# These are my very best photos. Where do I go from here?



## bleeblu (Jul 1, 2012)

I feel like I've progressed very well since starting photography in October of last year, however, these last few weeks I've been in a standstill. What should I start learning from here? What can I improve on?




Seafood Diet by Mark Harless, on Flickr



The Ease of Falling by Mark Harless, on Flickr



I Don't Have To Exist Outside This Place by Mark Harless, on Flickr



The Earth and The Sky by Mark Harless, on Flickr



Murphy's Law by Mark Harless, on Flickr



Teaching You To Fly by Mark Harless, on Flickr



Within the Confines of My Mind by Mark Harless, on Flickr



Continuity by Mark Harless, on Flickr



I had a visitor fly in early in the morning. She told me that the one I've been worrying about is going to be okay. by Mark Harless, on Flickr



Unself Portrait by Mark Harless, on Flickr



Daydream by Mark Harless, on Flickr


----------



## dxqcanada (Jul 1, 2012)

I would say you need to perfect these images.
The concepts are very interesting ... but in most of these you have ignorned the entire scene ... backgrounds are weak in comparision to what is going on with the human subjects.

Right now most of them are interesting/different ... but I feel a little let down.


----------



## bleeblu (Jul 1, 2012)

Haha, I'm sorry. I'll try to work on that though!


----------



## dxqcanada (Jul 1, 2012)

Great, I love where you are going with these ... and I think if you can get the whole thing, it will look awesome.


----------



## PhotoBrody (Jul 1, 2012)

I agree with what dxqcanada said.. Interesting and creative but you're missing a lot of technical aspects. Crooked horizons, lighting, more creative editing, the one with the nude model holding the mirror - its pointed up but has a reflection as if it's pointed down, doesn't make sense. Keep up with the practice though, you are on the right track.


----------



## manaheim (Jul 1, 2012)

hm... wish I was where you are with as little experience as you have... hell, I wish I was were you are with as much experience as I have now. 

Whatever issues you may need to work on, you're clearly very creative.  Continue to sharpen your skills and learn about how details affect your overall presentation and we'll probably be seeing you famous and be able to say we knew you when...


----------



## bleeblu (Jul 1, 2012)

Ok cool. The mirror has no photoshop trickery other than erasing my camera and tripod out of it!


----------



## LizardKing (Jul 1, 2012)

These are some really nice pictures. I like your creativity to find a way to express a feeling or idea. But if I were to say anything, I'd try to work mostly on composition. Not that it's bad, but it's just where I would 'go from here' if I were you. The composition on these same images and concepts can be really improved after some reading on the subject. 
Anyway, keep it up! Pics are great :thumbup:


----------



## unpopular (Jul 1, 2012)

I think that they're interesting, but, as I've said before, they're interesting for the sake of being interesting. I think forming some better defined conceptual themes, with your unique style, you'll have a very powerful portfolio.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jul 1, 2012)

Nice man.. im a fan....  Crazy you have only been doing this for less than a year.


----------



## chuasam (Jul 3, 2012)

Great stuff. You've got your technical and conceptual. Only place to move is to develop your own style and avoid seeming like a Brooke Shaden clone.


----------



## slackercruster (Jul 3, 2012)

Interesting shots. 

Look up Apeture books on Amazon. Order as many of the classic togs books put out by Apeture from your library. 

Keep blasting away with the new inspiration you will get from other togs.

If your a PP freak, lots of artsy PP books from the library as well.

You may wish to check out lightpainting photography. May be up your alley.

Good luck!


----------



## davisphotos (Jul 3, 2012)

Pretty strong set, good concepts. I would rather see a good idea not necessarily executed as well as it could be than a 100% technically perfect shot of a boring idea. I'm loving what you are doing with the mirrors, that could be a really great conceptual series.


----------



## fjrabon (Jul 3, 2012)

I felt like for a lot of these, lighting was the thing that kept them from being complete show stoppers.  Really only the butterfly shot is what I would consider 'well-lit'  

However, I think the issue is that for the grandiose type of outdoor shots you're trying to pull off, getting really great lighting might get $ in a hurry.  

1) The lighting is I guess fine, but it also doesn't seem to be a positive either.  

2) The lighting is seriously flat.  Making a picture with a lot of sort of 'built in' drama and action fall flat as a visual experience.  

3) I think the lighting on this one is good, but it could probably be even more enhanced.  

5) is just sort of there.  Not sure why this is included with the other shots.  

6) light seems really flat and also cold.  

7) I like the idea of the light here, you just need more.  Either the shot needs to be brighter, or it needs more contrast.

8) Lighting is flat, and perhaps need more contrast as well

9) I like the lighting in this one, though it perhaps needs more contrast

10&11) again, sort of flat.

For a lot of these, the lighting wouldn't even be that bad if it wasn't that the shot was already sort of dramatic in a way that demands dramatic lighting.  It's kind of like your very well developed personal style is calling for a type of lighting you're not giving it.  

I think Zack Arias would be a good inspiration for the type of lighting I think your shots are searching for.  And of course Joe McNally is the ultimate lighting guru for all situations.  (then again, Joe McNally has more $$$ in lighting cases than even the biggest gearhead in here has in gear period.  Once heard Zack Arias say he figured out that Joe had more money in cases than he had gear, and Zack was already an accomplished photographer at the time.)

And yeah, to the echo the sentiments of others, your work is amazing given the amount of time you've been doing it.  You have a very strong creative base, which is probably the most difficult part to get a handle on.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jul 3, 2012)

I think all of the photos are pretty darn good.  I really wish I had more time to do the experiment stuff like you did.


----------



## jowensphoto (Jul 3, 2012)

^^^^ No kidding.

Creatively, you have SO much going for you. Personally, I value creativity over technical ability. It's just something that can't be taught. You can always read a book on exposure or take a class on lighting. The creative eye is something that can be improved with time, but it's not something you can learn.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 3, 2012)

I agree. I think that we're kind of knit-picking technical aspects which can be summed up as technique.

People here talk a lot of "concept" - but what concepts are being conveyed here? They seem weird for the sake of it, visually striking for the sake of it - I think there is a lot of skill here and a good visual vocabulary, but I also think that it's being wasted on gimmicky trick photography that is artistically under developed.


----------



## spacefuzz (Jul 3, 2012)

I think  you have some interesting shots here, but shots like this (at least to me) feel like they need to convey a complete story, where every aspect of the image adds to it.  So I agree with some of the others who mentioned working on your backgrounds and composition.  I want everything to matter. 

Also you appear to be good at photoshop, and I think you are using that as a crutch for poor lighting skills.  Break out some speedlights, pocket wizards, reflectors, light painting, golden hour light, etc. I think once you get the hang of the lighting it could double the impact of your photos. 

Your off to a great start, and keep it fun!


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jul 3, 2012)

what poor lighting are you guys talking about??


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jul 3, 2012)

For example #2.. someone said it is flat.  Seriously, what do you think the OP should have done?  Have you shot in a tiny room (bathroom) with white surface everywhere?  Almost 100% of the light comes from the flash.  How do you avoid lights not bouncing everywhere?  On the top of that, OP had to take 2 exposures, one for background and one with something propping her up with shower running.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 3, 2012)

I don't even really see the "flatness". I think people need to get over their Velvia-esque obsession.

In my opinion light should be subtle, it should carry an image not make one.


----------



## fjrabon (Jul 3, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> For example #2.. someone said it is flat.  Seriously, what do you think the OP should have done?  Have you shot in a tiny room (bathroom) with white surface everywhere?  Almost 100% of the light comes from the flash.  How do you avoid lights not bouncing everywhere?  On the top of that, OP had to take 2 exposures, one for background and one with something propping her up with shower running.



I'm nto saying it's easy.  It could have taken as many as 3-4 layers to pull that shot off.  Furthermore, it's perhaps one of those "well, it could have been a great shot if it had been able to have been lit better."  To get to the type of levels OP seems to be aspiring to, sometimes you just have to think "well, that's an awesome idea to catalogue, but I can't figure out anyway to get it lit dramatically enough."  

I know i've been talking about Zack Arias a lot recently, but he's totally fired me up about lighting.  He said that he probably sees hundreds of shots per week that he thinks would maybe be great shots, but there's no way he could light them the way he wanted at the time, so he just sort of catalogues the idea.  He says he's had shots in his head for months, if not years, before, just waiting for an idea of how to get the lighting he wants.  

And, of course OP's shots are great. Fully worthy of being called 'photography'.  But he didn't ask "tell me how great my shots are!" he asked, "what is missing from them being complete, breathtaking works of art?" I think it's lighting.  I mean it almost always is lighting that can be improved for anybody above intermediate, so that's not really earth shattering, it's not really specific to the OP at all either.  Almost every very good photographer is on a quest to improving their lighting and gaining a more intuitive ability to see lighting and know exactly what to do, and sometimes if it can be done at all.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 3, 2012)

These images are surreal. I find the almost hospital lighting well-suited. There is a sterility that I like, and even find refreshing. There is almost a sense of some kind of supernatural procedure going on. In 1 and 2, there is a sense of "three in the morning" that adds to their dreamlike/nightmarish quality.

Not everything needs to be, or should be, lit like it comes out of a magazine.​


----------



## Sbuxo (Jul 3, 2012)

If you're still breathing, keep shooting, more bests can still be made.


----------



## spacefuzz (Jul 3, 2012)

fjrabon said:


> I know i've been talking about Zack Arias a lot recently, but he's totally fired me up about lighting. He said that he probably sees hundreds of shots per week that he thinks would maybe be great shots, but there's no way he could light them the way he wanted at the time, so he just sort of catalogues the idea. He says he's had shots in his head for months, if not years, before, just waiting for an idea of how to get the lighting he wants.
> 
> And, of course OP's shots are great. Fully worthy of being called 'photography'. But he didn't ask "tell me how great my shots are!" he asked, "what is missing from them being complete, breathtaking works of art?" I think it's lighting. I mean it almost always is lighting that can be improved for anybody above intermediate, so that's not really earth shattering, it's not really specific to the OP at all either. Almost every very good photographer is on a quest to improving their lighting and gaining a more intuitive ability to see lighting and know exactly what to do, and sometimes if it can be done at all.



Schwetty, Fjrabon summed up what I meant really well.  If he wants to take it to the next level, it looked to me like control of light is where he should focus. 

#1 looks like a straight on camera flash. It works for the in your face (pun) feeling, but would be interested in seeing the concept with different lighting. Make those suckers stand out more. 
#2 it does look flat to me.  Personal opinion, but I would light it with more emphasis on her and less on the tile. 
The rest look like natural light to me, nothing wrong with that, but the OP asked. 

And yes I know I suck at lighting myself and still have a lot to learn.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 3, 2012)

The only issue I have with the lighting on #1 is the shadow. It's an assertive image that deserves aggressive, raw lighting.

What do you people want? Soft feathery shadows? Maybe we should add some butterflies and unicorns too.


----------



## jowensphoto (Jul 3, 2012)

-know the rules and when to break them. Aka know how to use specific techniques to create a certain mood within a piece of art.

Everything, sans 1 shadow, seems completely deliberate and fitting for these images.

What is technically bad, when executed under proper circumstances, can literally make a piece of art.


----------



## spacefuzz (Jul 3, 2012)

unpopular said:


> The only issue I have with the lighting on #1 is the shadow. It's an assertive image that deserves aggressive, raw lighting.
> 
> What do you people want? Soft feathery shadows? Maybe we should add some butterflies and unicorns too.



I want assertive lighting, I want all those little suckers to stand out! Dont confuse assertive with a grunge post processing effect.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 3, 2012)

I am not even sure how you'd do that with lighting. Maybe if the source were slightly from above. But either way, it should remain harsh and unappealing.


----------



## spacefuzz (Jul 3, 2012)

unpopular said:


> it should remain harsh and unappealing.



Agree


As to the approach, perhaps multiple lights or a side light with a snoot aimed at the suckers?


----------



## rexbobcat (Jul 3, 2012)

unpopular said:
			
		

> I agree. I think that we're kind of knit-picking technical aspects which can be summed up as technique.
> 
> People here talk a lot of "concept" - but what concepts are being conveyed here? They seem weird for the sake of it, visually striking for the sake of it - I think there is a lot of skill here and a good visual vocabulary, but I also think that it's being wasted on gimmicky trick photography that is artistically under developed.



Yes


----------



## bleeblu (Jul 5, 2012)

Thank you, everyone, for your inputs! So I guess the general consensus is to work on my lighting. I'm a self-taught photographer (still can't get used to being called that) and everything I've learned is from the internet, a few books and trial and error. So, let me ask you, if I could buy one or two books to help improve my lighting, or any other aspect of my photography, what would you suggest? I'm a poor college student who can't afford tons of books and lighting equipment, mind you. 

As for the gimmicky photography tricks... 

I don't know. It's just something I like. Photography has always been about documentation. I've been intrigued by the fact that it doesn't have to be anymore. That I can take pictures of things that have never happened. There's no other genre of photography where I can spend this many hours on thinking about the concept, shooting and editing the photos. I really enjoy it and I understand it's not everyones cup of tea!


----------



## enzodm (Jul 5, 2012)

You have very good and patient friends 



bleeblu said:


> So, let me ask you, if I could buy one or two books to help improve my lighting, or any other aspect of my photography, what would you suggest? I'm a poor college student who can't afford tons of books and lighting equipment, mind you.



Books: 

_Light Science and Magic_ is a technical book with practical examples and exercises 
_The hotshoe diaries_ is really a sort of diary with concrete examples, discussed in a funny way. Nikon specific in terms of technologies, but general in terms of approach. 

Regarding lighting equipment, start thinking after having read the books. For the kind of pictures you take, I'm sure what you will read will be inspiring for you, because you will have an additional tool for expressing ideas.
One other place worth to be read is the Strobist blog , where you can find also cheap and diy solutions. I have a couple of very old flashes connected to cheap triggers that make their job - at expense of more work and time than when using more modern devices.



bleeblu said:


> Photography has always been about documentation. I've been intrigued by the fact that it doesn't have to be anymore.



Photography has not always been about documentation (never been?). So, an additional suggestion could be to read some book on history of photography - surrealists did also photography, for example.


----------



## cayto (Jul 5, 2012)

First of all, generally i like your photos! And these are the kind of photos i love too, but...not even always i have time to spend to apply what i thought! You have a great imagination, and better yet, you can apply what you thought that could be a nice photo. Thinking and taking a good shoot is different. Invest in lighting, and you have your return :thumbup:

Send some more, to see another pics


----------



## fjrabon (Jul 5, 2012)

I was trying to remember who your stuff reminded me of.  This is the kid I was trying to think of: More Amazing Photography by 19-Year-Old Brian Oldham - My Modern Metropolis


----------



## fjrabon (Jul 5, 2012)

bleeblu said:


> Thank you, everyone, for your inputs! So I guess the general consensus is to work on my lighting. I'm a self-taught photographer (still can't get used to being called that) and everything I've learned is from the internet, a few books and trial and error. So, let me ask you, if I could buy one or two books to help improve my lighting, or any other aspect of my photography, what would you suggest? I'm a poor college student who can't afford tons of books and lighting equipment, mind you.
> 
> As for the gimmicky photography tricks...
> 
> I don't know. It's just something I like. Photography has always been about documentation. I've been intrigued by the fact that it doesn't have to be anymore. That I can take pictures of things that have never happened. There's no other genre of photography where I can spend this many hours on thinking about the concept, shooting and editing the photos. I really enjoy it and I understand it's not everyones cup of tea!



One thing for you, is you'll just have to practice A LOT.  Because you shoot creative shots, you can't just pick up a book and look for 'how to shoot a sidelit portrait with a softbox'.  Standard studio shots, with the amount of info today, you can pick up a book and recreate the shot if you have the right equipment, in like 30-45 minutes and get fairly well in the ballpark.  With your style, however, you're going to really have to practice so that, in your head, you can envision a shot, and the lighting you'd like, and then be able to reverse engineer the lighting to know what you'd need to light it that way.  

That takes experimenting with light A LOT.  A WHOLE LOT.  You have to first see so much lighting that you can envision the lighting you want in your head, and then you have to practice so much that you can deconstruct where the light in your head is coming from and how to get that light with a light or combination of lights.


----------



## KmH (Jul 5, 2012)

If you think "Photography has always been about documentation"​, you don't know near as much about how photography got to where it is today as you maybe need to.


----------



## davisphotos (Jul 5, 2012)

For learning more about the history of photography, I highly recommend the book 'Classic Essays on Photography' which contains essays by photographers throughout the history of photography, and is a really interesting look at the history of photography, and some of the discussions that were prevalent in the early days of photography. I also highly recommend 'On Photography' by Roland Barthes, it is a pretty heady book and kind of tough reading, but it will really make you think about why you photograph what you do. Susan Sontag also has some great books about the human aspect of documentary photography, 'Regarding the Pain of Others' and 'On Photography.' Also reading up on general not photo related art history is highly recommended. The mirror series in particular I feel could speak to personal identity, anonymity, personal power, or a whole host of themes along those lines. Covering somebodies face in a photograph is a highly loaded statement that can be very powerful when used to make a statement.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 5, 2012)

KmH said:


> If you think "Photography has always been about documentation", you don't know near as much about how photography got to where it is today as you maybe need to.



This objectivity is one reason I cannot stand f/64, I think the approach is hypocritical and shows a lack of understanding about the medium.


----------



## bleeblu (Jul 5, 2012)

Awesome. I'll look into some of those books. Since we are still roughly talking about lighting, I just bought a large reflector and I've seen, heard of many photographers that strictly use natural light. Do I really need to buy a soft box or some other electrical lighting equipment to make my photos better?


----------



## spacefuzz (Jul 5, 2012)

bleeblu said:


> I'm a self-taught photographer (still can't get used to being called that)



Even the photographers who went to school or took classes are still primarily self taught through trial and error.  Books and classes can give you a solid base but everything else you learn on your own. 

You are just a photographer.


----------



## spacefuzz (Jul 5, 2012)

bleeblu said:


> Awesome. I'll look into some of those books. Since we are still roughly talking about lighting, I just bought a large reflector and I've seen, heard of many photographers that strictly use natural light. Do I really need to buy a soft box or some other electrical lighting equipment to make my photos better?



It really depends on the look you are trying to go for.  You should learn what is possible with flash and how controlling light better may help you more easily express your creative vision. Then you decide.


----------



## fjrabon (Jul 5, 2012)

bleeblu said:


> Awesome. I'll look into some of those books. Since we are still roughly talking about lighting, I just bought a large reflector and I've seen, heard of many photographers that strictly use natural light. Do I really need to buy a soft box or some other electrical lighting equipment to make my photos better?



You never _need_ anything other than a camera.  The problem becomes with what you want out of your vision.  If you only shoot natural light, there will be visual images that are in your head, that just cannot be achieved with natural light and you'll have to scrap that idea, or just alter it to fit a natural light scheme.

You can, to some extent, fake lighting if you get really good with photoshop.  Especially a couple of plug ins that are more or less designed to be for that purpose. However, I don't think that would really give you the quality you want/need.


----------



## enzodm (Jul 5, 2012)

bleeblu said:


> Awesome. I'll look into some of those books. Since we are still roughly talking about lighting, I just bought a large reflector and I've seen, heard of many photographers that strictly use natural light. Do I really need to buy a soft box or some other electrical lighting equipment to make my photos better?



by the way, the term "natural light photographer" is often a sort of synonym of "craigslist photographer" from what I heard about. 
Before spending, try to learn where to go - when knowing (and I'm only at the beginning) there will be no difference between "natural" or "artificial" light, they will be just tools to exploit, with the same rules but different flexibility. In your case, since you aim at creating a world, why not control its lighting too?


----------



## rexbobcat (Jul 5, 2012)

It depends on what you want to achieve. As an artist, you really don't HAVE to buy external lighting if it doesn't fit into your creative style, but as a working photographer ($$$$$), then it's pretty much a MUST.


----------

