# First model shoot, CC pleaase



## cornetlord (Jul 7, 2013)

First model shoot CC's are welcome.


----------



## SCraig (Jul 7, 2013)

Pretty lady but completely overwhelmed by the sunlight, flare, and the tree limb growing out of her head.  Tone the whites down a lot and you might have something.  I'm not a big fan of that overexposed / low contrast look but a lot of people seem to like it these days.


----------



## JacaRanda (Jul 7, 2013)

I wish I could offer some technical critique but I am not there yet.  However I really like the shot.   Maybe a little different position so the tree limb is not coming out of her head towards the right.  

Your model is gorgeous and has fantastic eyes.  I think a close up with her eyes as the focal point could result in a fantastic portrait!


----------



## mwild (Jul 7, 2013)

I'm actually a huge fan of lens flares, however I feel like this one may be a photoshop add-in am I right?  If it is though, you've placed it very well and it does look natural.  I'm not bothered by the tree limb or background at all.  I think it gives it a nice organic feel.  I LOVE the greens and colour in this photo.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 7, 2013)

Again, wht Scott said^^! 

I will add that she looks plastic... skin is either way processed, or too much makeup.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 7, 2013)

mwild said:


> *I'm actually a huge fan of lens flares*, however I feel like this one may be a photoshop add-in am I right?  If it is though, you've placed it very well and it does look natural.*  I'm not bothered by the tree limb or background at all.*  I think it gives it a nice organic feel.  I LOVE the greens and colour in this photo.



I take that to mean that you have never studied the classic rules / guidelines of portraiture or composition, and probably have no formal education in photography?


----------



## mwild (Jul 7, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> mwild said:
> 
> 
> > *I'm actually a huge fan of lens flares*, however I feel like this one may be a photoshop add-in am I right? If it is though, you've placed it very well and it does look natural.* I'm not bothered by the tree limb or background at all.* I think it gives it a nice organic feel. I LOVE the greens and colour in this photo.
> ...



I say what I see.  
Photography is a form of art, and art is subject to opinion.  
There's also no need to have an attitude of superiority around here, we're all either here to learn more or help others learn.


----------



## cornetlord (Jul 7, 2013)

I had to add some lens flare but I can take it back some, however there was lens flare present in the unprocessed image it just did not look right and I was trying to cover it up.  She did have a little too much makeup on giving her that flat look.  Since I just met her about 10 min prior and on location didn't have a chance to have her change it.  I have some others that I am going to put up of here which are much better (in my opinion.


----------



## mwild (Jul 7, 2013)

cornetlord said:


> I had to add some lens flare but I can take it back some, however there was lens flare present in the unprocessed image it just did not look right and I was trying to cover it up. She did have a little too much makeup on giving her that flat look. Since I just met her about 10 min prior and on location didn't have a chance to have her change it. I have some others that I am going to put up of here which are much better (in my opinion.



I personally think the lens flare works.    Gives life and energy to the photo.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Jul 7, 2013)

Not a fan of the flare or the composition. If you're going to put her directly in front of a tree limb, you really need to create some separation using off camera lighting, or at least a reflector.

Not bad at all for a first shoot though.


----------



## flow (Jul 8, 2013)

I don't care for flare unless there's a good reason for it. I do like the general concept, with the plants all around, with her sort of rising out of them, but it's hard to really look at it with the blinding bright spot. 
Maybe a different angle would resolve the head-tree and tone down the glare at the same time. If you could talk her into a reshoot, definitely ask about the makeup ... IMO natural setting pretty much demands a more natural look for the person, so they match their surroundings.


----------



## mwild (Jul 8, 2013)

Also, the lines from the tree branches direct the eyes to the face, which is never a bad thing.


----------



## cornetlord (Jul 8, 2013)

I can't do anything about the trees, however I can get rid of the flare and get drop the highlights and whites to get rid of the minor flare that was there....any better?


----------



## flow (Jul 8, 2013)

For me, YES, loads better. Doesn't hurt to look at, now. Definitely changes the mood, though, so that could outweigh anything else, depending on what you wanted from it.


----------



## SCraig (Jul 8, 2013)

I agree.  Much better than the first one.


----------



## amolitor (Jul 8, 2013)

The tree branch is out of focus, but tonally and texturally similar to the model's hair, so there's factors that make it less of a problem and other factors that make it more of a problem. The "growing out of her head" thing is a bit of a red herring, it's too big for that effect, to my eye. It's simply a moderately dicey background, as far as I can see.

There's a much bigger problem, though, which is that the model's just standing there. What's she doing there? Why is she there? The setting, framing, and processing say 'ethereal, fairyland' or something, like she's a dryad, but then there's the serious looking girl wearing a nice formal blouse, looking moderately urban.

There's often some incongruity in model shots, but this one strikes me as beyond the pale.


----------



## Designer (Jul 8, 2013)

Not much to say that is positive, I'm afraid.

Glare and flare.
Extremely distracting background.
Foreground elements in front of model.
Pose very static.

It's as if you wanted to hide the model, or she from you.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 8, 2013)

mwild said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > mwild said:
> ...



OK.. I will help you (and the OP) learn....  

See *Watch Out for HotSpots  *and *The Dreaded Polehead: Control Your Background* sections on this link:  Basic Photo Tips: Framing Your Shots | Journographica

On on the subjectivity of ART... Just as there is good art, and bad art, there are good opinions, and bad opinions! Informed (knowledgeable) opinions are usually the best..


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Jul 8, 2013)

Second version is MUCH better.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 8, 2013)

Designer said:


> Not much to say that is positive, I'm afraid.
> 
> Glare and flare.
> Extremely distracting background.
> ...



Agreed.. and I would still like to know why the skin is so plastic! OP.. are you using "Portrait Professional"?


----------



## emdiemci (Jul 8, 2013)

I personally like it with the flare it gives it a morning forest calm type of feel... that's just what i felt. I do think that branch looks weird popping out of her head. But she is gorgeous and I like this Photograph


----------



## mwild (Jul 8, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> mwild said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...




I can agree with that.  And thanks for the info!


----------



## pixmedic (Jul 8, 2013)

your second edit is MUCH better than the first. 
I am not really a big fan of flare. it is rarely used well, and more often than not only adds some bright spot to distract you from the subject. 
it does look like you did some smoothing on her skin, or used a noise reduction program that softened it a bit.


----------



## amolitor (Jul 9, 2013)

I say this from time to time, but it's always worth repeating:

Art isn't subjective, it's intersubjective. That's a word made up specifically, as far as I can tell, to describe what Art Is. It's a word worth looking up and really understanding. You will learn a surprising amount about both Art and Society.


----------



## BlackTuxPhoto (Jul 9, 2013)

The first one has more flavor and soul in my opinion. Second is just a picture. I like the first, maybeeeee just turn down the whites a little. But imo the flare adds something to the photo.


----------



## gwhiz (Jul 10, 2013)

Normally I'm a huge fan of what cgibson1 has to say but that did come off a bit condescending and unnecessary.  I too represent the "uneducated" and only have a basic understanding of the "classic rules/guidelines of portrait or composition" but to me it's a no-brainer that the first version is the better one.  Without the added flare, it's simply a poorly placed model with too much distraction surrounding her.  With the flare there is an air of mystery or a "gotcha" moment, almost as if we just caught a fairy in her natural element.  Granted, if that were the intention we would have needed an ever-so-slightly better pose from her but the feel is there none the less.  The first version is a nicely done piece in a very contemporary style that we're seeing more and more of.  Yes, it goes against many "classic" thoughts but it certainly works better than the second version.  I'm sure that if the OP wanted to create a typical, classic portrait with this model he would have been more than capable of doing so.  I like what he did with it, call me stupid if you like, but aesthetically it's pleasing.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 10, 2013)

gwhiz said:


> Normally I'm a huge fan of what cgibson1 has to say but that did come off a bit condescending and unnecessary.  I too represent the "uneducated" and only have a basic understanding of the "classic rules/guidelines of portrait or composition" but to me it's a no-brainer that the first version is the better one.  Without the added flare, it's simply a poorly placed model with too much distraction surrounding her.  With the flare there is an air of mystery or a "gotcha" moment, almost as if we just caught a fairy in her natural element.  Granted, if that were the intention we would have needed an ever-so-slightly better pose from her but the feel is there none the less.  The first version is a nicely done piece in a very contemporary style that we're seeing more and more of.  Yes, it goes against many "classic" thoughts but it certainly works better than the second version.  I'm sure that if the OP wanted to create a typical, classic portrait with this model he would have been more than capable of doing so.  I like what he did with it, call me stupid if you like, but aesthetically it's pleasing.



This is going to sound condescending too then! One issue we see a lot, is where an image will be posted that has several things wrong with it by someone that doesn't know there is anything wrong with it. Then OTHERS that don't KNOW there is anything wrong with it, come in.. and reinforce those mistakes by saying WOW... and I LOVE IT. If no one spoke up, then the the hypothetical OP would keep on shooting that way because he now thinks it is good since he was told so, by others (even though they don't know enough to recognize what was wrong in the first place!

Addressing this issue usually results in the "It's Art.. It's subjective" comment... which may be true, but when the commenter doesn't know enough to really know good from bad, someone has to "be condescending" and let them know. My delivery is not always "sugar coated", I admit... but hey, I don't get paid for this either... and sometimes I get a little irritated at some of the "overly positive" comments on an image,when they should be "less than positive" comments! (and I am not the only one!) 

Just saying "It's Art" does not necessarily make it "Good Art"...

If anyone learned anything here... good... otherwise I (and many others) are wasting our time.

Does that help? Or is this comment "Condescending" also?

We love seeing other people C&C... but please.. instead of a WOW... or and I LOVE IT... state WHY you think it is WOW and why YOU LOVE IT (or at least THINK about it! And do some research if you need to, so that you can better explain it... GOOGLE is your friend!)


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Jul 10, 2013)

BlackTuxPhoto said:


> But imo the flare adds something to the photo.



Oh, fake flares add something alright...

A heaping pile of vomit with a side order of awful and a big banner that reads "I'm an amateur, please don't be too harsh!"


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 10, 2013)

jamesbjenkins said:


> BlackTuxPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > But imo the flare adds something to the photo.
> ...



Fake Flare is seldom convincing to anyone that knows better!  lol!  It seldom improves an image.


----------



## JoeLeBean (Jul 10, 2013)

Big yes without lens flare, even if i really like them


----------



## gwhiz (Jul 10, 2013)

I agree with your whole commentary and it didn't sound condescending at all.  In fact, I only meant that you sounded that way to the person that said that they liked fake flare, not the OP.  You were a bit harsh to that person for their uneducated opinion.

I'm all for giving people honest advice to help then grow and learn.  I agree that giving people a false sense of reality that their work is great with comments like "wow I love it" do no good in helping them do that.  

With all that said, I'm strictly saying that because of all of the weirdness in the original pic (makeup, foreground encroaching on her, etc.) it looked like the flare was intentional and added something to the story of the shot and I liked it overall better than without the flare.  

Please don't think that I am against honest feedback - it's what makes this forum such a great place to learn.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 10, 2013)

gwhiz said:


> I agree with your whole commentary and it didn't sound condescending at all.  In fact, I only meant that you sounded that way to the person that said that they liked fake flare, not the OP.  You were a bit harsh to that person for their uneducated opinion.
> 
> I'm all for giving people honest advice to help then grow and learn.  I agree that giving people a false sense of reality that their work is great with comments like "wow I love it" do no good in helping them do that.
> 
> ...



A lot of how I respond to a person depends on the person, the posts they have made, the level of expertise they show (or not), whether or not they shoot for money (i.e. PRO) but still ask silly beginner questions, and many other factors... 

including yes, even my moods, what I had for lunch, whether the sun is out, etc..... Catch me on a good day, I might be nicer! Catch me on a bad day? (let's not go there!)  

I do try for honesty, always! And due to constant nagging from the MOD's, I am even making an effort at being less caustic (which really means I just don't bother posting in the threads that deserve those kinds of caustic comments! Or at least not often!)


----------



## ShooterJ (Jul 10, 2013)

Charlie just doesn't have any patience for bull****. It's a trait I respect in people. The world is too full of it and it's followed blindly by too many that don't know "good" because they haven't really seen "bad", in whatever way that might manifest.

I know that he's among those who have contributed a great deal to my photography because I'm not one of the blind and know that what might appear to be blunt or condescending is nothing more than pure honesty, which if allowed past ego, is the kindest thing anyone can do for another.


----------



## mwild (Jul 10, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> gwhiz said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with your whole commentary and it didn't sound condescending at all. In fact, I only meant that you sounded that way to the person that said that they liked fake flare, not the OP. You were a bit harsh to that person for their uneducated opinion.
> ...



Oh lighten up


----------



## mwild (Jul 10, 2013)

ShooterJ said:


> Charlie just doesn't have any patience for bull****. It's a trait I respect in people. The world is too full of it and it's followed blindly by too many that don't know "good" because they haven't really seen "bad", in whatever way that might manifest.
> 
> I know that he's among those who have contributed a great deal to my photography because I'm not one of the blind and know that what might appear to be blunt or condescending is nothing more than pure honesty, which if allowed past ego, is the kindest thing anyone can do for another.



When one can let go of the ego, the ability to learn is beyond measurable.


----------



## mwild (Jul 10, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> gwhiz said:
> 
> 
> > Normally I'm a huge fan of what cgibson1 has to say but that did come off a bit condescending and unnecessary. I too represent the "uneducated" and only have a basic understanding of the "classic rules/guidelines of portrait or composition" but to me it's a no-brainer that the first version is the better one. Without the added flare, it's simply a poorly placed model with too much distraction surrounding her. With the flare there is an air of mystery or a "gotcha" moment, almost as if we just caught a fairy in her natural element. Granted, if that were the intention we would have needed an ever-so-slightly better pose from her but the feel is there none the less. The first version is a nicely done piece in a very contemporary style that we're seeing more and more of. Yes, it goes against many "classic" thoughts but it certainly works better than the second version. I'm sure that if the OP wanted to create a typical, classic portrait with this model he would have been more than capable of doing so. I like what he did with it, call me stupid if you like, but aesthetically it's pleasing.
> ...



It's very difficult for me by nature to be critical, I'm an optimist.. but I agree, it wouldn't kill me to be a realist at times, and I can understand your frustration.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 10, 2013)

ShooterJ said:


> Charlie just doesn't have any patience for bull****. It's a trait I respect in people. The world is too full of it and it's followed blindly by too many that don't know "good" because they haven't really seen "bad", in whatever way that might manifest.
> 
> I know that he's among those who have contributed a great deal to my photography because I'm not one of the blind and know that what might appear to be blunt or condescending is nothing more than pure honesty, which if allowed past ego, is the kindest thing anyone can do for another.



It's Charlies Hug A Cop day!  :hug::


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 10, 2013)

mwild said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > gwhiz said:
> ...



I do sometimes... but it requires huge amounts of Tapioca Pudding, Jamaican rum, and multiple purty ladies! 


Is that light enough for you?


----------



## ShooterJ (Jul 10, 2013)

So long as it was a brief masculine hug. :lmao:


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 10, 2013)

ShooterJ said:


> So long as it was a brief masculine hug. :lmao:



What? Not in touch with your "Sensitive" side? 

If you hug Josh the Cop
He will give your head a bop
Cuz he is not that kind of guy
(except when he does it on the SLY!)


----------



## ShooterJ (Jul 10, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> ShooterJ said:
> 
> 
> > So long as it was a brief masculine hug. :lmao:
> ...



Do you run a Chocolate Factory by any chance?


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 10, 2013)

ShooterJ said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > ShooterJ said:
> ...



Want some Blueberry Pie Bubblegum?  

(are U dissin' my art, man?)


----------



## mwild (Jul 10, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> mwild said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...



Haha, that's an acceptable amount of lightness.


----------



## ShooterJ (Jul 10, 2013)

I actually heard about Kodachrome while talking to an instructor about shooting film.. I have an interest in it. He mentioned it and told me I'd missed out on it.. no more around.  Lol

EDIT: And I'm in the wrong thread again... aren't I?


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 10, 2013)

ShooterJ said:


> I actually heard about Kodachrome while talking to an instructor about shooting film.. I have an interest in it. He mentioned it and told me I'd missed out on it.. no more around.  Lol
> 
> EDIT: And I'm in the wrong thread again... aren't I?



Josh... *JUST SAY NO! *


----------



## ShooterJ (Jul 10, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> ShooterJ said:
> 
> 
> > I actually heard about Kodachrome while talking to an instructor about shooting film.. I have an interest in it. He mentioned it and told me I'd missed out on it.. no more around.  Lol
> ...



The Dark Ages got the Black Plague and TPF gets me. :lmao:


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 10, 2013)

ShooterJ said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > ShooterJ said:
> ...



Dang.. where IS that penicillin?  lol! (those dang STD's get'cha every time!)


----------

