# Pretty girl portraits



## Fleacz (Feb 20, 2012)

hey guys here are some pics i took while we went walking around Houston.  tell me what you think


----------



## jwbryson1 (Feb 20, 2012)

Garbage, but you already knew that, right?


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 20, 2012)

jwbryson1 said:


> Garbage, but you already knew that, right?



Way to encourage the OP and help them grow as a photographer. 

OP- 

1 is nice and sharp, but the subject and whatever is in her mouth doesn't do it for me. This also is hurt by landscape orientation. 

2 Is more of a serious photo. I am not the fan of selective coloring, as well as the tilted horizon. But your subject is posed in a flattering way compared to photo 1. 

3 Is probably the weakest out of all of them. She's too close to the edge of the frame, and the background is very distracting. She's also in a ridiculous pose, facing out of the frame towards the side closest to her.


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 20, 2012)

^ what Tyler said! #2 is the only keeper.. and especially if you lose the hokey processing! Pretty girl... make her the subject, not some stupid photoshop trick!


----------



## LightSpeed (Feb 20, 2012)

jwbryson1 said:


> Garbage, but you already knew that, right?



Unbelievable.


----------



## tirediron (Feb 20, 2012)

jwbryson1 said:


> Garbage, but you already knew that, right?


Posting pictures any time soon?


----------



## Derrel (Feb 20, 2012)

jwbryson1 said:


> Garbage, but you already knew that, right?



Seems pretty harsh...looked like the OP was having some fun, and posted a couple of whimsical shots...far above the standard for being called "garbage"...


----------



## dakkon76 (Feb 21, 2012)

jwbryson1 said:


> Garbage, but you already knew that, right?



Your grammar is also garbage. But I'm sure you knew that, right?

Judging from your own technically astounding images, maybe you should STFU.

eg:


----------



## jowensphoto (Feb 21, 2012)

I agree with just about all Tyler had to say.

No. 1: First impression (before scrolling down) was that the colors were really popping. Then I saw the green thing (leaf, maybe)... eh. It doesn't look purposeful, and like she forgot to brush her teeth. Just not flattering. Other than that, I don't hate the landscape orientation. It's been one of the rules/guidelines I've always had issues with 

No. 2: Not bad! Maybe my monitor is just sucky, but I didn't notice the selective coloring. I'm assuming it's her eyes? Either way, I dig this one... save for the tilted horizon (but that's an easy fix in post. And not hard to do SOOC next time!).

No. 3: The background is distracting, and the composition just isn't working.

I like that you went for the fun shots and not just serious, demure portraits. Keep practicing, this isn't a bad start!


----------



## Joey_Ricard (Feb 21, 2012)

OK can we ignore the Garbage comment that jwbryson made and get on with giving the OP something he can use and not turn this into yet another argument please.

My take is that, from the thread title - yes this girl looks like a cutie pie, but the poses? Come on....sure having fun etc etc, but these are snapshots - not portraits as what many of us on here call portraits. In that sense, these are not posed or planned.

Now, that first one, if you took that hamburger pickle out of her mouth, it could be a great shot.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Feb 21, 2012)

last photo I wanted to photoshop something next to her.... OOOOOOoooohh. bad schwetty... bad!  Dirty mind.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Feb 21, 2012)

Oh, c'mon, I'm busting the guy's balls.  I thought he was joking with the crap hanging out of her mouth in the first image.  I never suspcted he actually wanted real feedback on these shots.


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 21, 2012)

jwbryson1 said:


> I never suspcted he actually wanted real feedback on these shots.


 


Fleacz said:


> tell me what you think



Really? The thought never crossed your mind, huh?


----------



## jwbryson1 (Feb 21, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> jwbryson1 said:
> 
> 
> > I never suspcted he actually wanted real feedback on these shots.
> ...



Actually, honestly, no.  We've all see photos posted on here that ask for C&C and then the OP posts some silly photo that gets slammed.  It's happened a million times.  That's what my gut reaction was to this post.  My comment really went to the first image and not to the later images which don't include the food--does the OP really think that it's nice to see somebody with food hanging out of their mouth?  I thought it was a juvenile post and I responded in kind.  If I was wrong, well then I apologize.


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 21, 2012)

You judged the 3 photos by only looking at the first one? Nice. Takes real skill and effort to do that! 

I don't know what the OP thinks about people having a pickle sticking out of their mouth, that's probably why they posted it for C&C... You know, to get actual feedback and opinions. Not to have their photos judged and then written off by someone who looked as far as the first photo and then deemed it was "garbage." 

If we see something questionable or juvenile in one of your photo posts, do we then reserve the same right to tell you that it's "Garbage, but you already knew that, right?" 

It probably wouldn't feel so great to have that be the first response to one of your photo posts, eh?


----------



## chuasam (Feb 21, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> last photo I wanted to photoshop something next to her.... OOOOOOoooohh. bad schwetty... bad!  Dirty mind.


 Doooo ittttt!


----------



## Fleacz (Feb 21, 2012)

wow this post got more replies than i thought. i appreciate the advise you guys.  however, i've been posting here for quite a while and seem some awesome shots, but one thing i notice is that most people here on this site seems to think photography has rules that must not be broken.  I just want to remind everyone that there are guidelines to photography, not rules.  the reason i posted these certain pics is because i wanted to play with natural light, even if it is white blaring light behind the subject.


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 21, 2012)

Fleacz, if you have additional information, as in what you were trying to achieve or experiment with... You should add that to your first post. The more info the better. It will also help improve C&C that you receive.


----------



## jowensphoto (Feb 21, 2012)

Also, re: rules.

The old adage is "rules are meant to be broken." What isn't stated is that first must be learned in order to be broken. You have to know the "right" ways to break them. Kinda like breaking the speed limit... you have to know how to not get caught


----------



## EvanTChapman (Feb 21, 2012)

Jwbryson1=Troll


----------



## jwbryson1 (Feb 21, 2012)

EvanTChapman said:


> Jwbryson1=Troll



Nice post, Noob.  Get a life.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Feb 21, 2012)

jwbryson1 said:


> EvanTChapman said:
> 
> 
> > Jwbryson1=Troll
> ...



Noob as TPF noob? Or photography noob?


----------



## Joey_Ricard (Feb 21, 2012)

This is why I sometimes hate message boards -


----------



## jwbryson1 (Feb 21, 2012)

Joey_Ricard said:


> This is why I sometimes hate message boards -



Agreed.  This is ridiculous.  I love how people get joy out of piling on and feeling like they are part of the "in crowd."


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 21, 2012)

jwbryson1 said:


> Joey_Ricard said:
> 
> 
> > This is why I sometimes hate message boards -
> ...



...says the person with the ridiculously insulting first post in the thread. 

I think it's interesting that you're playing judge to someone else's post quality, Bryson.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Feb 21, 2012)

I find it fascinating that you, of all people, are perpetuting a ridiculous thread and taking it off topic instead of addressing the OP's question.  Get on with it.


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 21, 2012)

Fleacz said:


> tell me what you think



This is what I told the OP that I thought of their photographs: 



o hey tyler said:


> 1 is nice and sharp, but the subject and whatever is in her mouth doesn't do it for me. This also is hurt by landscape orientation.
> 
> 2 Is more of a serious photo. I am not the fan of selective coloring, as well as the tilted horizon. But your subject is posed in a flattering way compared to photo 1.
> 
> 3 Is probably the weakest out of all of them. She's too close to the edge of the frame, and the background is very distracting. She's also in a ridiculous pose, facing out of the frame towards the side closest to her.



This is what you told the OP you thought of their photographs: 



jwbryson1 said:


> Garbage, but you already knew that, right?





jwbryson1 said:


> I find it fascinating that you, of all people, are perpetuting a ridiculous thread and taking it off topic instead of addressing the OP's question.  Get on with it.



I answered the OP's question. I gave them critique on the photos they posted. Why don't you do the same instead of being useless?


----------



## Robin Usagani (Feb 21, 2012)

That's funny jwbryson1.. i remember not so long time ago you had fewer than 100 posts and you piled on me.  I do remember telling you that your photo sucked.  It is a full circle I guess.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Feb 21, 2012)

Do yall feel better when you give other members grief?  Hell, even the OP has mentioned nada about my post and here you continue to harangue about trivial crap as if it matters.  Why not choose to just ignore my post?  I responded, I explained my response, I even apologized for misunderstanding the OP's intent, and here we are hours later and you can't let it go.  That speaks volumes...


----------



## MTVision (Feb 21, 2012)

Ok..kids....can we call a truce yet?


----------



## slackercruster (Feb 21, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> ^ what Tyler said! #2 is the only keeper.. and especially if you lose the hokey processing! Pretty girl... make her the subject, not some stupid photoshop trick!



Thanks for your submissions OP.

I agree #2 is good. But I like the color in the hat. Maybe I like it cause I don't know squat how to do it. I know film photography from 40 years back, but not dig.

Keep blasting away and don't worry what others say. 

The gal looks like a plumper. Next time get some nice diffused photos with some of her clothes off too. The plump gals look fine diffused and naked. And if she is normal weight, still go for some skin. 

Expose her beauty to the world! Without the ladies like would be hell on earth.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Feb 21, 2012)

dakkon76 said:


> jwbryson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Garbage, but you already knew that, right?
> ...



And, for the record, this is a cute post and everybody got a big ol' laugh out of an old photo I took when I was a NooB, but it also directly violates the forum rule that says you cannot post an image that you did not take yourself.  Where is Overread or Big Mike when this happens?


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 21, 2012)

jwbryson1 said:


> dakkon76 said:
> 
> 
> > jwbryson1 said:
> ...



HINT: Look for small black triangle with an exclamation mark on it.. if you really want to make an issue of it! :meh:


----------



## True_Shot (Feb 21, 2012)

Critics are like eunuchs in a harem; they know how  it's done, they've seen it done every day, but they're unable to do it  themselves.

​


----------



## jaxx419 (Feb 21, 2012)

I think in number 1 she has a bite of a leaf in her mouth? If number 3 was shot a little differently it might have made for an interesting series.I think number 3 was trying to show her eating the leaves but she looks more disgusted? 

I love leaves but would never eat them! Lol

I can't offer much more on technical advice.. Hope this helped some?


----------



## rexbobcat (Feb 22, 2012)

I don't like any of them.

Number 1 is overexposed, seems to be OOF, and whatever she's eating is distracting. And it's head one, which in combination with the leaf in her mouth makes me think she's a dog retrieving something.

Number two is...ok...It seems OOF, but that may just be processing.

Number 3 is just bad. The expression is unflattering, it's overexposed with blown high lights, she looking out of the frame so her line of sight is leading us to nowhere....


----------

