# Are my photos good enough to start charging for sessions?



## beccaf91

I have been a photography enthusiast for years and would really like to turn this enthusiasm into a lucrative business. I have family members and friends tell me these are great and blah, blah, blah. But I know that doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things. Really looking for any constructive criticism on composition and overall quality of the photos. Also, if I need a reality check, please feel free to include that as well. Portrait/lifestyle photography is my focus.

Canon EOS 400D (Rebel xTi)
Canon 50mm


 

 F1.8


----------



## tirediron

Reality Check (also known by my Indian name of "Big Chief Rains on Parade"):  If people are willing to pay, you're ready to charge.  BUT...  are these images of a standard that i think people should pay for?  No.  Why? Because, while they are decently exposed and properly focused, there are quite a few issues.  First and foremost, the backgrounds, IMO are horribly busy and distracting.  Both are significantly off-level and the composition is not what I would consider ideal.

That said, you have made very good use of aperture to achieve selective focus, and the eyes are bright and clear.  My suggestion would be to spend some time working on the basics.  Practice getting your images level, concentrate on your backgrounds, and study compositional theory.  Are you there yet?  Not IMO.  Can you get there?  Definitely.


----------



## Derrel

I have to agree with Tirediron's comments about the photographic and compositional technique these two pictures display. Assuming these are two of your better images, I would imagine that others are less successful than these two frames. I will pass along one tip for photographing smaller children: working at these distances with that lens at such wide f/stops is a recipe for many, many reject shots, as far as focus goes. These have the bare minimum of depth of field; closing down to f/3.5 and finding/setting up less-distracting backgrounds would be a smart strategy for avoiding shots that must be rejected due to slight focusing errors under real-world conditions.

Photographing smaller children of this age is, as you know, hard work! They move! They don't follow many directions! Focus and recompose at this range is **inaccurate as heck** if you are using the center AF square. At 7 to 10 feet at f/2 or so, the edges of the frame and the center of the frame are at different distances; distances which will exceed the DOF band of a lens shot at wide f/stops, and that's where/why a good number of missed focus shots can occur. At f/3.5 or at f/4, the overall net DOF at this camera-to-subject and subject-to-background range will be "similar", but there will be just enough additional DOF to make a keeper out of what would easily have been an f/2 but rejected image.

I dislike rendering opinions of peoples' skill level based on two, individual photos of related children who appear to maybe be the OP's own offspring. Two shots is not a lot to go on, but it can reveal a few things, but it's not the ideal way to evaluate a photographer. If we saw 100 of your photos, we could probably form better opinions, and spot trends, and patterns, and better evaluate the overall skill level you are currently at to a better degree than we can from seeing only these two shots.


----------



## dasmith232

I agree with the above comments. At the same time, I've seen worse work coming from people who charge money. There are plenty of examples of "instant wedding photographer" that never last more than one or two weddings followed by a word-of-mouth bad reputation.

So by definition, are you good enough to charge? Yes. With continued experience and fine-tuning the craft, you'll be better off to *stay* in business with a strong reputation.


----------



## Vtec44

You should see some of the first photos people paid me.  LOL   No one is ever ready to charge if you don't take that initial step.  You're never good enough to charge the amount that you charge, regardless of where you're at in your photography career.  If you're start charging, make sure you be honest to yourself and to your clients.  Love what you do, share that love with the people who also love what you do, then invest what you've earned back in yourself and improve. 

Every journey begins with a single step.  Best of luck to you!


----------



## beccaf91

tirediron said:


> Reality Check (also known by my Indian name of "Big Chief Rains on Parade"):  If people are willing to pay, you're ready to charge.  BUT...  are these images of a standard that i think people should pay for?  No.  Why? Because, while they are decently exposed and properly focused, there are quite a few issues.  First and foremost, the backgrounds, IMO are horribly busy and distracting.  Both are significantly off-level and the composition is not what I would consider ideal.
> 
> That said, you have made very good use of aperture to achieve selective focus, and the eyes are bright and clear.  My suggestion would be to spend some time working on the basics.  Practice getting your images level, concentrate on your backgrounds, and study compositional theory.  Are you there yet?  Not IMO.  Can you get there?  Definitely.




I kind of already knew that was coming. I understand the background is very "loud" and technically the background isn't supposed to draw away from the subject. I could have probably cropped some of it out but overall, I thought they were eye-catching. I know it doesn't follow the rules. This may seem a silly question but, when you say getting the image "level" are you referring to how the subject sits within the frame?


----------



## beccaf91

Derrel said:


> I have to agree with Tirediron's comments about the photographic and compositional technique these two pictures display. Assuming these are two of your better images, I would imagine that others are less successful than these two frames. I will pass along one tip for photographing smaller children: working at these distances with that lens at such wide f/stops is a recipe for many, many reject shots, as far as focus goes. These have the bare minimum of depth of field; closing down to f/3.5 and finding/setting up less-distracting backgrounds would be a smart strategy for avoiding shots that must be rejected due to slight focusing errors under real-world conditions.
> 
> Photographing smaller children of this age is, as you know, hard work! They move! They don't follow many directions! Focus and recompose at this range is **inaccurate as heck** if you are using the center AF square. At 7 to 10 feet at f/2 or so, the edges of the frame and the center of the frame are at different distances; distances which will exceed the DOF band of a lens shot at wide f/stops, and that's where/why a good number of missed focus shots can occur. At f/3.5 or at f/4, the overall net DOF at this camera-to-subject and subject-to-background range will be "similar", but there will be just enough additional DOF to make a keeper out of what would easily have been an f/2 but rejected image.
> 
> I dislike rendering opinions of peoples' skill level based on two, individual photos of related children who appear to maybe be the OP's own offspring. Two shots is not a lot to go on, but it can reveal a few things, but it's not the ideal way to evaluate a photographer. If we saw 100 of your photos, we could probably form better opinions, and spot trends, and patterns, and better evaluate the overall skill level you are currently at to a better degree than we can from seeing only these two shots.



I don't have a ton of portraits to show you guys yet.

 

 

 

 But as far as composition, I don't know if these would help my case.


----------



## JohnnyWrench

Level is in reference to the horizon.


----------



## tirediron

beccaf91 said:


> ... when you say getting the image "level" are you referring to how the subject sits within the frame?


How the image is actually framed.  Verticals (signs, trees, etc) should be vertical, horizontals, (roads, horizons, etc) should be horizontal.  In your first image, it's easy to see that the structure image right is leaning about 10-15 out of vertical, and the whole image should be rotated left about 10-15 degrees.


----------



## KmH

Direction & Quality of Light: Your Key to Better Portrait Photography Anywhere
On-Camera Flash: Techniques for Digital Wedding and Portrait Photography
Off-Camera Flash: Techniques for Digital Photographers

Strobist: Lighting 101

The lens you're using is producing unpleasant and jittery bokeh, most noticeable in the photo of the boy. Canon's inexpensive consumer grade EF-S 50 mm F/1.8 II lens is infamous for the nervous, jittery bokeh quality it delivers because it has only 5 aperture blades that have sharp and straight edges.

I would suggest both photos need some basic editing to be 'finished ' photos.
• Set white and black points
• Boost mid-tone contrast.
• Sharpen
• Compensate the boy's eye area for the poor light direction and light quality that made his eye sockets dark.
• Crop

If you have so little portrait experience that you only have a couple of photos to show I don't think you're ready to charge people so you can learn the basics of doing portrait photography. IMO the non-portrait photos you have posted also don't have good composition nor do they display a good technical working knowledge of photography.

But, getting people to pay you to make photos for them is mostly about the business skills you have instead of how good your photographs are.





I didn't edit the dark eye sockets. I did desaturate and add .25 EV of exposure to his sclera.


----------



## Designer

beccaf91 said:


> I have family members and friends tell me these are great ..


If all you ever hope to have for customers are family and friends, then you're all set.  If, on the other hand, you want to be able to compete with the pros, then what you should strive for is to make other  photographers green with envy when they look at your photos.  THEN you will have arrived!



beccaf91 said:


> when you say getting the image "level" are you referring to how the subject sits within the frame?


If there is absolutely nothing that tips us off as to it not being straight (such as a solitary seated child with nothing else identifiable in the shot) then maybe it's just "how it looks".  BUT, in the first shot, there are parts of a building in the background, and having that not plumb/level is disconcerting to many people.  You should always straighten your shots before showing them to anybody.  The one exception is if you have tilted the frame on purpose "for effect" in which case we know that you intended to make it crooked.  BTW: I will now add that if you "overdo it", with no apparent reason behind the tilt, then your shots begin to look trite, and an aspiring professional does not wish to appear trite.  

Learn the rules, practice the rules, then if you wish to "break the rules" you should know how and why to avoid appearing capricious and ill-trained.


----------



## beccaf91

tirediron said:


> beccaf91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... when you say getting the image "level" are you referring to how the subject sits within the frame?
> 
> 
> 
> How the image is actually framed.  Verticals (signs, trees, etc) should be vertical, horizontals, (roads, horizons, etc) should be horizontal.  In your first image, it's easy to see that the structure image right is leaning about 10-15 out of vertical, and the whole image should be rotated left about 10-15 degrees.
Click to expand...

Got it. Thank you!


----------



## OGsPhotography

I wish you didnt show the second set. I wont answer the OP question besides saying that.

You've received a lot of good advice above, if you want to start a business, no amount of internet wisdom will help you. 

Make a plan. Then make another. Buy a few books related to your plan, get the gear, register the business, get insurance, get a lawyer, banker and accountant. Then if you still have it, the drive, do it.

If you have 0 business experience, get professional help, take a course or two or three on business.


----------



## Destin

Are you confident enough in your work that you can walk into ANY location or situation, regardless of the light, weather, or time of day, and make great photos? Are you comfortable using flash? Off camera flash? Mixing flash and ambient? Do you have backup equipment in case something fails?

If the answer to any of these is no, I wouldn't recommend charging for photos. When you charge for portraits, people expect you to be able to perform whether the light is good or bad, and whether it's sunny, cloudy, or rainy. 

You have the basics down from the looks of it. Study the strobist links that KMH provided, they will serve you well. Work on post processing techniques and composition.  IMO you aren't ready to start charging YET, but you could be in 6 months to a year if you're willing to put in REAL effort to learning.


----------



## Gary A.

One of the primary differences between a "Pro" and "Hobbyist" is consistency.  A pro will consistency capture pro-level images on every assignment/job. 

Let's just say the first two images you posted are 'pro' level images, you must replicate that level of performance, upon demand and on every working day.  Luck doesn't come into play when you're a pro.


----------



## table1349

beccaf91 said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to agree with Tirediron's comments about the photographic and compositional technique these two pictures display. Assuming these are two of your better images, I would imagine that others are less successful than these two frames. I will pass along one tip for photographing smaller children: working at these distances with that lens at such wide f/stops is a recipe for many, many reject shots, as far as focus goes. These have the bare minimum of depth of field; closing down to f/3.5 and finding/setting up less-distracting backgrounds would be a smart strategy for avoiding shots that must be rejected due to slight focusing errors under real-world conditions.
> 
> Photographing smaller children of this age is, as you know, hard work! They move! They don't follow many directions! Focus and recompose at this range is **inaccurate as heck** if you are using the center AF square. At 7 to 10 feet at f/2 or so, the edges of the frame and the center of the frame are at different distances; distances which will exceed the DOF band of a lens shot at wide f/stops, and that's where/why a good number of missed focus shots can occur. At f/3.5 or at f/4, the overall net DOF at this camera-to-subject and subject-to-background range will be "similar", but there will be just enough additional DOF to make a keeper out of what would easily have been an f/2 but rejected image.
> 
> I dislike rendering opinions of peoples' skill level based on two, individual photos of related children who appear to maybe be the OP's own offspring. Two shots is not a lot to go on, but it can reveal a few things, but it's not the ideal way to evaluate a photographer. If we saw 100 of your photos, we could probably form better opinions, and spot trends, and patterns, and better evaluate the overall skill level you are currently at to a better degree than we can from seeing only these two shots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have a ton of portraits to show you guys yet.
Click to expand...

That is a telling statement to me.  In addition to what has already been said,  when one is ready to charge, especially in the portrait world one needs to be able to produce a multitude of sell-able images with each shoot.  Not everyone will be that golden image, but the majority should be good enough to be worthy of display.


----------



## Trever1t

Gary A. said:


> One of the primary differences between a "Pro" and "Hobbyist" is *consistency*.  A pro will consistency capture pro-level images on every assignment/job.
> .



This...well except some of us non-working professionals may take exception.  

Consistency is difficult for many because it requires an intimate relationship with your equipment and a broad understanding and ability to see the light. 

Can you charge? Like said, I've seen worse. Should you charge? My opinion is that nobody should be charging anyone before they're a Master of photography, but that's just my opinion.


----------



## beccaf91

I do have consistent shots as far as exposure and focus but now that I'm looking through them I see that the majority aren't level and have distracting backgrounds. I thought it added to the overall photo but I see the pros disagree. Thanks to everyone who has provided actual learning opportunities. I'll be back soon with updates.


----------



## Destin

beccaf91 said:


> I do have consistent shots as far as exposure and focus but now that I'm looking through them I see that the majority aren't level and have distracting backgrounds. I thought it added to the overall photo but I see the pros disagree. Thanks to everyone who has provided actual learning opportunities. I'll be back soon with updates. View attachment 135286



We're all here to help you grow. We've all been where you are.

Keep coming back, getting c&c, putting it to use. It's a never ending cycle. Keep your nose in a book or a YouTube video. Aim to learn something new about photography daily.

You clearly have a passion. You have potential. It just takes time and work.


----------



## cherylynne1

I've been in your position, so I understand how you feel. Here's the thing: You have excellent family photos, well above average for Facebook and family photo albums. And for many people, they feel that once they get better than their Facebook friends, that puts them in the realm of professionals. However, that's not the case. There is a huge gap between the best family snapshots and the lowest tier of professional photographers. 

Right now, your biggest focus should be building a portfolio. Ask friends and family if you can do portraits of them, ask for critique on the photos, then take more. If they turn out well, great! You have pictures for a future website, and the family has photos that they'll put in their home or on Facebook. Then when you're ready for business, all of your friends and friends of friends will be somewhat familiar with you as a photographer, and you'll have your first set of clients. After that, you'll have to work harder to expand from that small circle, but that's a discussion for another time. 

In my opinion, a good portfolio should have about 15-20 photos from about 10 photoshoots, and feature a fairly diverse set of people. Different ages, different ethnicities, different body types, etc. It's fine if you want to specialize somewhat...for instance, if you want to primarily photograph children, there's no need to have boudoir shots in your portfolio. But you should have babies, toddlers, and school age children. After you have a name for yourself, you can choose to specialize even further (I.e. only newborns, only high school seniors, etc.) 

Anyway, just my thoughts on the topic. You have talent, don't give up. It's just going to take a little more work to get you to where you need to be.


----------



## beccaf91

Destin said:


> beccaf91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do have consistent shots as far as exposure and focus but now that I'm looking through them I see that the majority aren't level and have distracting backgrounds. I thought it added to the overall photo but I see the pros disagree. Thanks to everyone who has provided actual learning opportunities. I'll be back soon with updates. View attachment 135286
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're all here to help you grow. We've all been where you are.
> 
> Keep coming back, getting c&c, putting it to use. It's a never ending cycle. Keep your nose in a book or a YouTube video. Aim to learn something new about photography daily.
> 
> You clearly have a passion. You have potential. It just takes time and work.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the tips and the encouragement!


----------



## chuasam

Capturing the moment and the emotion counts for more when charging for photos. Go ahead and do it.


----------



## beccaf91

chuasam said:


> Capturing the moment and the emotion counts for more when charging for photos. Go ahead and do it.


Thank you so much! That's just what I needed to hear.


----------



## chuasam

beccaf91 said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capturing the moment and the emotion counts for more when charging for photos. Go ahead and do it.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you so much! That's just what I needed to hear.
Click to expand...

Ignore the naysayers. I would rather buy your photos that capture the feeling than those boring sharp school day photo crap that some people here produce.
Clients honestly can't tell a technically perfect photo from  one with a few flaws. They really want to capture the happiness they feel when the see their kid.
Want to get into the business? Focus on the soft skills, the people skills. Understand your client needs (not just what they say). Learn to package your product. Learn to show interest when they tell you what photos they'd like. Bring treats for the kids (with the parents permission). Connect with your subject.

Sell the experience.
People are more likely to buy photos if they enjoyed the process. Rather than "good" photos and they hated every minute of the shoot.

You'll do far better than the boring formal portrait crowd.


----------



## Designer

chuasam said:


> Sell the experience.


I once worked for a man who was a terrible designer, but he always had new clients because he could sell his services to the next unwitting client.  It was always a new client, never a repeat client.


----------



## Destin

Designer said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sell the experience.
> 
> 
> 
> I once worked for a man who was a terrible designer, but he always had new clients because he could sell his services to the next unwitting client.  It was always a new client, never a repeat client.
Click to expand...


Not exactly a long term sustainable business model. For most photographers, your bread and butter comes from loyal repeat customers.


----------



## chuasam

Designer said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sell the experience.
> 
> 
> 
> I once worked for a man who was a terrible designer, but he always had new clients because he could sell his services to the next unwitting client.  It was always a new client, never a repeat client.
Click to expand...


Her stuff isn't terrible. It isn't high end but she has to start somewhere.


----------



## Designer

chuasam said:


> Her stuff isn't terrible. It isn't high end but she has to start somewhere.


You missed my point, but I had to write something.


----------



## beccaf91

cherylynne1 said:


> I've been in your position, so I understand how you feel. Here's the thing: You have excellent family photos, well above average for Facebook and family photo albums. And for many people, they feel that once they get better than their Facebook friends, that puts them in the realm of professionals. However, that's not the case. There is a huge gap between the best family snapshots and the lowest tier of professional photographers.
> 
> Right now, your biggest focus should be building a portfolio. Ask friends and family if you can do portraits of them, ask for critique on the photos, then take more. If they turn out well, great! You have pictures for a future website, and the family has photos that they'll put in their home or on Facebook. Then when you're ready for business, all of your friends and friends of friends will be somewhat familiar with you as a photographer, and you'll have your first set of clients. After that, you'll have to work harder to expand from that small circle, but that's a discussion for another time.
> 
> In my opinion, a good portfolio should have about 15-20 photos from about 10 photoshoots, and feature a fairly diverse set of people. Different ages, different ethnicities, different body types, etc. It's fine if you want to specialize somewhat...for instance, if you want to primarily photograph children, there's no need to have boudoir shots in your portfolio. But you should have babies, toddlers, and school age children. After you have a name for yourself, you can choose to specialize even further (I.e. only newborns, only high school seniors, etc.)
> 
> Anyway, just my thoughts on the topic. You have talent, don't give up. It's just going to take a little more work to get you to where you need to be.


I realize my portolio is lacking and I have some basics to brush up on. I practice shooting something new every day. Thank you for the advice and encouragement!


----------



## beccaf91

OGsPhotography said:


> I wish you didnt show the second set. I wont answer the OP question besides saying that.
> 
> You've received a lot of good advice above, if you want to start a business, no amount of internet wisdom will help you.
> 
> Make a plan. Then make another. Buy a few books related to your plan, get the gear, register the business, get insurance, get a lawyer, banker and accountant. Then if you still have it, the drive, do it.
> 
> If you have 0 business experience, get professional help, take a course or two or three on business.


Oh goodness. Well thanks for the "advice".


----------



## tirediron

beccaf91 said:


> ... I practice shooting something new every day. Thank you for the advice and encouragement!


This sounds like it might be part of the issue; using the 'shotgun' approach.  Rather than trying something new each day, make a list of priorities, and get the basics of them down; such things as (in no particular order):  Using a reflector, posing, off-camera flash...  I don't mean shoot only that to the exclusion of all else, rather concentrate on it.  For instance, composition is something you can practice every single time you capture an image, posing, even if it's just a happy snap of your children, take an extra second or two and give them a little direction.The problem with photography is that it's actually work.  Just like a carpenter doesn't learn to make perfect crosscuts without spending a lot of time turning boards into sawdust, we can't learn our craft without a lot of images consigned to the circular file!


----------



## beccaf91

Trever1t said:


> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the primary differences between a "Pro" and "Hobbyist" is *consistency*.  A pro will consistency capture pro-level images on every assignment/job.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This...well except some of us non-working professionals may take exception.
> 
> Consistency is difficult for many because it requires an intimate relationship with your equipment and a broad understanding and ability to see the light.
> 
> Can you charge? Like said, I've seen worse. Should you charge? My opinion is that nobody should be charging anyone before they're a Master of photography, but that's just my opinion.
Click to expand...

The reason I asked is because I don't want to sell anything that the potential client would be disappointed with. Especially, in regards to children. These are moments that the parents want to be able to hold onto for a lifetime and I wouldn't consider it morally/ethically sound to ask for money while not being able to deliver a satisfactory product. I also want to be proud of the work I'm doing.  Thanks for the advice!


----------



## beccaf91

chuasam said:


> beccaf91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capturing the moment and the emotion counts for more when charging for photos. Go ahead and do it.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you so much! That's just what I needed to hear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ignore the naysayers. I would rather buy your photos that capture the feeling than those boring sharp school day photo crap that some people here produce.
> Clients honestly can't tell a technically perfect photo from  one with a few flaws. They really want to capture the happiness they feel when the see their kid.
> Want to get into the business? Focus on the soft skills, the people skills. Understand your client needs (not just what they say). Learn to package your product. Learn to show interest when they tell you what photos they'd like. Bring treats for the kids (with the parents permission). Connect with your subject.
> 
> Sell the experience.
> People are more likely to buy photos if they enjoyed the process. Rather than "good" photos and they hated every minute of the shoot.
> 
> You'll do far better than the boring formal portrait crowd.
Click to expand...

I really do appreciate all your kind words! I know  I have some technical aspects to brush up on but I am really just trying to capture the moment. I want my photos to elicit an emotional response. I want something the parents can look back on and smile at  years from now. The reason I even asked is because I don't want to feel that I'm ripping people off. I honestly do appreciate those who have been constructive in their responses.


----------



## beccaf91

gryphonslair99 said:


> beccaf91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to agree with Tirediron's comments about the photographic and compositional technique these two pictures display. Assuming these are two of your better images, I would imagine that others are less successful than these two frames. I will pass along one tip for photographing smaller children: working at these distances with that lens at such wide f/stops is a recipe for many, many reject shots, as far as focus goes. These have the bare minimum of depth of field; closing down to f/3.5 and finding/setting up less-distracting backgrounds would be a smart strategy for avoiding shots that must be rejected due to slight focusing errors under real-world conditions.
> 
> Photographing smaller children of this age is, as you know, hard work! They move! They don't follow many directions! Focus and recompose at this range is **inaccurate as heck** if you are using the center AF square. At 7 to 10 feet at f/2 or so, the edges of the frame and the center of the frame are at different distances; distances which will exceed the DOF band of a lens shot at wide f/stops, and that's where/why a good number of missed focus shots can occur. At f/3.5 or at f/4, the overall net DOF at this camera-to-subject and subject-to-background range will be "similar", but there will be just enough additional DOF to make a keeper out of what would easily have been an f/2 but rejected image.
> 
> I dislike rendering opinions of peoples' skill level based on two, individual photos of related children who appear to maybe be the OP's own offspring. Two shots is not a lot to go on, but it can reveal a few things, but it's not the ideal way to evaluate a photographer. If we saw 100 of your photos, we could probably form better opinions, and spot trends, and patterns, and better evaluate the overall skill level you are currently at to a better degree than we can from seeing only these two shots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have a ton of portraits to show you guys yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a telling statement to me.  In addition to what has already been said,  when one is ready to charge, especially in the portrait world one needs to be able to produce a multitude of sell-able images with each shoot.  Not everyone will be that golden image, but the majority should be good enough to be worthy of display.
Click to expand...


My photos are very consistent in exposure and focus. But I am aware that I have to brush up on the composition. Thanks for the advice!


----------



## Designer

I think you have already said you want to concentrate on portraiture, so do that.  Do nothing but portraiture.  Learn the technical aspects of portrait photography.  Read up on posing, lighting, photographing particular body types, learn makeup (or hire it done) hairstyling (at least well enough so you can criticize the MUA when they mess up).  Buy, rent, borrow or steal lighting equipment.  Hire, trick, or coerce friends, family, neighbors, or strangers as you models.  They will get tired of posing, so you'll have to develop a steady supply of replacements ready to be drafted.  Go to your portfolio and delete everything that is not a portrait.  Still life and landscape is irrelevant here.


----------



## beccaf91

Destin said:


> beccaf91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do have consistent shots as far as exposure and focus but now that I'm looking through them I see that the majority aren't level and have distracting backgrounds. I thought it added to the overall photo but I see the pros disagree. Thanks to everyone who has provided actual learning opportunities. I'll be back soon with updates. View attachment 135286
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're all here to help you grow. We've all been where you are.
> 
> Keep coming back, getting c&c, putting it to use. It's a never ending cycle. Keep your nose in a book or a YouTube video. Aim to learn something new about photography daily.
> 
> You clearly have a passion. You have potential. It just takes time and work.
Click to expand...

Thank you, thank you! I am putting in some work today!


----------



## beccaf91

Designer said:


> I'm agreeable.
> 
> I think you have already said you want to concentrate on portraiture, so do that.  Do nothing but portraiture.  Learn the technical aspects of portrait photography.  Read up on posing, lighting, photographing particular body types, learn makeup (or hire it done) hairstyling (at least well enough so you can criticize the MUA when they mess up).  Buy, rent, borrow or steal lighting equipment.  Hire, trick, or coerce friends, family, neighbors, or strangers as you models.  They will get tired of posing, so you'll have to develop a steady supply of replacements ready to be drafted.  Go to your portfolio and delete everything that is not a portrait.  Still life and landscape is irrelevant here.





Designer said:


> Hire, trick, or coerce friends, family, neighbors, or strangers as you models.


^^^ I think this is the best tip I've gotten so far.


----------



## beccaf91

Designer said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sell the experience.
> 
> 
> 
> I once worked for a man who was a terrible designer, but he always had new clients because he could sell his services to the next unwitting client.  It was always a new client, never a repeat client.
Click to expand...

And I don't want that. I want my potential clients to come back and see their child grow; through my lens.


----------



## Designer

beccaf91 said:


> ^^^ I think this is the best tip I've gotten so far.


Thanks.  I'm full of 'em.


----------



## Designer

beccaf91 said:


> And I don't want that. I want my potential clients to come back and see their child grow; through my lens.


Without showing too much rancor in my posts, I occasionally will be highly critical of poor advice.  That's what that was.  You're doing just fine.


----------



## beccaf91

tirediron said:


> beccaf91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... I practice shooting something new every day. Thank you for the advice and encouragement!
> 
> 
> 
> This sounds like it might be part of the issue; using the 'shotgun' approach.  Rather than trying something new each day, make a list of priorities, and get the basics of them down; such things as (in no particular order):  Using a reflector, posing, off-camera flash...  I don't mean shoot only that to the exclusion of all else, rather concentrate on it.  For instance, composition is something you can practice every single time you capture an image, posing, even if it's just a happy snap of your children, take an extra second or two and give them a little direction.The problem with photography is that it's actually work.  Just like a carpenter doesn't learn to make perfect crosscuts without spending a lot of time turning boards into sawdust, we can't learn our craft without a lot of images consigned to the circular file!
Click to expand...

When I said new; I meant new settings. I have taken note of your critique and plan to focus on composition and to try to find new areas to take photos. I don't want to do studio portrait photography; my photographer works outdoors and I like the feel of those better. I have a friend who is successful that started out doing event photography; and studio portraiture. But that isn't what I want. This is the style I'm after.


----------



## beccaf91

Destin said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sell the experience.
> 
> 
> 
> I once worked for a man who was a terrible designer, but he always had new clients because he could sell his services to the next unwitting client.  It was always a new client, never a repeat client.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not exactly a long term sustainable business model. For most photographers, your bread and butter comes from loyal repeat customers.
Click to expand...

That's what I'm going for. I think _chuasam _was just concerned that I might be discouraged. I'm not. I'm not trying to start a "get rich quick" scheme. It's a passion first and foremost; I want to be proud of the work I do. And while some of the comments were a bit scathing; I have thick skin. I believe in myself; and I'm here because I want the advice of people that know what they're talking about. I saw a similar thread from someone asking the same question and he ended up saying he would stick to his day job. Lol. Well I'm not quitting my day job just yet; but sooooon. Lol


----------



## chuasam

beccaf91 said:


> Trever1t said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the primary differences between a "Pro" and "Hobbyist" is *consistency*.  A pro will consistency capture pro-level images on every assignment/job.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This...well except some of us non-working professionals may take exception.
> 
> Consistency is difficult for many because it requires an intimate relationship with your equipment and a broad understanding and ability to see the light.
> 
> Can you charge? Like said, I've seen worse. Should you charge? My opinion is that nobody should be charging anyone before they're a Master of photography, but that's just my opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The reason I asked is because I don't want to sell anything that the potential client would be disappointed with. Especially, in regards to children. These are moments that the parents want to be able to hold onto for a lifetime and I wouldn't consider it morally/ethically sound to ask for money while not being able to deliver a satisfactory product. I also want to be proud of the work I'm doing.  Thanks for the advice!
Click to expand...

Even McDonald's charges for their burgers.
What you create has value. If you want to practice, shoot for a charity or cause you care about and then get a tax donation credit for the equivalent value of your work.

Find something you really care about and go photograph that.
You have some issues with cropping but you can easily get past that with more practice.

If you think you're a master at your work it means that you're just complacent and will be stuck at that level for all eternity.

Find your style, find your unique vision. Sell that.


----------



## table1349

beccaf91 said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beccaf91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to agree with Tirediron's comments about the photographic and compositional technique these two pictures display. Assuming these are two of your better images, I would imagine that others are less successful than these two frames. I will pass along one tip for photographing smaller children: working at these distances with that lens at such wide f/stops is a recipe for many, many reject shots, as far as focus goes. These have the bare minimum of depth of field; closing down to f/3.5 and finding/setting up less-distracting backgrounds would be a smart strategy for avoiding shots that must be rejected due to slight focusing errors under real-world conditions.
> 
> Photographing smaller children of this age is, as you know, hard work! They move! They don't follow many directions! Focus and recompose at this range is **inaccurate as heck** if you are using the center AF square. At 7 to 10 feet at f/2 or so, the edges of the frame and the center of the frame are at different distances; distances which will exceed the DOF band of a lens shot at wide f/stops, and that's where/why a good number of missed focus shots can occur. At f/3.5 or at f/4, the overall net DOF at this camera-to-subject and subject-to-background range will be "similar", but there will be just enough additional DOF to make a keeper out of what would easily have been an f/2 but rejected image.
> 
> I dislike rendering opinions of peoples' skill level based on two, individual photos of related children who appear to maybe be the OP's own offspring. Two shots is not a lot to go on, but it can reveal a few things, but it's not the ideal way to evaluate a photographer. If we saw 100 of your photos, we could probably form better opinions, and spot trends, and patterns, and better evaluate the overall skill level you are currently at to a better degree than we can from seeing only these two shots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have a ton of portraits to show you guys yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a telling statement to me.  In addition to what has already been said,  when one is ready to charge, especially in the portrait world one needs to be able to produce a multitude of sell-able images with each shoot.  Not everyone will be that golden image, but the majority should be good enough to be worthy of display.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My photos are very consistent in exposure and focus. But I am aware that I have to brush up on the composition. Thanks for the advice!
Click to expand...

Consistent in exposure and focus are nice but not interesting.  I think you have received some good advise.  Learn the finer details of portrait photography.  Most people have an eye for finding a pleasing aspect of a subject.   The photographers that are successful in the business of photograph have the ability to see the entire photo before it is taken.  The devil is in the details.


----------



## OGsPhotography

beccaf91 said:


> OGsPhotography said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wish you didnt show the second set. I wont answer the OP question besides saying that.
> 
> You've received a lot of good advice above, if you want to start a business, no amount of internet wisdom will help you.
> 
> Make a plan. Then make another. Buy a few books related to your plan, get the gear, register the business, get insurance, get a lawyer, banker and accountant. Then if you still have it, the drive, do it.
> 
> If you have 0 business experience, get professional help, take a course or two or three on business.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh goodness. Well thanks for the "advice".
Click to expand...


Your welcome.

Whats wrong with that post? .... Show lifestyle and portraits if thats what you want to work on.

Books and professional business advice will go a long way. If you don't like that " advice" then you are biund to fail. Also, creative live, if you havent heard of that it is the best online learning tool I've seen.

Once again, your welcome. Wether you chiose to go to Creative Live dot com or not is up to you. Accountant, lawyer, banker, all on you.

Cant take advice, well...

"Hey man nice shot" is all you'll get.


----------



## Derrel

As gryph mentions, good focus and good exposure are a given these days: any decent camera can in light like this, nail focus and get a proper exposure. But composition and framing cannot be automated.

A good way to evaluate composition is by viewing thumbnails or reduced-sized images. I took the liberty of taking the three portait images posted in this thread, and making reduced-sized versions, so that you can see *the composition as a whole*, at a glance, and free from the beautiful and pleasing details of the subjects. Many times we're mesmerized by great eyes, or a cute smile, or some other thing we see in a proiminent way in a full-sized image. But when we see a thumbnail of an image, the overall "gestalt" of the images becomes what we see.

For example:


  in the Avaav shot, we see her cute gesture with hands to the face and a cute flower headband, but we can see that she's riding very,very low in the frame, and the orange and yellow background posts are distracting, and the overall backdrop is cluttered and the tilt becomes more prominent. She has a major flaw, a_ figure/ground attachment_, where the dark, half-barrel flower planter attaches to the side of her head. In the full-sized image, these things tend to be less obvious.

In the second shot, beanbean,

, the boy's right hand looks a bit awkward, and the hand grasping the baseball cap looks claw-like, with the three fingers showing. He is however, in a dynamic pose, and he fills up most of the frame, and overall the image seems balanced, and has good eye movement through the frame. Backdrop a bit busy, but workable!

In the last portrait, this is the best example of how the SMALL-sized image allows us to look at the image, in its entirety, to evaluate it. Seen large, the amazing eyeballs, with the photographer's reflection clearly visible in the eyes, is nice!


But what we see here is an example of a portrait composition that just does not work well. The bright yellow OOF background element, right in an upper corner, and then the side of his head and his ear cropped off...the left side of the frame mostly empty, him slammed into the lower and right side of the frame. When seen large, the_ details engage_ the viewer...the eyes, the face, etc. But seen small...this is a good way to evaluate compositions--as "an entirety", or "as a whole".

You'll be able to evaluate and work on your posing, framing, and composition if you download your takes to the computer, and then open the folders, and make about 250-pixel tall images for your image previews, and look at them at that size. Deliberately eliminating the cute details, the engaging eyes, and so on, will allow you to "see" the images in a new way.

I think you will also find that if you view images at 250-pixel size, you can make fantastic CROPS more easily than if working on a large image, so in Lightroom, I prefer to make my crops on a SMALL-size image. For me, it just works better, compressing the image down to its total "gestalt", when making the crops or evaluating the framing.


----------



## table1349

Derrel said:


> As griph mentions, good focus and good exposure are a given these days:


It's gryph, not griph.  I'm not working on a movie set for a director with a lisp you know.


----------



## Designer

beccaf91 said:


> I don't want to do studio portrait photography; my photographer works outdoors and I like the feel of those better.


O.K., let's get you up to speed here.  The style of photography that you like is called "informal portraiture".  

The shot of the boy in his pink shirt (critique):  Obviously, you framed way too tightly on the right side.  I don't know if you intended this or not, but to me it's a mistake.  That does not mean, however, that every subject needs to be centered in the frame.  Quite the contrary in many cases.  (learn how to balance your compositions) This side-crop does nobody any good, and his parents will wonder why, as in; Why couldn't you get his whole head in the shot?

Children have some special conditions that photographers forget about; they are smaller than adults, and their heads are proportionally larger than adult heads.  Therefore; you need to GET DOWN to their level.  Start practicing this by trying to get your camera down to about the level of their belly.  If you have to lie on the ground to get that low, then do it.  Getting the shot balanced top/bottom, left/right is a step in the right direction, and you can experiment/grow after you get the fundamentals down pat. 

The three shots you have shown us are all fairly static, meaning the subjects are not adding movement.  (The girl's hands are very nice, but she could still be doing more with her posture.)  The two boys are doing nothing, and it is this "added something" that will make a huge difference in how your photography is perceived.  When shooting, get your subjects engaged in conversation, have them move a certain way, hold something, gesture, look off frame and back again, talk, laugh, tell you a joke, or something to get them animated.  

Try full-body shots, tight head shots, silhouettes, backlighting, high key, unusual angles, favorite activities, favorite toys, pets, siblings, adults, etc.  

All of the above is worth keeping, so print it, memorize it, tape it into your gadget bag, sleep with it under your pillow, and put it on your refrigerator.  Do all that and come back to tell us how people like your stuff then.


----------



## chuasam

I'm not saying her work is perfect. I'm saying that she's reached the level where she can start charging. I've seen far less qualified people holding really senior positions within the US government.


----------



## Gary A.

I gave this some thought, if you're comfortable charging for your work ... then go ahead.  For me there is a certain level of ethics involved when money comes to play.  As a former pro photog, to my eye your images are not pro level.  But what the hell ... right. For me, when you start charging money it becomes, a matter of right and wrong, a matter of ethics.

If I wasn't sure whether my photos were worth cash-money ... I'd let my client know upfront that I am not too sure of my skills ... and in the beginning charge little to nothing.  Or just charge by the image not the sitting.  If it was I ... in the beginning and if I was unsure ... I shoot for free and they can pay me what they want ... let the client set the rate. Yes, this opens up opportunity for getting ripped off ... but in my book, it is better that I lose money than my client.  Granted, you are not going for weddings, but there are so many horror stories of unskilled professional photogs screwing up a once in a lifetime event.  Until you are fully confident that you can professionally shoot a once in a lifetime event ... don't put yourself in that position.

In summary, letting the client know upfront and/or charging very little and/or charging nothing at all (shoot to build a portfolio) and don't shoot events that can not be replicated, would go a long way to resolving ethical questions.

In my opinion, you are not a pro by any measure.  That doesn't mean you do not have the talent to develop pro level skills. Just be upfront with the client as to what they are purchasing with their hard earned money. Show them a portfolio of large prints ... not internet/Facebook stuff.  A print will bring out greater detail and more flaws than a computer image.


----------



## cherylynne1

Actually, Gary A's suggestion of charging by the image is brilliant. You tell them you're learning, take the photos, edit the best ones and present them to the client. If they like any of them, they can purchase that one for x amount, or you can offer a discount for them to purchase all of them. If they didn't turn out well, then the client only lost some time, which is much better than losing money and makes them more likely to try again with you later. 

For me, I just offered photo shoots for free and eventually people started paying me anyway, to thank me for doing a good job. Even now that I set a fairly low price (I still feel I'm in the learning phase) most people have overpaid or tipped me. I guess that means I'm undercharging, but ethically I feel that what I'm charging is fair, even if the people I'm taking pictures of don't know any better. 

I'll say this, though: about 80% of my clients used to go to another photographer in the area who charged moderate prices while she was learning. Her photos weren't terrible, but they weren't professional. Raccoon eyes, poor white balance, under or overexposed, missed focus, etc. People were so disappointed with the photos that they got that they refused to ever go to her again, _even though_ she got better later on. You cannot recreate a first impression, especially where money is involved.


----------



## Derrel

gryphonslair99 said:
			
		

> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> As griph mentions, good focus and good exposure are a given these days:
> 
> 
> 
> It's gryph, not griph.  I'm not working on a movie set for a director with a lisp you know.
Click to expand...


I made the correction as above. Got it to gryph...I *should know* that by now, and I apologize...I get Darrel, and Darrell, and Darryl--from Derrel, all the time.

Speaking of informal portraiture...I shoot that quite often. As far as consistency goes, it comes with practice, and with understanding of the fundamentals. And as to gauging work by the thumbnail, I actually practice what I preach. I "graded" the images off of these two years ago,as small thumbnails...Green means a B-list shot to me...here are fifteen frames in a row, SOOC, batch converted. I evaluated these based on the "gestalt" of the frame, and how I liked the composition/framing. Fifteen consecutive shots, and not a single Red-labelled image (A-List quality in all ways), but very consistently 'acceptable'.


----------



## Gary A.

PS- Good Luck!


----------



## beccaf91

Designer said:


> beccaf91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want to do studio portrait photography; my photographer works outdoors and I like the feel of those better.
> 
> 
> 
> O.K., let's get you up to speed here.  The style of photography that you like is called "informal portraiture".
> 
> The shot of the boy in his pink shirt (critique):  Obviously, you framed way too tightly on the right side.  I don't know if you intended this or not, but to me it's a mistake.  That does not mean, however, that every subject needs to be centered in the frame.  Quite the contrary in many cases.  (learn how to balance your compositions) This side-crop does nobody any good, and his parents will wonder why, as in; Why couldn't you get his whole head in the shot?
> 
> Children have some special conditions that photographers forget about; they are smaller than adults, and their heads are proportionally larger than adult heads.  Therefore; you need to GET DOWN to their level.  Start practicing this by trying to get your camera down to about the level of their belly.  If you have to lie on the ground to get that low, then do it.  Getting the shot balanced top/bottom, left/right is a step in the right direction, and you can experiment/grow after you get the fundamentals down pat.
> 
> The three shots you have shown us are all fairly static, meaning the subjects are not adding movement.  (The girl's hands are very nice, but she could still be doing more with her posture.)  The two boys are doing nothing, and it is this "added something" that will make a huge difference in how your photography is perceived.  When shooting, get your subjects engaged in conversation, have them move a certain way, hold something, gesture, look off frame and back again, talk, laugh, tell you a joke, or something to get them animated.
> 
> Try full-body shots, tight head shots, silhouettes, backlighting, high key, unusual angles, favorite activities, favorite toys, pets, siblings, adults, etc.
> 
> All of the above is worth keeping, so print it, memorize it, tape it into your gadget bag, sleep with it under your pillow, and put it on your refrigerator.  Do all that and come back to tell us how people like your stuff then.
Click to expand...

Awesome! I didn't know there was a term for that style! And also, I didn't take that last photo. That was done by Kiersten Grant; whom I pay to do our family portraits. I think her work is amazing; but I was curious as to how you all would critique her work. 



Designer said:


> Try full-body shots, tight head shots, silhouettes, backlighting, high key, unusual angles, favorite activities, favorite toys, pets, siblings, adults, etc.



I like these suggestions for composition; great ideas! I like it!


----------



## beccaf91

OGsPhotography said:


> beccaf91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OGsPhotography said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wish you didnt show the second set. I wont answer the OP question besides saying that.
> 
> You've received a lot of good advice above, if you want to start a business, no amount of internet wisdom will help you.
> 
> Make a plan. Then make another. Buy a few books related to your plan, get the gear, register the business, get insurance, get a lawyer, banker and accountant. Then if you still have it, the drive, do it.
> 
> If you have 0 business experience, get professional help, take a course or two or three on business.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh goodness. Well thanks for the "advice".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your welcome.
> 
> Whats wrong with that post? .... Show lifestyle and portraits if thats what you want to work on.
> 
> Books and professional business advice will go a long way. If you don't like that " advice" then you are biund to fail. Also, creative live, if you havent heard of that it is the best online learning tool I've seen.
> 
> Once again, your welcome. Wether you chiose to go to Creative Live dot com or not is up to you. Accountant, lawyer, banker, all on you.
> 
> Cant take advice, well...
> 
> "Hey man nice shot" is all you'll get.
Click to expand...

 I have been looking at Creative Live a bit lately. So thank you for letting me know I'm at least looking in the right places. I just didn't feel that 


OGsPhotography said:


> I wish you didnt show the second set. I wont answer the OP question besides saying that.


was constructive per se; as you didn't tell me why. I'm am very accepting of criticism when you are also willing to help me grow from it. And if I misunderstood the point you were trying to make; I apologize. I genuinely thank you for taking the time to respond.


----------



## beccaf91

Gary A. said:


> I gave this some thought, if you're comfortable charging for your work ... then go ahead.  For me there is a certain level of ethics involved when money comes to play.  As a former pro photog, to my eye your images are not pro level.  But what the hell ... right. For me, when you start charging money it becomes, a matter of right and wrong, a matter of ethics.
> 
> If I wasn't sure whether my photos were worth cash-money ... I'd let my client know upfront that I am not too sure of my skills ... and in the beginning charge little to nothing.  Or just charge by the image not the sitting.  If it was I ... in the beginning and if I was unsure ... I shoot for free and they can pay me what they want ... let the client set the rate. Yes, this opens up opportunity for getting ripped off ... but in my book, it is better that I lose money than my client.  Granted, you are not going for weddings, but there are so many horror stories of unskilled prosfessional photogs screwing up a once in a lifetime event.  Until you are fully confident that you can professionally shoot a once in a lifetime event ... don't put yourself in that position.
> 
> In summary, letting the client know upfront and/or charging very little and/or charging nothing at all (shoot to build a portfolio) and don't shoot events that can not be replicated, would go a long way to resolving ethical questions.
> 
> In my opinion, you are not a pro by any measure.  That doesn't mean you do not have the talent to develop pro level skills. Just be upfront with the client as to what they are purchasing with their hard earned money. Show them a portfolio of large prints ... not internet/Facebook stuff.  A print will bring out greater detail and more flaws than a computer image.


Oh wow!! That's a very good idea! As I stated before; I didn't feel it would be morally sound for me to charge people for something that in the end; they wouldn't be satisfied with. But a "pay for what you like" model does appeal to me; I'll at least be dipping my toe in the water. Thank you so much!


----------



## beccaf91

cherylynne1 said:


> Actually, Gary A's suggestion of charging by the image is brilliant. You tell them you're learning, take the photos, edit the best ones and present them to the client. If they like any of them, they can purchase that one for x amount, or you can offer a discount for them to purchase all of them. If they didn't turn out well, then the client only lost some time, which is much better than losing money and makes them more likely to try again with you later.
> 
> For me, I just offered photo shoots for free and eventually people started paying me anyway, to thank me for doing a good job. Even now that I set a fairly low price (I still feel I'm in the learning phase) most people have overpaid or tipped me. I guess that means I'm undercharging, but ethically I feel that what I'm charging is fair, even if the people I'm taking pictures of don't know any better.
> 
> I'll say this, though: about 80% of my clients used to go to another photographer in the area who charged moderate prices while she was learning. Her photos weren't terrible, but they weren't professional. Raccoon eyes, poor white balance, under or overexposed, missed focus, etc. People were so disappointed with the photos that they got that they refused to ever go to her again, _even though_ she got better later on. You cannot recreate a first impression, especially where money is involved.


My goal is to have repeat clients and form business relationships so I definitely don't want that. But yes, I really like Gary A's idea! I don't want to feel guilty afterwards


----------



## beccaf91

Derrel said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> As griph mentions, good focus and good exposure are a given these days:
> 
> 
> 
> It's gryph, not griph.  I'm not working on a movie set for a director with a lisp you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I made the correction as above. Got it to gryph...I *should know* that by now, and I apologize...I get Darrel, and Darrell, and Darryl--from Derrel, all the time.
> 
> Speaking of informal portraiture...I shoot that quite often. As far as consistency goes, it comes with practice, and with understanding of the fundamentals. And as to gauging work by the thumbnail, I actually practice what I preach. I "graded" the images off of these two years ago,as small thumbnails...Green means a B-list shot to me...here are fifteen frames in a row, SOOC, batch converted. I evaluated these based on the "gestalt" of the frame, and how I liked the composition/framing. Fifteen consecutive shots, and not a single Red-labelled image (A-List quality in all ways), but very consistently 'acceptable'.
Click to expand...

OH wow! These are fantastic! You can see how well these are composed!! This is the stuff I want to do! Was artificial light used in these?


----------



## Designer

beccaf91 said:


> I like these suggestions for composition; great ideas! I like it!


Aww... You're welcome!  

I only write that much about once a year, so consider yourself fortunate that I did this time.  

I think what I wrote might have been the condensed equivalent of one or two books on portraiture that you didn't have to read.  You just caught me at a good time.


----------



## beccaf91

gryphonslair99 said:


> beccaf91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beccaf91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to agree with Tirediron's comments about the photographic and compositional technique these two pictures display. Assuming these are two of your better images, I would imagine that others are less successful than these two frames. I will pass along one tip for photographing smaller children: working at these distances with that lens at such wide f/stops is a recipe for many, many reject shots, as far as focus goes. These have the bare minimum of depth of field; closing down to f/3.5 and finding/setting up less-distracting backgrounds would be a smart strategy for avoiding shots that must be rejected due to slight focusing errors under real-world conditions.
> 
> Photographing smaller children of this age is, as you know, hard work! They move! They don't follow many directions! Focus and recompose at this range is **inaccurate as heck** if you are using the center AF square. At 7 to 10 feet at f/2 or so, the edges of the frame and the center of the frame are at different distances; distances which will exceed the DOF band of a lens shot at wide f/stops, and that's where/why a good number of missed focus shots can occur. At f/3.5 or at f/4, the overall net DOF at this camera-to-subject and subject-to-background range will be "similar", but there will be just enough additional DOF to make a keeper out of what would easily have been an f/2 but rejected image.
> 
> I dislike rendering opinions of peoples' skill level based on two, individual photos of related children who appear to maybe be the OP's own offspring. Two shots is not a lot to go on, but it can reveal a few things, but it's not the ideal way to evaluate a photographer. If we saw 100 of your photos, we could probably form better opinions, and spot trends, and patterns, and better evaluate the overall skill level you are currently at to a better degree than we can from seeing only these two shots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have a ton of portraits to show you guys yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a telling statement to me.  In addition to what has already been said,  when one is ready to charge, especially in the portrait world one needs to be able to produce a multitude of sell-able images with each shoot.  Not everyone will be that golden image, but the majority should be good enough to be worthy of display.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My photos are very consistent in exposure and focus. But I am aware that I have to brush up on the composition. Thanks for the advice!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Consistent in exposure and focus are nice but not interesting.  I think you have received some good advise.  Learn the finer details of portrait photography.  Most people have an eye for finding a pleasing aspect of a subject.   The photographers that are successful in the business of photograph have the ability to see the entire photo before it is taken.  The devil is in the details.
Click to expand...




gryphonslair99 said:


> Consistent in exposure and focus are nice but not interesting.


So you think that using colorful background is a bad way to add interest to photos? I know it distracts from the subject which is a rule-breaker; but I thought the overall image would really attract attention?


----------



## beccaf91

Designer said:


> beccaf91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like these suggestions for composition; great ideas! I like it!
> 
> 
> 
> Aww... You're welcome!
> 
> I only write that much about once a year, so consider yourself fortunate that I did this time.
> 
> I think what I wrote might have been the condensed equivalent of one or two books on portraiture that you didn't have to read.  You just caught me at a good time.
Click to expand...

Well I appreciate your generosity in my hour of need! Lol.


----------



## Designer

beccaf91 said:


> So you think that using colorful background is a bad way to add interest to photos? I know it distracts from the subject which is a rule-breaker; but I thought the overall image would really attract attention?


I hope I'm not stepping on THE GRYPH's toes by responding to this post, but I am in the mood to respond.  

I've seen very few photographs that are ostensibly someone's portrait in which the background is a major component of the composition.  I will reserve judgement on all examples until I see one that actually works well.  In the meantime, I would suggest that the background should remain the background, and not "intrude" on the subject.  

Sometimes you're going to have a busy background, such as a carnival, for instance, but those shots are going to be rare, and we can excuse the occasional rare shot.


----------



## Designer

beccaf91 said:


> Well I appreciate your generosity in my hour of need! Lol.


Think nothing of it.  Many of us are very happy to offer what we can as long as the member to whom we are offering assistance is willing to read, study, and learn.  I think you are ready and willing to learn, so I'm perfectly happy to make my contribution.


----------



## SquarePeg

I agree with Gary that, IMO, you're not quite at a level to charge for your work but in the end, that is something that you and your clients will decide.  You got a lot of excellent advice on what you need to do to step up your game - composition, backgrounds, dof  - I know that shallow dof look is popular for children's portraits right now but it has to be really nailed to be good.  None of these issues are anything that a little practice and attention to detail can't easily resolve.    

I know it's hard with kids because they are moving moving moving but a great piece of advice I got from someone on this forum was to stop and look all around the frame in your viewfinder before you shoot - not just at the subject's face but at the composition, the background, the horizon, the light and the shadows.  I don't know if that is the only lens you have but I think a previous poster mentioned the shaky bokeh - for me, it's really detracting from your subjects.    

Great advice about offering to shoot friends/family as practice.  I have a friend who frequently offers free digital files to her neighbors and friends if they will pose for her while she practices with a new lens or tries a new location or lighting idea.  She puts the word out on FaceBook and usually has all the models she can handle.  She gets to practice and she has built up a pretty nice customer base this way.  Most of them like the practice shots so much they end up hiring her to shoot their Christmas card photos, family events, maternity, newborns, senior photos etc.


----------



## Derrel

beccaf91 said:
			
		

> OH wow! These are fantastic! You can see how well these are composed!! This is the stuff I want to do! Was artificial light used in these?



Some were shot at f/4 at 1/100 second, and some were shot at f/6.3 at 1/100 second: the EXIF info states "Flash ON, Return Light Not Detected," because these were shot using a Pocket Wizard trigger, and a single Speedotron M90 studio flash head with an 8.5-inch metal reflector with the hard white plastic snap-on flash diffuser, flash powered by Innovatronix inverter; afternoon sunlight coming in from behind her from camera left, and a LOT of natural fill light coming off the surface of the Columbia river camera right. This is a naturally-lighted background, and flash on the subject.

im_22141.jpg


----------



## vintagesnaps

These don't look like professional work yet. I think it's unethical to expect people to pay a dime for unprofessional quality anything. If you have friends who you could practice with and provide some complimentary photos that could be an option. But you need to look at American Society of Media Photographers - Homepage or PPA and learn about licensing, contracts, releases etc.

Derrel gave some accurate critique on the photos. Gary knows what he's talking about - pay attention to what he's trying to tell you. 

You caught some nice moments with the kids but need to learn more about composition. It doesn't seem like you're seeing everything that's in the frame when you're looking at the photographs or when you're framing shots. 

It's up to you if you want to practice and learn and actually become a photographer or just another amateur with a camera - they're a dime a dozen and don't seem to last too long before they're running into problems with business, unhappy customers, and aren't making enough money to be worth it. They last maybe three years or so? 

If you don't love it enough to spend time with your camera and practice, practice, practice til you're consistently getting good results then it probably isn't for you.


----------



## table1349

beccaf91 said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beccaf91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beccaf91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to agree with Tirediron's comments about the photographic and compositional technique these two pictures display. Assuming these are two of your better images, I would imagine that others are less successful than these two frames. I will pass along one tip for photographing smaller children: working at these distances with that lens at such wide f/stops is a recipe for many, many reject shots, as far as focus goes. These have the bare minimum of depth of field; closing down to f/3.5 and finding/setting up less-distracting backgrounds would be a smart strategy for avoiding shots that must be rejected due to slight focusing errors under real-world conditions.
> 
> Photographing smaller children of this age is, as you know, hard work! They move! They don't follow many directions! Focus and recompose at this range is **inaccurate as heck** if you are using the center AF square. At 7 to 10 feet at f/2 or so, the edges of the frame and the center of the frame are at different distances; distances which will exceed the DOF band of a lens shot at wide f/stops, and that's where/why a good number of missed focus shots can occur. At f/3.5 or at f/4, the overall net DOF at this camera-to-subject and subject-to-background range will be "similar", but there will be just enough additional DOF to make a keeper out of what would easily have been an f/2 but rejected image.
> 
> I dislike rendering opinions of peoples' skill level based on two, individual photos of related children who appear to maybe be the OP's own offspring. Two shots is not a lot to go on, but it can reveal a few things, but it's not the ideal way to evaluate a photographer. If we saw 100 of your photos, we could probably form better opinions, and spot trends, and patterns, and better evaluate the overall skill level you are currently at to a better degree than we can from seeing only these two shots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have a ton of portraits to show you guys yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a telling statement to me.  In addition to what has already been said,  when one is ready to charge, especially in the portrait world one needs to be able to produce a multitude of sell-able images with each shoot.  Not everyone will be that golden image, but the majority should be good enough to be worthy of display.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My photos are very consistent in exposure and focus. But I am aware that I have to brush up on the composition. Thanks for the advice!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Consistent in exposure and focus are nice but not interesting.  I think you have received some good advise.  Learn the finer details of portrait photography.  Most people have an eye for finding a pleasing aspect of a subject.   The photographers that are successful in the business of photograph have the ability to see the entire photo before it is taken.  The devil is in the details.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Consistent in exposure and focus are nice but not interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you think that using colorful background is a bad way to add interest to photos? I know it distracts from the subject which is a rule-breaker; but I thought the overall image would really attract attention?
Click to expand...


No, colorful is not bad.  Well balanced is what is needed.  The background should never draw the eye from the subject on the first look or even the second look.   That is part of being able to visualize the small details in the shot.


----------



## KmH

beccaf91 said:


> I don't want to do studio portrait photography; my photographer works outdoors and I like the feel of those better.


Your profile has no location info.

Wind, clouds, solid overcast, rain, cold, snow, heat are reasons lots of portrait photographers maintain a studio in addition to shooting on location and/or outside.

I know from experience, 10 years shooting in the San Diego area and then 20 years in Tucson, that less than amenable-to-doing-photography-outside weather can wreak havoc on a shooting appointment schedule that is heavy on outdoor shoots.


----------



## beccaf91

KmH said:


> beccaf91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want to do studio portrait photography; my photographer works outdoors and I like the feel of those better.
> 
> 
> 
> Your profile has no location info.
> 
> Wind, clouds, solid overcast, rain, cold, snow, heat are reasons lots of portrait photographers maintain a studio in addition to shooting on location and/or outside.
> 
> I know from experience, 10 years shooting in the San Diego area and then 20 years in Tucson, that less than amenable-to-doing-photography-outside weather can wreak havoc on a shooting appointment schedule that is heavy on outdoor shoots.
Click to expand...

I'm in Northwest Florida where the weather is tempermental at best. Lol. But we have several State Parks all around us that provide beach/woods backdrops that I plan to utilize.


----------



## beccaf91

gryphonslair99 said:


> beccaf91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beccaf91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beccaf91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to agree with Tirediron's comments about the photographic and compositional technique these two pictures display. Assuming these are two of your better images, I would imagine that others are less successful than these two frames. I will pass along one tip for photographing smaller children: working at these distances with that lens at such wide f/stops is a recipe for many, many reject shots, as far as focus goes. These have the bare minimum of depth of field; closing down to f/3.5 and finding/setting up less-distracting backgrounds would be a smart strategy for avoiding shots that must be rejected due to slight focusing errors under real-world conditions.
> 
> Photographing smaller children of this age is, as you know, hard work! They move! They don't follow many directions! Focus and recompose at this range is **inaccurate as heck** if you are using the center AF square. At 7 to 10 feet at f/2 or so, the edges of the frame and the center of the frame are at different distances; distances which will exceed the DOF band of a lens shot at wide f/stops, and that's where/why a good number of missed focus shots can occur. At f/3.5 or at f/4, the overall net DOF at this camera-to-subject and subject-to-background range will be "similar", but there will be just enough additional DOF to make a keeper out of what would easily have been an f/2 but rejected image.
> 
> I dislike rendering opinions of peoples' skill level based on two, individual photos of related children who appear to maybe be the OP's own offspring. Two shots is not a lot to go on, but it can reveal a few things, but it's not the ideal way to evaluate a photographer. If we saw 100 of your photos, we could probably form better opinions, and spot trends, and patterns, and better evaluate the overall skill level you are currently at to a better degree than we can from seeing only these two shots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have a ton of portraits to show you guys yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a telling statement to me.  In addition to what has already been said,  when one is ready to charge, especially in the portrait world one needs to be able to produce a multitude of sell-able images with each shoot.  Not everyone will be that golden image, but the majority should be good enough to be worthy of display.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My photos are very consistent in exposure and focus. But I am aware that I have to brush up on the composition. Thanks for the advice!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Consistent in exposure and focus are nice but not interesting.  I think you have received some good advise.  Learn the finer details of portrait photography.  Most people have an eye for finding a pleasing aspect of a subject.   The photographers that are successful in the business of photograph have the ability to see the entire photo before it is taken.  The devil is in the details.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Consistent in exposure and focus are nice but not interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you think that using colorful background is a bad way to add interest to photos? I know it distracts from the subject which is a rule-breaker; but I thought the overall image would really attract attention?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, colorful is not bad.  Well balanced is what is needed.  The background should never draw the eye from the subject on the first look or even the second look.   That is part of being able to visualize the small details in the shot.
Click to expand...

Ohh, got ya! Okay, I was bummed because I worked hard scouting these different locations that I thought would make great bg's.


----------



## JonA_CT

I agree with what a lot of people said in this thread...but you keep mentioning the background, so I thought I'd throw my 2 cents in.

I think the woodsy/nature backgrounds can work really well for the type of portraits you are looking to take, but this is one place where the gear really does make a difference. I'm not sure exactly what 50mm lens you are using, but I'm guessing it's one of the older, 5 blade aperture models.

Sharon referred to the bokeh as shaky. I'll use the words sharp and distracting. Even though the lens is throwing the BG out of focus, the characteristics of the lens are still drawing attention to it.

Look at your background with your older Canon 50mm lens...



beccaf91 said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 135262
Click to expand...


I found a similar picture that I took with a more modern lens design...this is with a Nikon mount Sigma 50mm 1.4 (non-ART) lens, but you'll get the idea. You could also buy this exact lens to fit your camera for around $300. 







This lens is much smoother and less distracting in OOF areas. Just a thought.


----------



## table1349

beccaf91 said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beccaf91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beccaf91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beccaf91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have a ton of portraits to show you guys yet.
> 
> 
> 
> That is a telling statement to me.  In addition to what has already been said,  when one is ready to charge, especially in the portrait world one needs to be able to produce a multitude of sell-able images with each shoot.  Not everyone will be that golden image, but the majority should be good enough to be worthy of display.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My photos are very consistent in exposure and focus. But I am aware that I have to brush up on the composition. Thanks for the advice!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Consistent in exposure and focus are nice but not interesting.  I think you have received some good advise.  Learn the finer details of portrait photography.  Most people have an eye for finding a pleasing aspect of a subject.   The photographers that are successful in the business of photograph have the ability to see the entire photo before it is taken.  The devil is in the details.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Consistent in exposure and focus are nice but not interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you think that using colorful background is a bad way to add interest to photos? I know it distracts from the subject which is a rule-breaker; but I thought the overall image would really attract attention?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, colorful is not bad.  Well balanced is what is needed.  The background should never draw the eye from the subject on the first look or even the second look.   That is part of being able to visualize the small details in the shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ohh, got ya! Okay, I was bummed because I worked hard scouting these different locations that I thought would make great bg's.
Click to expand...

The thing about using overly busy or colorful backgrounds is to tie the background into the photo.  That may mean adding something recognizable in the photo that ties the background into the photo.   For example if you shoot a small child at a carnival you will have a busy multi colored background.  By adding something as simple as some cotton candy in the child's hand or the child eating the cotton candy the viewer will recognize the type of location.  An overly busy background needs a reference point.

Colorful backgrounds also need to be balanced so there is not a splash of color that draws the eye to one particular location in the photo.


----------



## beccaf91

gryphonslair99 said:


> beccaf91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beccaf91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beccaf91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a telling statement to me.  In addition to what has already been said,  when one is ready to charge, especially in the portrait world one needs to be able to produce a multitude of sell-able images with each shoot.  Not everyone will be that golden image, but the majority should be good enough to be worthy of display.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My photos are very consistent in exposure and focus. But I am aware that I have to brush up on the composition. Thanks for the advice!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Consistent in exposure and focus are nice but not interesting.  I think you have received some good advise.  Learn the finer details of portrait photography.  Most people have an eye for finding a pleasing aspect of a subject.   The photographers that are successful in the business of photograph have the ability to see the entire photo before it is taken.  The devil is in the details.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Consistent in exposure and focus are nice but not interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you think that using colorful background is a bad way to add interest to photos? I know it distracts from the subject which is a rule-breaker; but I thought the overall image would really attract attention?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, colorful is not bad.  Well balanced is what is needed.  The background should never draw the eye from the subject on the first look or even the second look.   That is part of being able to visualize the small details in the shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ohh, got ya! Okay, I was bummed because I worked hard scouting these different locations that I thought would make great bg's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The thing about using overly busy or colorful backgrounds is to tie the background into the photo.  That may mean adding something recognizable in the photo that ties the background into the photo.   For example if you shoot a small child at a carnival you will have a busy multi colored background.  By adding something as simple as some cotton candy in the child's hand or the child eating the cotton candy the viewer will recognize the type of location.  An overly busy background needs a reference point.
> 
> Colorful backgrounds also need to be balanced so there is not a splash of color that draws the eye to one particular location in the photo.
Click to expand...

Ok, so then the photo below... to me it's visually pleasing. But compositionally it's incorrect? Busy background, bright headlights? Or am I missing your point entirely?  

*Please do not post images to which you do not hold rights.  You may post links.*


----------



## DanOstergren

beccaf91 said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beccaf91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beccaf91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beccaf91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My photos are very consistent in exposure and focus. But I am aware that I have to brush up on the composition. Thanks for the advice!
> 
> 
> 
> Consistent in exposure and focus are nice but not interesting.  I think you have received some good advise.  Learn the finer details of portrait photography.  Most people have an eye for finding a pleasing aspect of a subject.   The photographers that are successful in the business of photograph have the ability to see the entire photo before it is taken.  The devil is in the details.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Consistent in exposure and focus are nice but not interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you think that using colorful background is a bad way to add interest to photos? I know it distracts from the subject which is a rule-breaker; but I thought the overall image would really attract attention?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, colorful is not bad.  Well balanced is what is needed.  The background should never draw the eye from the subject on the first look or even the second look.   That is part of being able to visualize the small details in the shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ohh, got ya! Okay, I was bummed because I worked hard scouting these different locations that I thought would make great bg's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The thing about using overly busy or colorful backgrounds is to tie the background into the photo.  That may mean adding something recognizable in the photo that ties the background into the photo.   For example if you shoot a small child at a carnival you will have a busy multi colored background.  By adding something as simple as some cotton candy in the child's hand or the child eating the cotton candy the viewer will recognize the type of location.  An overly busy background needs a reference point.
> 
> Colorful backgrounds also need to be balanced so there is not a splash of color that draws the eye to one particular location in the photo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, so then the photo below... to me it's visually pleasing. But compositionally it's incorrect? Busy background, bright headlights? Or am I missing your point entirely? Lol Credit: *Meg Bitton*View attachment 135421
Click to expand...

I think this comes down to personal taste. There are aspects of that photo that I personally don't like such as a few of the over-saturated neon colored light spots, however it's still a good photo that has many other merits to it. If you like Meg's photos and want a similar look, I suggest getting out there and practicing. I would also recommend getting an 85mm, 100mm, 135mm lens, or even a 200mm lens in order to achieve a similar background blur and compression as Meg Bitton. Based on your level of experience, I would stick to an 85mm or 100mm lens until you feel ready for a longer focal length. I recommend prime lenses (fixed focal length) simply based on personal preference, and you could potentially get a zoom lens that covers all of those focal lengths, but I personally like the look of a prime lens myself.


----------



## beccaf91

DanOstergren said:


> beccaf91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beccaf91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beccaf91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Consistent in exposure and focus are nice but not interesting.  I think you have received some good advise.  Learn the finer details of portrait photography.  Most people have an eye for finding a pleasing aspect of a subject.   The photographers that are successful in the business of photograph have the ability to see the entire photo before it is taken.  The devil is in the details.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Consistent in exposure and focus are nice but not interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you think that using colorful background is a bad way to add interest to photos? I know it distracts from the subject which is a rule-breaker; but I thought the overall image would really attract attention?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, colorful is not bad.  Well balanced is what is needed.  The background should never draw the eye from the subject on the first look or even the second look.   That is part of being able to visualize the small details in the shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ohh, got ya! Okay, I was bummed because I worked hard scouting these different locations that I thought would make great bg's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The thing about using overly busy or colorful backgrounds is to tie the background into the photo.  That may mean adding something recognizable in the photo that ties the background into the photo.   For example if you shoot a small child at a carnival you will have a busy multi colored background.  By adding something as simple as some cotton candy in the child's hand or the child eating the cotton candy the viewer will recognize the type of location.  An overly busy background needs a reference point.
> 
> Colorful backgrounds also need to be balanced so there is not a splash of color that draws the eye to one particular location in the photo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, so then the photo below... to me it's visually pleasing. But compositionally it's incorrect? Busy background, bright headlights? Or am I missing your point entirely? Lol Credit: *Meg Bitton*View attachment 135421
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think this comes down to personal taste. There are aspects of that photo that I personally don't like such as a few of the over-saturated neon colored light spots, however it's still a good photo that has many other merits to it. If you like Meg's photos and want a similar look, I suggest getting out there and practicing. I would also recommend getting an 85mm, 100mm, 135mm lens, or even a 200mm lens in order to achieve a similar background blur and compression as Meg Bitton. Based on your level of experience, I would stick to an 85mm or 100mm lens until you feel ready for a longer focal length. I recommend prime lenses (fixed focal length) simply based on personal preference, and you could potentially get a zoom lens that covers all of those focal lengths, but I personally like the look of a prime lens myself.
Click to expand...

The 85mm was the next lens I was planning to add actually. I do like her style, and also I think even though the background is busy its not distracting as the lines from the street draw your eye to the subject.


----------



## cherylynne1

Generally speaking, we don't like critiquing photographers who haven't asked to be critiqued. But I understand your confusion, so I'll try to help. 

I personally am not fond of this photo. I do follow Meg Bitton/LJ Holloway (their styles are often indistinguishable) but I've never liked any of the "half-naked in an urban setting" photos they've taken. But let me explain why she used the composition she did and how it differs from yours. 

Look at the lines of the road in the background. The move closer together in a triangle, leading you toward the model's face. If you blurred it to the point where nothing was recognizable, it would be reminiscent of a spotlight shining down on her. Yours is simply busy, with distracting objects taking you off in separate directions. 

I do think this one is too busy, and I think a stronger separation light would have helped. But that's personal opinion. Also, Meg does a lot of composites, which I'm sure this is. Don't put your models in the middle of a road!!


----------



## Designer

beccaf91 said:


> Ok, so then the photo below... to me it's visually pleasing. But compositionally it's incorrect? Busy background, bright headlights? Or am I missing your point entirely? Lol Credit: *Meg Bitton*


Hi, again.

1. You are not allowed by forum rules to post photos for which you do not have ownership.  Yes, I know nobody called you on the other one, but we need to adhere to the rules.  You should take both of them down, and provide a link to each in their place.

2. This example is pretty good, but I would crop some off the left side (about where that orange light is down low) but I can't do this one because it's not yours.  Cropping that way would weight the image to provide more space for the model to "move into", and placing the model off center would help alleviate the fairly static composition that this is.

3. The "busyness" of the background is not detracting from the primary subject, so it's fine.  Where to draw the distinction?  The lights are forming a kind of random pattern, and are OOF enough that they are not distracting.


----------



## DanOstergren

I looked to see if Meg Bitton has any video tutorials, and it appears that she does. I highly reccomend looking into this sort of content, especially when it comes from photographers that inspire you. I've purchased two different video workshops over the years; "Photographer Shootoff: Lara Jade VS Joey L" and the Creativelive "Fashion Photography 101 with Lara Jade" workshop video, and both of them completely changed the way I shoot and edit, and were incredibly helpful in developing my personal style as a photographer. Video workshops are an investment, but I think they are worth it, and more valuable than a new lens or camera. You usually get unlimited access to the videos after you buy them, so you can always get a refresher as well. I looked through Meg's shop and found this one which covers styling, pre-shoot, lighting and location, as well as editing. I would look into this. 
https://megbittonlive.com/course/magic-in-the-forest/


----------



## beccaf91

cherylynne1 said:


> Generally speaking, we don't like critiquing photographers who haven't asked to be critiqued. But I understand your confusion, so I'll try to help.
> 
> I personally am not fond of this photo. I do follow Meg Bitton/LJ Holloway (their styles are often indistinguishable) but I've never liked any of the "half-naked in an urban setting" photos they've taken. But let me explain why she used the composition she did and how it differs from yours.
> 
> Look at the lines of the road in the background. The move closer together in a triangle, leading you toward the model's face. If you blurred it to the point where nothing was recognizable, it would be reminiscent of a spotlight shining down on her. Yours is simply busy, with distracting objects taking you off in separate directions.
> 
> I do think this one is too busy, and I think a stronger separation light would have helped. But that's personal opinion. Also, Meg does a lot of composites, which I'm sure this is. Don't put your models in the middle of a road!!


I'm just looking for examples and working on my recognition of good composition and bad composition/what I should be aspiring for. I'm not trying to throw a gifted photographer under the proverbial bus. Lol. I'm familiar with composites. I wasn't planning to put a heavily pregnant woman in the path of a speeding car. Lol


----------



## beccaf91

DanOstergren said:


> I looked to see if Meg Bitton has any video tutorials, and it appears that she does. I highly reccomend looking into this sort of content, especially when it comes from photographers that inspire you. I've purchased two different video workshops over the years; "Photographer Shootoff: Lara Jade VS Joey L" and the Creativelive "Fashion Photography 101 with Lara Jade" workshop video, and both of them completely changed the way I shoot and edit, and were incredibly helpful in developing my personal style as a photographer. Video workshops are an investment, but I think they are worth it, and more valuable than a new lens or camera. You usually get unlimited access to the videos after you buy them, so you can always get a refresher as well. I looked through Meg's shop and found this one which covers styling, pre-shoot, lighting and location, as well as editing. I would look into this.
> https://megbittonlive.com/course/magic-in-the-forest/


Thank ya!


----------



## tirediron

beccaf91 said:


> I'm just looking for examples and working on my recognition of good composition and bad composition/what I should be aspiring for. I'm not trying to throw a gifted photographer under the proverbial bus. Lol. I'm familiar with composites. I wasn't planning to put a heavily pregnant woman in the path of a speeding car. Lol


Start reading about art, compositional theory, etc.  This isn't something that you just 'do'; there's science behind it.  You need to understand how people see things, and why one image works when a very similar one doesn't.  I would recommend a trip to your local library and starting taking out whatever they have for beginners in the Art section (DD 701 and 704).


----------



## Designer

beccaf91 said:


> I wasn't planning to put a heavily pregnant woman in the path of a speeding car. Lol


Oh, is that something we should try to avoid?


----------



## tirediron

Designer said:


> beccaf91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't planning to put a heavily pregnant woman in the path of a speeding car. Lol
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, is that something we should try to avoid?
Click to expand...

Only on Sundays!


----------



## cherylynne1

beccaf91 said:


> cherylynne1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Generally speaking, we don't like critiquing photographers who haven't asked to be critiqued. But I understand your confusion, so I'll try to help.
> 
> I personally am not fond of this photo. I do follow Meg Bitton/LJ Holloway (their styles are often indistinguishable) but I've never liked any of the "half-naked in an urban setting" photos they've taken. But let me explain why she used the composition she did and how it differs from yours.
> 
> Look at the lines of the road in the background. The move closer together in a triangle, leading you toward the model's face. If you blurred it to the point where nothing was recognizable, it would be reminiscent of a spotlight shining down on her. Yours is simply busy, with distracting objects taking you off in separate directions.
> 
> I do think this one is too busy, and I think a stronger separation light would have helped. But that's personal opinion. Also, Meg does a lot of composites, which I'm sure this is. Don't put your models in the middle of a road!!
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just looking for examples and working on my recognition of good composition and bad composition/what I should be aspiring for. I'm not trying to throw a gifted photographer under the proverbial bus. Lol. I'm familiar with composites. I wasn't planning to put a heavily pregnant woman in the path of a speeding car. Lol
Click to expand...


Haha, just have to make sure. If you'd seen what some newbie newborn "photographers" do to the babies, you'd feel morally obligated to point out composites whenever you see them as well.


----------



## beccaf91

Designer said:


> beccaf91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, so then the photo below... to me it's visually pleasing. But compositionally it's incorrect? Busy background, bright headlights? Or am I missing your point entirely? Lol Credit: *Meg Bitton*
> 
> 
> 
> Hi, again.
> 
> 1. You are not allowed by forum rules to post photos for which you do not have ownership.  Yes, I know nobody called you on the other one, but we need to adhere to the rules.  You should take both of them down, and provide a link to each in their place.
> 
> 2. This example is pretty good, but I would crop some off the left side (about where that orange light is down low) but I can't do this one because it's not yours.  Cropping that way would weight the image to provide more space for the model to "move into", and placing the model off center would help alleviate the fairly static composition that this is.
> 
> 3. The "busyness" of the background is not detracting from the primary subject, so it's fine.  Where to draw the distinction?  The lights are forming a kind of random pattern, and are OOF enough that they are not distracting.
Click to expand...

Ick. Oh, sorry. Got it! The first one, I don't have a link to. Just print rights. The second I will post the link for.
As far as the cropping, I will use my imagination! As for the lights i do see what your're saying and to me it seems like the street is a giant arrow pointing at the subject. So I see why this works.


----------



## beccaf91

cherylynne1 said:


> beccaf91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cherylynne1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Generally speaking, we don't like critiquing photographers who haven't asked to be critiqued. But I understand your confusion, so I'll try to help.
> 
> I personally am not fond of this photo. I do follow Meg Bitton/LJ Holloway (their styles are often indistinguishable) but I've never liked any of the "half-naked in an urban setting" photos they've taken. But let me explain why she used the composition she did and how it differs from yours.
> 
> Look at the lines of the road in the background. The move closer together in a triangle, leading you toward the model's face. If you blurred it to the point where nothing was recognizable, it would be reminiscent of a spotlight shining down on her. Yours is simply busy, with distracting objects taking you off in separate directions.
> 
> I do think this one is too busy, and I think a stronger separation light would have helped. But that's personal opinion. Also, Meg does a lot of composites, which I'm sure this is. Don't put your models in the middle of a road!!
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just looking for examples and working on my recognition of good composition and bad composition/what I should be aspiring for. I'm not trying to throw a gifted photographer under the proverbial bus. Lol. I'm familiar with composites. I wasn't planning to put a heavily pregnant woman in the path of a speeding car. Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha, just have to make sure. If you'd seen what some newbie newborn "photographers" do to the babies, you'd feel morally obligated to point out composites whenever you see them as well.
Click to expand...

I have heard horror stories. This is the wonderful lady who did my son's newborn photos. http://kimberlygphotography.com/newborn-gallery/
Her composites are freaking adorable!


----------



## Gary A.

I love the shot.  Yes there are some distracting elements in the image, a la the yellow car on the left.  But there is more right than wrong.  Even the wrongs can be covered by motive.  To me the photo is a declaration of celebration to women and women's contribution to birth, rebirth, survival of the species ... Genesis.

In many cultures, a pregnant women is kept wrapped up and indoors ... hidden.  Nearly banished during pregnancy from the public eye.   This image not only celebrates women's greatness ... but celebrates in boldly in public.  In the middle of a busy thoroughfare ... dressed to the T, the wind flagging the dinner gown, lines from the top and bottom directing your eye to the women on center stage.  This is much more than a maternity photo ... this is a cultural line in the sand ... a proclamation ... I am not fat, I am not distorted, I am not ugly, I am not ashamed ... I AM Proud ... I Am Woman, Hear Me Roar ...

Just my $.02.


----------



## DanOstergren

beccaf91 said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> 
> I looked to see if Meg Bitton has any video tutorials, and it appears that she does. I highly reccomend looking into this sort of content, especially when it comes from photographers that inspire you. I've purchased two different video workshops over the years; "Photographer Shootoff: Lara Jade VS Joey L" and the Creativelive "Fashion Photography 101 with Lara Jade" workshop video, and both of them completely changed the way I shoot and edit, and were incredibly helpful in developing my personal style as a photographer. Video workshops are an investment, but I think they are worth it, and more valuable than a new lens or camera. You usually get unlimited access to the videos after you buy them, so you can always get a refresher as well. I looked through Meg's shop and found this one which covers styling, pre-shoot, lighting and location, as well as editing. I would look into this.
> https://megbittonlive.com/course/magic-in-the-forest/
> 
> 
> 
> Thank ya!
Click to expand...

If you don't mind, I'll share some resources for inspiration and education. I think this stuff is very important, especially when we are self taught artists.

CreativeLive: Free Live Online Classes - Learn. Be Inspired. (free live video workshops which you can purchase after they've aired live)

Fashion Photography 101 with Lara Jade | CreativeLive - Learn. Be Inspired. ($129 is a steal considering how amazing this workshop is)

Experimental Portraits with Sue Bryce, Lara Jade | CreativeLive - Learn. Be Inspired. (two of the industry's leading creative portrait photographers)

Glamour Photography with Sue Bryce | CreativeLive - Learn. Be Inspired. (Sue Bryce is incredible)

Learn From Joey L. (fyi I believe you can pick this DVD up for much cheaper on amazon or ebay)

I know none of these cover anything in terms of maternity photography, but I believe the skillsets taught by these photographers are very universal in portrait photography.

Also, this isn't a tutorial, but I believe that visual inspiration and reference is extremely important, and this website is a goldmine of free inspiration and reference photos: Fashion Editorials


----------



## Designer

beccaf91 said:


> I'm just looking for examples and working on my recognition of good composition and bad composition/what I should be aspiring for.


Your reading assignment for the week:

Search

On second thought; you will never get through all that in only one week.  Better make it a month.


----------



## beccaf91

DanOstergren said:


> beccaf91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> 
> I looked to see if Meg Bitton has any video tutorials, and it appears that she does. I highly reccomend looking into this sort of content, especially when it comes from photographers that inspire you. I've purchased two different video workshops over the years; "Photographer Shootoff: Lara Jade VS Joey L" and the Creativelive "Fashion Photography 101 with Lara Jade" workshop video, and both of them completely changed the way I shoot and edit, and were incredibly helpful in developing my personal style as a photographer. Video workshops are an investment, but I think they are worth it, and more valuable than a new lens or camera. You usually get unlimited access to the videos after you buy them, so you can always get a refresher as well. I looked through Meg's shop and found this one which covers styling, pre-shoot, lighting and location, as well as editing. I would look into this.
> https://megbittonlive.com/course/magic-in-the-forest/
> 
> 
> 
> Thank ya!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't mind, I'll share some resources for inspiration. I think this stuff is very important, especially when we are self taught artists.
> 
> CreativeLive: Free Live Online Classes - Learn. Be Inspired. (free live video workshops which you can purchase after they've aired live)
> 
> Fashion Photography 101 with Lara Jade | CreativeLive - Learn. Be Inspired. ($129 is a steal considering how amazing this workshop is)
> 
> Experimental Portraits with Sue Bryce, Lara Jade | CreativeLive - Learn. Be Inspired. (two of the industry's leading creative portrait photographers)
> 
> Glamour Photography with Sue Bryce | CreativeLive - Learn. Be Inspired. (Sue Bryce is incredible)
> 
> Learn From Joey L. (fyi I believe you can pick this DVD up for much cheaper on amazon or ebay)
> 
> I know none of these cover anything in terms of maternity photography, but I believe the skillsets taught by these photographers are very universal in portrait photography.
> 
> Also, this isn't a tutorial, but I believe that visual inspiration and reference is extremely important, and this website is a goldmine of free inspiration and reference photos: Fashion Editorials
Click to expand...

Yass. This is the stuff I'm looking for!! Also, do you or anyone else have any print reference materials you might suggest? I'm a nursing student by day and a travel agent by night so 99% of my life is in front of a screen right now. Not that I think anything will change if I can get this photography thing off the ground but, y'all, my eyes HURT. I'd like to just hold a book please.


----------



## beccaf91

Designer said:


> beccaf91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just looking for examples and working on my recognition of good composition and bad composition/what I should be aspiring for.
> 
> 
> 
> Your reading assignment for the week:
> 
> Search
Click to expand...

Only 10,400 results on "composition". I'll have those finished before the Walking Dead.


----------



## Designer

beccaf91 said:


> ..do you or anyone else have any print reference materials you might suggest?


Books, m'Lady!  

Amazon.com: composition in art: Books


----------



## DanOstergren

beccaf91 said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beccaf91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> 
> I looked to see if Meg Bitton has any video tutorials, and it appears that she does. I highly reccomend looking into this sort of content, especially when it comes from photographers that inspire you. I've purchased two different video workshops over the years; "Photographer Shootoff: Lara Jade VS Joey L" and the Creativelive "Fashion Photography 101 with Lara Jade" workshop video, and both of them completely changed the way I shoot and edit, and were incredibly helpful in developing my personal style as a photographer. Video workshops are an investment, but I think they are worth it, and more valuable than a new lens or camera. You usually get unlimited access to the videos after you buy them, so you can always get a refresher as well. I looked through Meg's shop and found this one which covers styling, pre-shoot, lighting and location, as well as editing. I would look into this.
> https://megbittonlive.com/course/magic-in-the-forest/
> 
> 
> 
> Thank ya!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't mind, I'll share some resources for inspiration. I think this stuff is very important, especially when we are self taught artists.
> 
> CreativeLive: Free Live Online Classes - Learn. Be Inspired. (free live video workshops which you can purchase after they've aired live)
> 
> Fashion Photography 101 with Lara Jade | CreativeLive - Learn. Be Inspired. ($129 is a steal considering how amazing this workshop is)
> 
> Experimental Portraits with Sue Bryce, Lara Jade | CreativeLive - Learn. Be Inspired. (two of the industry's leading creative portrait photographers)
> 
> Glamour Photography with Sue Bryce | CreativeLive - Learn. Be Inspired. (Sue Bryce is incredible)
> 
> Learn From Joey L. (fyi I believe you can pick this DVD up for much cheaper on amazon or ebay)
> 
> I know none of these cover anything in terms of maternity photography, but I believe the skillsets taught by these photographers are very universal in portrait photography.
> 
> Also, this isn't a tutorial, but I believe that visual inspiration and reference is extremely important, and this website is a goldmine of free inspiration and reference photos: Fashion Editorials
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yass. This is the stuff I'm looking for!! Also, do you or anyone else have any print reference materials you might suggest? I'm a nursing student by day and a travel agent by night so 99% of my life is in front of a screen right now. Not that I think anything will change if I can get this photography thing off the ground but, y'all, my eyes HURT. I'd like to just hold a book please.
Click to expand...

Someone asked recently in the forum and got lot's of recommendations: Must Have Photography Books

yaaaaasssss


----------



## OGsPhotography

On air @creativelive at the moment;
The Creative Newborn Photography Studio with Julia Kelleher | CreativeLive - Learn. Be Inspired.

Julia quotes Picaso in her introductory ramblings;

" Good artists Copy, Great artists Steal"- Picaso

Then she concludes that new ideas are born from the marriage of old ideas. 

I thought that was interesting advice.

Creative live is a free resource if you don't feel like paying, watch the " On Air" classes.

I will gladly pay for more of their classes they are great.


----------



## beccaf91

OGsPhotography said:


> On air @creativelive at the moment;
> The Creative Newborn Photography Studio with Julia Kelleher | CreativeLive - Learn. Be Inspired.
> 
> Julia quotes Picaso in her introductory ramblings;
> 
> " Good artists Copy, Great artists Steal"- Picaso
> 
> Then she concludes that new ideas are born from the marriage of old ideas.
> 
> I thought that was interesting advice.
> 
> Creative live is a free resource if you don't feel like paying, watch the " On Air" classes.
> 
> I will gladly pay for more of their classes they are great.


Haha thank you! Some of the introductions are a bit long winded but I have recently started watching some of the "On Air" webinars; if you think it's worth the money I may throw a few bucks at it.


----------



## Gary A.

That stuff is good, but if you can, find a mentor. Most importantly shoot. Shoot everyday. Shoot everything. Shoot all the time. At the end of the day when you think you're done shooting ... shoot again.


----------



## pgriz

I'm getting in late to the party, but what the heck.  With respect to your original question, if the people who see their kids in your photos want to buy them, then you're catering to your audience.  You do have the knack for connecting to the kids, and that's a powerful component of getting the image.  On the flip side, there are lots of technical stuff that your audience won't necessarily pick up on (in terms of being able to identify and verbalize what is working and what is not), but will influence their appreciation of the photo, even if only subconsciously.  For me, the easiest way to know whether I'm looking at pictures by an amateur vs. a pro is to see how the background is being managed.  The second way is to see how the shadows are being used - amateurs tend to avoid them, whereas the pros know how to use them to create separation, depth, volume and texture.  The points made by Lew (the Traveller) that I have in the sig area are valid and useful (which is why, despite the years, I still am quoting him).


----------



## pgriz

As for working with the expectation of your (paying) audience, it helps to know what truly makes an image memorable for someone.  So ask each friend and family member and acquaintance to show you the most valuable and most cherished images they have of their kids and other family members.  Ask them what makes that image (or images) so powerful for them and so worthy of being kept.  In many ways, the image is just a convenient trigger of emotions.  It's understanding what those emotions are, and how to evoke them will be the thing that makes YOUR images different from those they can buy from others.

Pictures of strangers, on the other hand, work on a different dynamic.  You don't know the back story, you can only judge your like/dislike of the image based on the information contained therein.  Having distracting or clashing elements can easily diminish one's enjoyment of a picture of a person.  It becomes the photographer's job to assemble the visual clues we need (as viewers) to interpret the image.  As humans, while we are all different and individual, we still have some more-or-less common ways of approaching an image - we tend to look at faces, and especially the eyes, and then we follow some patterns (bright areas before dark, sharp areas before blurred,  defined lines and curves before less distinct areas) in quickly scanning an image to get our "first impression".  Well-crafted images use these patterns to guide our eyes around the image and to build up a favourable response.   Use yourself as a sample to explore this idea.  Look at an image for a short period of time (say, 5 seconds).  Then try to remember the exact sequence of your eye movements.  Where did you look first?  Where did you look next?  What were you looking at when you stopped looking at the image (ie, what was your exit point?)?  If you do this exercise with a number of images, you will see there's a pattern.  Also ask yourself what was it about an image when you had the urge to look at it longer than 5 seconds - what grabbed your interest?  For me, the images that make me look for a long time are images that are ambiguous and open to interpretation - I linger on them trying to decide what they are telling me, and which version or interpretation is more valid.


----------



## pixmedic

my opinion on this subject has changed a bit over the years...
ill start out by saying that if someone is willing to pay for what you are offering....then thats between you and the client, and _*noone*_ else.
that being said, if you start charging for  your work, even as a little side gig, you better have your legal business status set up first.
hardly anyone ever does though.... Tons of craigslist and FB photographers  working "under the table".
it sounds fine... just taking some pictures for a little money. no harm no foul.
the reality is, the first person to take you to small claims court because they dont like the pictures you gave them, or report you, will cause you more trouble than you can imagine.
so get the legal stuff done FIRST.
in most areas it doesnt take much. in my county for instance, all you need to be "legal" is a registered business name and an EIN for when you pay your taxes. then, make sure you are actually paying taxes when  you are supposed to....because the tax office WILL be watching. we paid quarterly.  its not expensive at all to register a business and get your EIN.
most people think that if things go wrong, a refund will fix everything. _*very not true*_. there are plenty of people that, when they are unhappy, just want to see the world burn, and no amount of apologies or refunds will keep them from negative reviews and a report to the IRS. (anyone who works in retail will understand the "unplacatable" customer)
please dont think you are "safe" just because you are only doing some side portraits for FB people.

anyway...other than that, I say that if you have all the legal stuff in order, and can find clients willing to pay for  your services....then go for it.
why not make money if the opportunity is there?
business sense and marketing are more important than the actual photography.

of course, there's all sorts of little things that _*could*_ be mentioned...if someone were to nitpic..
backup equipment. the ability to shoot in any lighting condition. a consistent quality product....dont forget about insurance for the business (like liability)
but the truth is that most of that is subjective anyway, so as long as your clients are happy, thats all that really matters.


----------



## thereyougo!

I don't have much to add from the expert advice being given to you by the top people on this site, apart from to say that it's refreshing to see one of these threads not turn into a shouting match.  Well done on taking things on board, and Good Luck.  Most OPs with the same subject end up throwing their toys out of the pram because they don't like what they hear.


----------



## runnah

pixmedic said:


> my opinion on this subject has changed a bit over the years...
> ill start out by saying that if someone is willing to pay for what you are offering....then thats between you and the client, and _*noone*_ else.
> that being said, if you start charging for  your work, even as a little side gig, you better have your legal business status set up first.
> hardly anyone ever does though.... Tons of craigslist and FB photographers  working "under the table".
> it sounds fine... just taking some pictures for a little money. no harm no foul.
> the reality is, the first person to take you to small claims court because they dont like the pictures you gave them, or report you, will cause you more trouble than you can imagine.
> so get the legal stuff done FIRST.
> in most areas it doesnt take much. in my county for instance, all you need to be "legal" is a registered business name and an EIN for when you pay your taxes. then, make sure you are actually paying taxes when  you are supposed to....because the tax office WILL be watching. we paid quarterly.  its not expensive at all to register a business and get your EIN.
> most people think that if things go wrong, a refund will fix everything. _*very not true*_. there are plenty of people that, when they are unhappy, just want to see the world burn, and no amount of apologies or refunds will keep them from negative reviews and a report to the IRS. (anyone who works in retail will understand the "unplacatable" customer)
> please dont think you are "safe" just because you are only doing some side portraits for FB people.
> 
> anyway...other than that, I say that if you have all the legal stuff in order, and can find clients willing to pay for  your services....then go for it.
> why not make money if the opportunity is there?
> business sense and marketing are more important than the actual photography.
> 
> of course, there's all sorts of little things that _*could*_ be mentioned...if someone were to nitpic..
> backup equipment. the ability to shoot in any lighting condition. a consistent quality product....dont forget about insurance for the business (like liability)
> but the truth is that most of that is subjective anyway, so as long as your clients are happy, thats all that really matters.



Seconded. It's a minefield out here for client based creative "businesses". I am currently quoting a job for a client that I just know is going to be a huge pain in the ass. Besides the standard PITA fee I am also documenting the crap out of the correspondence. Part of me thinks I should just decline the work because it will mostly likely end up costing me.


----------



## beccaf91

pixmedic said:


> my opinion on this subject has changed a bit over the years...
> ill start out by saying that if someone is willing to pay for what you are offering....then thats between you and the client, and _*noone*_ else.
> that being said, if you start charging for  your work, even as a little side gig, you better have your legal business status set up first.
> hardly anyone ever does though.... Tons of craigslist and FB photographers  working "under the table".
> it sounds fine... just taking some pictures for a little money. no harm no foul.
> the reality is, the first person to take you to small claims court because they dont like the pictures you gave them, or report you, will cause you more trouble than you can imagine.
> so get the legal stuff done FIRST.
> in most areas it doesnt take much. in my county for instance, all you need to be "legal" is a registered business name and an EIN for when you pay your taxes. then, make sure you are actually paying taxes when  you are supposed to....because the tax office WILL be watching. we paid quarterly.  its not expensive at all to register a business and get your EIN.
> most people think that if things go wrong, a refund will fix everything. _*very not true*_. there are plenty of people that, when they are unhappy, just want to see the world burn, and no amount of apologies or refunds will keep them from negative reviews and a report to the IRS. (anyone who works in retail will understand the "unplacatable" customer)
> please dont think you are "safe" just because you are only doing some side portraits for FB people.
> 
> anyway...other than that, I say that if you have all the legal stuff in order, and can find clients willing to pay for  your services....then go for it.
> why not make money if the opportunity is there?
> business sense and marketing are more important than the actual photography.
> 
> of course, there's all sorts of little things that _*could*_ be mentioned...if someone were to nitpic..
> backup equipment. the ability to shoot in any lighting condition. a consistent quality product....dont forget about insurance for the business (like liability)
> but the truth is that most of that is subjective anyway, so as long as your clients are happy, thats all that really matters.


I've already looked into it and got some forms from my city hall and the state.


----------



## beccaf91

thereyougo! said:


> I don't have much to add from the expert advice being given to you by the top people on this site, apart from to say that it's refreshing to see one of these threads not turn into a shouting match.  Well done on taking things on board, and Good Luck.  Most OPs with the same subject end up throwing their toys out of the pram because they don't like what they hear.


Oh yeah, well I'm not here for a pat on the head. I want legitimately, useful critiques from people who give a fig about photography. Lol


----------



## thereyougo!

beccaf91 said:


> thereyougo! said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have much to add from the expert advice being given to you by the top people on this site, apart from to say that it's refreshing to see one of these threads not turn into a shouting match.  Well done on taking things on board, and Good Luck.  Most OPs with the same subject end up throwing their toys out of the pram because they don't like what they hear.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah, well I'm not here for a pat on the head. I want legitimately, useful critiques from people who give a fig about photography. Lol
Click to expand...


Someone with your attitude will nearly always get advice on most if not all forums.  When I saw it was 9 pages long on the most discussed section, I thought it was going to be one of those rabid (but let's face it, entertaining) threads where the OP decides they could out-photograph Ansel Adams and Henri Cartier-Bresson, and that they don't need any advice.  Thumbs up!


----------



## Vtec44

beccaf91 said:


> Oh yeah, well I'm not here for a pat on the head. I want legitimately, useful critiques from people who give a fig about photography. Lol



My advice on listening to people on the Internet:  You definitely want to look over their work and how successful their business is before taking their advice.  It means they have successfully done it. There are a lot of information online, you just have to weed out all the bad ones.


----------



## thereyougo!

The thing about advice is that people don't always practise what they preach - and it goes both ways.  Sometimes people's work is better than their advice, sometimes people's advice is better than their work.  It's a minefield, and as a photographer in training (and I think pretty much every photographer is a photographer in training) you have to have thick skin and as little stubbornness as you can muster.  There will be times when you think you have it right, when you haven't and vice versa.  

You learn little by making no mistakes.  The best lessons are the ones that you learn from mistakes.  Don't be afraid of making them.


----------



## Designer

You're doing fine.


----------



## vintagesnaps

What pixmedic said about the business aspects, and try ASMP or PPA for resources. Along with that you'll need to bring up your skill level to be competitive.


----------



## beccaf91

You guys... the 7D Mark II that I'm getting has a dual axis level in the viewfinder and gridlines. I think this will help me a ton compositionally. I know that's the easy way out but I understand that will only go so far if I don't already have a firm grasp of composition, aspect ratio, acceptable backgrounds, etc. But I. AM. SO. EXCITED.


----------



## Designer

Good for you!


----------



## Derrel

A guy who I read regularly when I was first learning about photography, was David Vestal. This article details some things about Vestal and his writings. David Vestal: A Wonderful Life

An excerpt of something important from the article,

"Look through the viewfinder at anything you want to photograph, then move around until you like the way your picture fits in the finder's rectangle."

"Get close enough to fill up the picture with what's most important. Get far enough away to include everything you need in the picture. What's important? You decide. It's your picture; you're the photographer. No one else can say what's important to you."

"If your seeing is good, your pictures should be good, even if they are slightly overexposed or out of focus. If they are lively or pertinent, and worth seeing, that is what matters. Only weak pictures need perfection. Strong ones can survive considerable faults."

—_From "David Vestal's Book of Craft," Chapter 1: How the Tools of Photography Evolved, _Camera 35_, March 1972"_


----------



## Designer

Derrel said:


> A guy who I read regularly when I was first learning about photography, was David Vestal.


I owned his book; "The Craft of Photography".  Probably the best book about film, developing, printing that I have ever read.


----------



## vintagesnaps

That first quote is a winner. If only people would learn to do that.

And isn't that part of the enjoyment of photography? Looking thru the viewfinder and seeing when you've got a good photograph? Seeing when it's a good moment to release the shutter? I take satisfaction in that as a photographer.


----------



## vintagesnaps

OK I'm looking up that book. I fit the category of 'others'! You can always learn something.


----------



## Gary A.

I need work on reading.


----------



## crzyfotopeeple

Gary A. said:


> I need work on reading.


You need work on writing too


Right way up bro. Better like this post


----------

