# Attempt at "Edgy" Prom Shots C&C



## Kyna (May 2, 2011)

Well it was my little sisters junior prom and she didn't want to pay for the boring professional pictures at prom.  So she asked me to come and do her hair, makeup and take her pictures.  C&C please!!

1.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





2.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




3.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




4.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Thank you!


----------



## Rancor (May 2, 2011)

Edgy as in semi-goth/rock/vintage type photos? I think they look pretty good. Her facial expressions seem not to match the style you were going for. I feel if she had more of a look of longing in her face, as opposed to a smile, the effect you were going for would have been better accomplished. Similar to the 4th photo. I don't think the branches in 2 really contribute anything, but I think I get what you were going for. I like the coloring (or lack of) on 1, and the font 

Also, keep in mind, I am TOTALLY new, so nothing I say really counts  I'm pretty much just commenting to see how close I am to the real comments that come later.


----------



## Kyna (May 2, 2011)

Thanks LOL, a comment is a comment.  I guess edgy can be viewed in many ways.  What "I" meant by edgy was just........."different".  Not the typical, flash photography, posed in front of a backdrop look.

There are a few where she is not looking right at me, like in the last one.


----------



## TheBiles (May 2, 2011)

I like the setup in #4, but my eyes are just immediately drawn to that stop sign. I'm guessing this might have been your objective, but it kind of distracts from your sis.


----------



## jritz (May 2, 2011)

#1-can't see her eyes, eyes are probably the most important part of a picture.  Either use a reflector or fill flash to bring some light to the eyes.
#2-Same problem with the eyes, and why did you put her in front of the branches? It is extremely distracting and takes away from the subject, also, she has trees growing out of her head.
#3-Still can't see the eyes, and the train track has been done a million times, go find something new and exciting, break convention.
#4-She looks slightly OOF, the angle is extremely harsh in this one as well.  I think if you got closer to the subject and threw the BG out of focus more, you would be much more successful.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (May 2, 2011)

Kyna said:


> . What "I" meant by edgy was just........."different". Not the typical, flash photography, posed in front of a backdrop look.


Which is funny, because the first background people go to, to be different, is train tracks.
I don't get the connection.

Oh, the misplaced symbolism!


----------



## Rancor (May 2, 2011)

It does seem to create nice depth via lines running to a vanishing point though, I can see the appeal.


----------



## Kyna (May 2, 2011)

I wanted to do more then just the train tracks but it had been pouring down rain so we couldn't go tromping through the woods like I had hoped.........she lives in a SUPER small town with like 200 people.  So the options were limited.


----------



## Rancor (May 2, 2011)

Could have had her and some prom buddies crossing the street at a corner alla abby road.


----------



## gsgary (May 2, 2011)

Is out of focus the new edgy ?


----------



## Derrel (May 2, 2011)

gsgary said:


> Is out of focus the new edgy ?



You have a way with words, Gary. You're a smooth operator.


----------



## Kyna (May 2, 2011)

Yeah super helpful 

I can see that the 2nd two aren't sharp..........I was going for the vintage look anyway.....so I thought they still worked.

The first two I dont' think they are out of focus, in my PP I added a creamy layer which made them look softer.


----------



## Rancor (May 2, 2011)

Ha, vintage, I was right. I am a photo critique champ. (obvious sarcasm here)


----------



## gsgary (May 2, 2011)

Derrel said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Is out of focus the new edgy ?
> ...


 

I was looking for the edgy bit but thats all i could see, I'm not sure why people keep posting out of focus shots


----------



## Rancor (May 2, 2011)

madamsophiaz said:


> Here is my advice stop trying you suck


 
Who the Nutz are you, and where do you get off. Thats not even advice, thats just being rude.

At least say, 'you suck' then give the reasons why so she can work on them if she feels necessary.


----------



## Kyna (May 2, 2011)

madamsophiaz said:


> Here is my advice stop trying you suck



Whatever........I just made $300 this weekend taking pictures.  So I guess people like sucky pictures.


----------



## Rancor (May 2, 2011)

I wish I could take sucky pictures. If these are sucky, and you should stop, then I should have smashed my camera with a hammer about 6 months ago.


----------



## Kyna (May 2, 2011)

Thanks Rancor.  I KNOW that they aren't perfect which is why they are posted in the BEGINNER section and I am ASKING for C&C.  But I also know that I have talent that just needs to be refined.  I literally just got my first DSLR in December and people are already paying me to take their pictures.  I WANT to take perfect pictures......I know that I am not yet.


----------



## Rancor (May 2, 2011)

For having started in DEC, and getting paid already, I don't think that can be overlooked as a good job. I got mine in NOV, but no money yet. I don't think I have the nerve to ask for money, I feel like I wouldn't live up to it.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (May 2, 2011)

Kyna said:


> Whatever........I just made $300 this weekend taking pictures. So I guess people like sucky pictures.


 
.


----------



## Kyna (May 2, 2011)

LOL, well seriously, it does no good to tell me I suck.    I want to improve!  I really appreciate all of the CONSTRUCTIVE criticism.


----------



## eric-holmes (May 2, 2011)

Kyna said:


> The first two I dont' think they are out of focus, in my PP I added a creamy layer which made them look softer.


In my experience, "creamy layer" is code for the use of an action. Did you use actions on these?

Friends don't let friends use actions.


----------



## Kyna (May 2, 2011)

Yes.............I used actions.  Why dont friends let friends use actions lol?  :scratch:


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (May 2, 2011)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Kyna said:
> 
> 
> > Whatever........I just made $300 this weekend taking pictures. So I guess people like sucky pictures.
> ...


 
I have struggled with how to say this.
Nothing puts me off more than somebody looking for help and cites how much money they are making and the good ol' "well the client loved them" and other defensive responses I have seen in past threads. I know the response above was in regards to an obvious troll, but, there it is. 

The answer is YES! People do like sucky photos they are not paying very much for.
I do wish you much luck in your endeavor to learn composition, exposure, lighting, and for your business.


----------



## Kyna (May 2, 2011)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > Kyna said:
> ...



I have never stated how much I'm making before, that person pissed me off and at the time I didn't know it was a troll.  I said that instead of saying F*ck you!


----------



## eric-holmes (May 2, 2011)

Kyna said:


> Yes.............I used actions.  Why dont friends let friends use actions lol?  :scratch:



Actions generically edit every picture they are applied to. They have no regard for lighting, exposure, composition or image size/resolution. The action did not work for your first picture. It obviously made her eyes too dark when they needed to be lighter. Actions are a cheap way to get what you want and to get it fast. Sadly, for the most part, it makes images look like all other cookie cutter images. In my area, all of the MWAC's use actions and all of their pictures look the same. There is no distinguishing one photographer from another.


----------



## vtf (May 2, 2011)

What were the settings and the lens you're using?


----------



## Kyna (May 2, 2011)

I only have the kit 18-55mm lens.  The settings were AV mode, ISO 200, F5.6 I believe.


----------



## vtf (May 2, 2011)

The first 2 shots being close ups show less of the eyes than the distant shots...Not sure if its the action used or maybe the shutter was slow and caused some motion blur, but off camera flash would've helped for fill in. If you shoot Canon and can afford the 50mm 1.8 for around $100 it's a great little lens for the price, these shots would've be nice and clear with it. It's best at f5-7. Her eyes will pop.
I'm not a big fan of tilted images let alone the "creamy" action added to the image.
Keep at it.


----------



## KmH (May 2, 2011)

Kyna said:


> Whatever........I just made $300 this weekend taking pictures.


Is that $300 in revenue, or $300 after all your expenses are accounted for?

How much time was involved, pre and post shoot?

Dark eye sockets. Clients are not objective about image quality because of emotional involvement. Few clients have a technical understanding of photographic issues.


----------



## Geaux (May 2, 2011)

Did you go in quoting them a price or did they give you the money as a 'tip' or at their discretion?  I've only had one paid shoot and I went into that shoot as a beginner like yourself and telling them (who are friends of mine) that I was doing this for practice and for no charge.  When all was said and done, they tossed me 100 bucks as a tip b/c they loved the way their shots came out.  I have an issue with people who are beginners asking others for money when they cannot come out with the sharpest focus possible.  Trust me, I'm not pointing only you out, but all the others I see on fb making money off of shots like I described.  Bitter put it the best way though, worded it like I wish I could lol.


About the actions...while it does tend to make some images worse (b/c like someone said, it doesn't account for anything off of your image, but the image it was created off of), if done correctly, actions can be very useful.  I wouldn't get an action online, then run a batch edit on every image and leave it alone.  Any action I run usually involves me fixing some things after it's been run on all my images.  Actions are great for static environments where nothing changes though (if created by yourself)


----------



## The_Traveler (May 2, 2011)

WTF?
Is not anyone looking at whether the picture made the subject look good or interesting or something? Or just not willing to say anything?

Your sister is chubby; read http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=photographing+heavy+peoplehttp://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=photographing+heavy+peoplesome threads on how to pose chunky people to minimize their faults and maximize their good features.
These pictures just seem to obliterate any good points and maximize the bad ones.
No eyes can be seen, skin color ranges from totally blah to hideous, straight on pose is absolutely terrible for heavy young girls in gowns.

No amount of edginess will transform these into something she will think makes her look good.


----------



## manaheim (May 2, 2011)

Great now I have that song stuck in my head...

smooooooooooth operatoorrrrrrrrrrr...


----------



## redtippmann (May 2, 2011)

How is not using flash edgy? I would say a beauty dish is edgy (that's as edgy as I get)... But I guess you could do some raw builb flash which is sure to be edgy.... edgy


----------



## SNBniko (May 3, 2011)

Not using flash or "natural light photographer" = Doesn't know how to use flash.

Told that by a very successful wedding photographer.  (Which after going to their clinic thingy... I NEVER EVER EVER want to do a wedding.  EVER.)


----------



## Trever1t (May 3, 2011)

Kyna said:


> Well it was my little sisters junior prom and she didn't want to pay for the boring professional pictures at prom. So she asked me to come and do her hair, makeup and take her pictures. C&C please!!
> 
> 1.
> 
> ...



Composition is key and you're missing it here by framing 

#1 to the left side facing out of the frame. This shot would have been better in "portrait mode"
#2 SAME
#3 I HATE horrible tilt to make it look like some form of action is taking place...lose the tilt!
#4 SAME + she's not the center of attention, rather the subject is the signage with a girl standing there....and that tilt...yucch.

Composition, framing the subject, focus and processing all need work. Good news is that it's really not all that difficult if you follow some basic rules/guidelines available all over this site. Cheers!


----------



## kundalini (May 3, 2011)

When I think "edgy", the first thing that comes to my mind is lighting, followed closely by composition and should or usually does include contrasting elements juxtaposed with the subject matter. I think it is good for you to have the mindset to attempt flipping the bird at "normal", but there is much more to it than you have shown here.

Take a look at these photographers. They were all interviewed in the April issue of Rangefinder magazine. I believe they have an edginess to their work. See what you think. What do you think? You can go to the archives of rangefindermag.com to read their interviews to discover their own interpretations of their visions.

Kingmond Young
Dirk Rees
Karina Ceja (it looks like her website is not fully intact. Here is the interview.)


----------



## Kyna (May 3, 2011)

Nope I don't know how to use off camera flash...........I could learn, if I choose to.  I am choosing not to at this point.  I LIKE the look of photography taken in all natural light and in my opinion you can not get studio lighting to look exactly the same as natural light.  

Now I do hope to get some reflectors and learn how to work with the natural light better, but I'm not choosing natural light because I'm too stupid to figure out a flash.

The slight OOF I agree with for the bottom 2, the top 2 the originals are sharp.  It is the vintage style editing that created the lack of sharpness.  

The tilt.......I don't think it is intended to show movement at least not in my pictures, it is just a different perspective but I can understand that it appeals to some but not others.  

I appreciate the input.........thanks!


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (May 3, 2011)

Kyna said:


> The tilt.......*I don't think it is intended to show movement at least not in my pictures*, it is just a different perspective but I can understand that it appeals to some but not others.
> 
> I appreciate the input.........thanks!


 
This is what I was talking about. You defend everything you do, so why bother posting for CC?

The bolded part above shows that you understand absolutely nothing about composition and the elements of design. DIAGONALS ALWAYS SUGGEST MOVEMENT, whether you don't intend them to or not DOES NOT MATTER. It is NOT* just *a different perspective.

My advice to you is to get books on composition and the elements of design, for both photography, and art in general, and you will begin to understand.
If you choose to make excuses for the very good advice you have been given and ignore, so be it. But why waste peoples time?


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (May 3, 2011)

You might want to check out ilovephotography.com they are much kinder, and less critical than this forum. You will fit right in.


----------



## tirediron (May 3, 2011)

I hate arriving late to the party, but... 
C&C per req (and yes, I know some of the points below are already covered):

1.  The wrong composition, IMO.  It rarely works to have someone facing out of the image on the edge to which they are closest.  Bust shots rarely work in landscape orientation.  Go portrait or square.  Pay attention to your background; the house/structure/whatever is very softly focused, but still distracting.  Your exposure is, well, over-exposed.  You've blown the highlights in the flower on her hair, have over-bright highlights on her skin, and racoon eyes all in one image.  The monochrome isn't bad, but were it exposed correctly and given a slight contrast boost, it would be very nice.

2.  Please explain the rationale behind having all these branches in the foreground!  If you had composed it such that they all "pointed" to her, rather than covering her, it might work.  Again note the busy background, trees "growing" out of her head, and exposure issues.

3.  Railroad tracks are a cliche, but one I like.  They make wonderful leading lines, but in this case they lead the viewers eye right past the subject and out of the image.  Had you moved her just a little bit image left so that the left-hand rail stopped at her shoulder area it would have worked well.  This processing reminds me of Kodacolor 135 processed at a 1-hour lab; NOT at all attractive.  The angle is a personal choice; I'm not normally a fan of them, in this case, it's not too bad.

4.    As mentioned, the sign is the focus, not your sister.  Had you cropped it below the "Railroad Crossing" X, so that we didn't see part of a sign, it would be that much stronger.  In this case I DON'T like the angle, but again, it's personal.

You've made repeated mention of the fact that you don't use flash, don't want to, don't want to learn, etc.  You've also stated that flash pictures aren't as nice as natural light (or words to that effect).  Well done flash images are are like a woman's make-up; hours of time and prep go into making something look like it's not there at all.  

Photography is all about the control of light.  Since there's very little we can control about natural light, it makes skill with supplemental light that much more essentail.  If you have to look beyond the four cases of racoon eyes...  To illustrate, look at this image (and yes, I know it's not seasonally appropriate):  There are put whites, deep blacks and everything in between.  Without supplemental light, this would have been an all but impossible shot; instead, a simple two light set-up produced a well exposed, pleasing image.


You've got a good start, but there are areas for improvement.  Take the comments and critique and learn from it.  You are not a better photographer because you insist on doing something the hard way.  You clearly have desire and potential; exploit it!

Just my $00.02 worth - your mileage may vary.

~John


----------



## Robin Usagani (May 3, 2011)

How about learning on camera flash?


----------



## gsgary (May 3, 2011)

Schwettylens said:


> How about learning on camera flash?



Your not listening are you, she wants her photos to look boring and lifeless with flat lighting and out of focus


----------



## Robin Usagani (May 3, 2011)

I thought people were all suggesting off camera flash. 

Picture #1-22 used reflector. Picture # 23 and higher were all shot with ON camera flash. If you only use a only a small power and use mostly ambient light, just use on camera flash. Off camera flash is a must outdoor if most of the light on the subject comes from the flash or your subject will look flat.

Usagani Photography | Weddings | Events | Portraits - Denver, CO | Stacy P


----------



## Speckles (May 3, 2011)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> You might want to check out ilovephotography.com they are much kinder, and less critical than this forum. You will fit right in.



Holy ****!  I wonder if they could fit some more links and buttons on their main page?!?


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (May 3, 2011)

Speckles said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > You might want to check out ilovephotography.com they are much kinder, and less critical than this forum. You will fit right in.
> ...


 
It's nice though. They have links to all the places that sell props, walls, floorboards, *Actions,* etc...


----------



## o hey tyler (May 3, 2011)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Speckles said:
> 
> 
> > Bitter Jeweler said:
> ...



At first, I couldn't tell where the forum began. After a year and a half of scrolling (I bent space/time to post this in a timely fashion) I got to the forum index... Which I couldn't view as a guest.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (May 3, 2011)

Join! I did, it's fun!


----------



## o hey tyler (May 3, 2011)

Seriously? 

:lmao:


----------



## Speckles (May 3, 2011)

I joined.  I am nosy.  :lmao:  They have about 10 billion rules.  F that.  Oh and I am not in the mood for any actions.  I got some when I first got PS a few years ago and quickly learned that they weren't for me.


----------



## kundalini (May 3, 2011)

Kyna said:


> Nope I don't know how to use off camera flash...........I could learn, if I choose to. I am choosing not to at this point. I LIKE the look of photography taken in all natural light and in my opinion you can not get studio lighting to look exactly the same as natural light.




What evidence and/or experience is your opinion based upon?
The "natural" lighting of today is not guaranteed to be the same tomorrow.
The "natural" lighting" at this moment is not guaranteed to be the same in the next 5 minutes, much less the slotted time of your shoot.
If the "natural" light also contains a lot of moisture, I can throw my "unnatural" light a hundred feet from a dry shelter to light my subject.
At a glance, can you tell me this wasn't lit from an open window?



 


At a glance, can you tell me why using fill flash makes this unnatural? Oh wait....... she's missing the raccoon eyes. nvmd​ 


 




Kyna said:


> Now I do hope to get some reflectors and learn how to work with the natural light better, but I'm not choosing natural light because I'm too stupid to figure out a flash.


It is nothing more difficult than learning how to operate your camera. It takes time, desire and lots of bad shots.


----------



## Kyna (May 3, 2011)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Kyna said:
> 
> 
> > The tilt.......*I don't think it is intended to show movement at least not in my pictures*, it is just a different perspective but I can understand that it appeals to some but not others.
> ...





Bitter Jeweler said:


> You might want to check out ilovephotography.com they are much kinder, and less critical than this forum. You will fit right in.



I'm not defending........I am just trying to discuss.  I didn't realize that when asking for C&C I was supposed to take YOUR opinions as 100% truth and not discuss my point of view on them.  I wasn't getting pissy because of the criticism and I said THANK YOU.


----------



## Kyna (May 3, 2011)

kundalini said:


> Kyna said:
> 
> 
> > Nope I don't know how to use off camera flash...........I could learn, if I choose to. I am choosing not to at this point. I LIKE the look of photography taken in all natural light and in my opinion you can not get studio lighting to look exactly the same as natural light.
> ...


 
In my opinion both of these do look like they are obviously lit by an "man made" source.  There is a glare on her hair and she just looks plastic to me.  

I don't understand why you people think it is your way or the highway.  Whatever.  I'll get in my car and drive I guess.


----------



## KmH (May 3, 2011)

:salute:


----------



## AUG19 (May 3, 2011)

Kyna, i prefer the straight-forward style of 1 but it's a bit too off center IMO. The focus in 2 is much better but the branches in the way distract. People choosing to stand on railways lines, for me is really becoming tedious and looks cheesy. I'm just being honest..appologies if it comes over rude.


----------



## AUG19 (May 3, 2011)

I'm a fan of natural light for a certain style of shot (more the candid/documentary type). For a portrait, pure use of available light should be where it has a dramatic quality.


----------



## o hey tyler (May 3, 2011)

Kyna said:


> I don't understand why you people think it is your way or the highway.  Whatever.  I'll get in my car and drive I guess.


 
I don't understand why you would intentionally limit your skill set or abilities by not utilizing flash. Light is light (whether you understand that or not).  Whatever.  I'll get in my car and smoke a joint I guess.


----------



## vtf (May 3, 2011)

*I absolutely love this, great example Kundalini!*


----------



## AUG19 (May 3, 2011)

It's a great image


----------



## vtf (May 3, 2011)

*Kyna*. I tried to use natural light for everything at the beginning. On an overcast day or in shade (equal to room light) my shutter would be too slow or I'd have too high of ISO or worse yet I'd have such a wide open aperature that the dof would be way to narrow. When I started using flash those settings became so much easier to set and the overall shots became better. If you do not make a persons eyes pop in a picture you have missed their soul. 7 out of 10 people will miss what's wrong in the rest of the picture if the eyes pop. When you achieve that ability you will see more in that person than you did before.


----------



## mishele (May 3, 2011)

Mental note..........Porn in title=4+ pages of replies!! :thumbup:


----------



## Speckles (May 3, 2011)

mishele said:


> Mental note..........Porn in title=4+ pages of replies!! :thumbup:


 
Or prom.


----------



## redtippmann (May 3, 2011)

+ Who wouldn't want perfect lighting wherever they are?


----------



## The_Traveler (May 3, 2011)

The_Traveler said:


> *WTF?
> Is not anyone looking at whether the picture made the subject look good or interesting or something? Or just not willing to say anything?
> 
> Your sister is chubby; read http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=photographing+heavy+peoplehttp://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=photographing+heavy+peoplesome threads on how to pose chunky people to minimize their faults and maximize their good features.
> ...


 
I thought I'd just repeat this in case the OP hadn't noticed it.

and add some eye-catching emoticons. :lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:


----------



## mishele (May 3, 2011)

The_Traveler said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > *WTF?
> ...



I'm sorry.....wwwhat?!


----------



## The_Traveler (May 3, 2011)

mishele said:


> I'm sorry.....wwwhat?!



Sorry, there is a limit to my helpfulness.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (May 3, 2011)

Kyna said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > Kyna said:
> ...



I stated a 100% truth.

YOU ARE WELCOME


----------



## AUG19 (May 3, 2011)

I never knew Mother Teresa was bi-polar


----------



## Kyna (May 3, 2011)

Ok.........here are some SOOC, no editing at all.  So there is no way I can blame editing etc.  Maybe I just picked the wrong ones to edit..........or maybe they all suck.

1.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





2.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




-I know the lines of the road are at a bad spot, right next to her face, but lighting, sharpness etc.......

3.


----------



## redtippmann (May 3, 2011)

I gotta agree with Mother Teresa on this one. Full bodied people don't look great straight on like 2&3..... unless you like that look 

And with 2&3 the road is a good  3/8 to 1/2 stop brighter than your subject; which draws the eye away from your subject and towards the bright spots.


----------



## AUG19 (May 3, 2011)

The join in the tarmac #2 makes it look like a center-fold lol.


----------



## bentcountershaft (May 3, 2011)

I know you're all about natural light and all, but had you used a fill flash you could have had a nice sky instead of it being blown out.


----------



## Jeatley (May 3, 2011)

Kyna said:


> I wanted to do more then just the train tracks but it had been pouring down rain so we couldn't go tromping through the woods like I had hoped.........she lives in a SUPER small town with like 200 people.  So the options were limited.


 
HINT AT PHOTOGRAPHY!  Options are never limited.  They are only limited to your creativity.  I have shot in clients front yard and when they see the images they dont remember some of the shots.  Find the differenices in everyday spots too!


----------



## Jeatley (May 3, 2011)

the 1st of these three is the only one that looks like there is a good exposure on the subject.  But the image makes no sense to me.  Maybe if she was looking down the tracks?  I dont know.  The other two look underexposed and out of focus


----------



## AtuspidsGoddess (May 3, 2011)

Kyna said:


> Thanks Rancor.  I KNOW that they aren't perfect which is why they are posted in the BEGINNER section and I am ASKING for C&C.  But I also know that I have talent that just needs to be refined.  I literally just got my first DSLR in December and people are already paying me to take their pictures.  I WANT to take perfect pictures......I know that I am not yet.


 


Rancor said:


> For having started in DEC, and getting paid already, I don't think that can be overlooked as a good job. I got mine in NOV, but no money yet. I don't think I have the nerve to ask for money, I feel like I wouldn't live up to it.


 
I guess what kind of strikes the nerves is the "I just got my first DSLR in DEC and _already_ people are paying me to take their pictures..." No offense but it seems self tooting and that was about what I got from the posts... it seems like...saying you want C&C and then saying how as sucky as your photos may be...people are already paying you for taking them...it's almost like saying..."so who cares what you people have to say because people pay me, must mean I have talent..."...but as I said...just pointing out why some people here may have been rubbed a certain way...as Rancor has said...I wouldn't ask for money just cause I don't think I could live up to it...and I'd feel like people are being cheated if I delivered half a$$ quality pics...but that's just me...and I've been seriously shooting for just a year and a half...I'm still doing a lot of work for free...just my two cents.

In the spirit of constructive criticism...I would definitely like to see these photos sharpened a bit...I think it would definitely make the subject pop! Keep at it, practice makes perfect!


----------



## AtuspidsGoddess (May 3, 2011)

Kyna said:


> Thanks Rancor.  I KNOW that they aren't perfect which is why they are posted in the BEGINNER section and I am ASKING for C&C.  But I also know that I have talent that just needs to be refined.  I literally just got my first DSLR in December and people are already paying me to take their pictures.  I WANT to take perfect pictures......I know that I am not yet.


 


bentcountershaft said:


> I know you're all about natural light and all, but had you used a fill flash you could have had a nice sky instead of it being blown out.


 
Oooooh!  Is that how you avoid getting a blown out sky when shooting with natural light?!...is that same with overcast sky as well?


----------



## tirediron (May 4, 2011)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Join! I did, it's fun!



Me too; apparently two stops over is the new correctly exposed!


----------



## Derrel (May 4, 2011)

A touch of reflector fill, or fill-flash would have helped her eyes appear more lifelike and sparkly in most of these shots.


----------



## robbensays (May 4, 2011)

Great read & thread, I have learn quite a  few things from this thread!


----------



## kundalini (May 4, 2011)

Kyna said:


> In my opinion both of these do look like they are obviously lit by an "man made" source. There is a glare on her hair and she just looks plastic to me.
> 
> I don't understand why you people think it is your way or the highway. Whatever. I'll get in my car and drive I guess.



Thank you for your response.


----------



## Jarrod268 (May 4, 2011)

tirediron said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > Join! I did, it's fun!
> ...


 
Well, you always hear "expose to the right".... They just leave of that you fix it in post.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk


----------



## o hey tyler (May 4, 2011)

Jarrod268 said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > Bitter Jeweler said:
> ...


 
And that's pretty stupid IMO. I haven't found a reason to expose to the right under normal conditions. Heck, I haven't exposed to the right intentionally for any reason. I prefer to have the most image data in my raw file.


----------



## clanthar (May 4, 2011)

o hey tyler said:


> Jarrod268 said:
> 
> 
> > tirediron said:
> ...



The entire point behind "expose to the right" is to make sure you have the most image data in your RAW file.

Joe


----------



## Jarrod268 (May 4, 2011)

clanthar said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > Jarrod268 said:
> ...


 
+1

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk


----------

