupil, but has no color at all. The wall-mounted lamp behind her is also distracting. 

The ones of her in the white jacket agaisnt the wall, near the end...those seem very contrasty to me. Just a little bit less bite might look good on those.

On the idea of "blown out" backgrounds...I think they all look perfectly fine...they convey that light, airy feeling of summertime, and "fun"...lightness. It's a creative decision to go "airy". I think it looks good with redheads and blondes, especially, and she had the right wardrobe for it. Like on the gate with pool behind...I don't wanna see a bunch of lounge chairs...blowing that out is totally the right decision.  Overall though, I'm sure she'll be happy with her pcitures. She comes off looking attractive, tall, elegant, yet not stuffy, and all around like she's happy.


----------



## Big Mike (Jul 3, 2014)

I don't mind the bright/blown skies.  As long as the subject is expose well, it still works IMO.

One thing that stands out for C&C, is that several of them have an excess of space above her head.  In a couple of them, that looks to be a choice made to include something, like the arch above the gate, but it still tends to come off as a less-that-ideal composition.  Different angles and perspectives could help here, while allowing the subject to take up more of the frame.  

Of course...that's just, like, my opinion, man.


----------



## Braineack (Jul 3, 2014)

e.rose said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > e.rose said:
> ...




you missed the joke...

:er:


----------



## e.rose (Jul 3, 2014)

Derrel said:


> In #9...SNIP...   ...like she's happy.



Thanks for the feedback.



> The ones of her in the white jacket agaisnt the wall, near the end...those seem very contrasty to me.



They are. It was a stylistic choice to pair with the on-axis lighting. 

If anything, I'm looking at the JPEG exports and wishing I had hit it a little harder still, with the contrast. 

Sent from my iPhone using PhotoForum


----------



## e.rose (Jul 3, 2014)

Big Mike said:


> I don't mind the bright/blown skies.  As long as the subject is expose well, it still works IMO.  One thing that stands out for C&C, is that several of them have an excess of space above her head.  In a couple of them, that looks to be a choice made to include something, like the arch above the gate, but it still tends to come off as a less-that-ideal composition.  Different angles and perspectives could help here, while allowing the subject to take up more of the frame.  Of course...that's just, like, my opinion, man.



Thanks for the feedback!

Sent from my iPhone using PhotoForum


----------



## e.rose (Jul 3, 2014)

Braineack said:


> you missed the joke...  :er:



Clearly haha

Sent from my iPhone using PhotoForum


----------



## paigew (Jul 3, 2014)

4 & 5  are my favorites. All the ones in front of this brick are perfect as far as skin tones go. I feel like the ones on the swings she looks pretty green. Maybe burn the b/g a little? I also love 11 & 17. Great set!


----------



## e.rose (Jul 3, 2014)

paigew said:


> 4 & 5  are my favorites. All the ones in front of this brick are perfect as far as skin tones go. I feel like the ones on the swings she looks pretty green. Maybe burn the b/g a little? I also love 11 & 17. Great set!



Thanks for your feedback. 

Just curious... were you on a calibrated monitor when you looked at these before?


----------



## EIngerson (Jul 3, 2014)

The first one on the swing is FANTASTIC!


----------



## e.rose (Jul 3, 2014)

EIngerson said:


> The first one on the swing is FANTASTIC!



Thank you :sillysmi:


----------



## snerd (Jul 3, 2014)

I couldn't figure out who it was she looked like to me. I knew it was "someone". Just came to me............ Liz Claman on Fox Business Network!!


----------



## paigew (Jul 3, 2014)

e.rose said:


> paigew said:
> 
> 
> > 4 & 5  are my favorites. All the ones in front of this brick are perfect as far as skin tones go. I feel like the ones on the swings she looks pretty green. Maybe burn the b/g a little? I also love 11 & 17. Great set!
> ...


Yes ma'am I'm calibrated


----------



## unpopular (Jul 3, 2014)

e.rose said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > Very nicely done Emily.... EXCEPT for those with the blown sky; I really wish you would have brought in some supplemental light and knocked the background down a couple of stops.
> ...



I don't think the sky is so much the trouble, but rather the trees and pool. Pushing the background this far kind of turns it ito a white-washed mess. While I appreciate that it was intentional, I'm not sure it was the best choice to try to obscure a less than ideal background by over exposure. Shooting later in the day with very shallow DOF might have been a better solution? It's a nice idea, too bad there was a pool there.


----------



## e.rose (Jul 3, 2014)

unpopular said:


> e.rose said:
> 
> 
> > tirediron said:
> ...



Okay, let me rephrase.

There was a pool back there, so exposing the background correctly wasn't ideal because of that... HOWEVER... 

...had there been NO pool... and nothing but an open, green, grassy knoll... 

...I would have STILL exposed it the same way. 

We liked the look of the white light behind, and like I mentioned in an earlier post, had I been able to push the exposure even further and blow out even MORE detail in the back, I would have. 

So it wasn't *just* the pool being that was behind the reason for doing it. It just happened to help the fact that there was a pool back there. 

My assistant (dare I even call him that, because he's a much better photographer than I) and I got there before the session, discussed different options, tested out different lighting scenarios, and that's what we settled on for that one. :sillysmi:


----------



## o hey tyler (Jul 4, 2014)

TPF is still an ever changing joke. Great shots Em. Had to poke my head in and say hi.


----------



## e.rose (Jul 4, 2014)

o hey tyler said:


> TPF is still an ever changing joke. Great shots Em. Had to poke my head in and say hi.



Haha, thanks Tyler :sillysmi:

Sent from my iPhone using PhotoForum


----------



## gsgary (Jul 4, 2014)

That 2nd and 3rd outfit is awful,but some nice shots


----------



## e.rose (Jul 4, 2014)

gsgary said:


> That 2nd and 3rd outfit is awful,but some nice shots



Ha, thanks.

Sent from my iPhone using PhotoForum


----------



## elizpage (Jul 4, 2014)

Awe, she's gorgeous. I love #5. I don't like her expressions very much in #14-17, though. That's just my opinion.


----------

