# Any critiques??



## brookiepictures (Mar 8, 2013)

I want help to learn more. Does this need more editing or should it have been shot differently? I'm learning the basics and I have very little equipment. I 'm just working my way to being good! Please help!
 Any help or advise is greatly appreciated!


----------



## ronlane (Mar 8, 2013)

The lighting is kind of harsh but the eyes are in focus. It probably would have helped to have shot it Portrait instead of landscape. Cannot see the exif, was there a flash or was it natural light?


----------



## brookiepictures (Mar 8, 2013)

That was all natural light. I only have my pop up flash right now... but have bee told there are ways to diffuse that light.


----------



## ronlane (Mar 8, 2013)

There are ways to diffuse the pop up flash but that is not idea. Something like this with just the diffuser placed between the sun and your subject would have helped.


----------



## brookiepictures (Mar 8, 2013)

Oh! Okay great! Thanks!


----------



## Lmphotos (Mar 8, 2013)

Yes diffuser focus focus focus on learning light it will change your photography forever


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 8, 2013)

ronlane said:


> There are ways to diffuse the pop up flash but that is not idea. Something like this with just the diffuser placed between the sun and your subject would have helped.



Ahah... you did learn something! lol!


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 8, 2013)

brookiepictures said:


> I want help to learn more. Does this need more editing or should it have been shot differently? I'm learning the basics and I have very little equipment. I 'm just working my way to being good! Please help!View attachment 38223 Any help or advise is greatly appreciated!



Composition is good, it's sharp, lighting is nice. The shadow from the nose is a bit distracting. I don't think a fill flash would work here, but instead a small fill card.
I think it would best if you both faced the sun a bit more to minimize the shadow cutting into her cheek and eye.

Or - you could just photoshop it.


----------



## Pallycow (Mar 8, 2013)

yeah, the nose shadow kills it for me, looks like a thumb.


----------



## skieur (Mar 8, 2013)

The two major problems are brain amputation and the shadow across her left cheek.


----------



## brookiepictures (Mar 8, 2013)

How would I photoshop it? I have tried to do it before but it just looks fake.


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 8, 2013)

brookiepictures said:


> How would I photoshop it? I have tried to do it before but it just looks fake.



Just takes practice! I have an edit I could post if you would like... (you will find that by allowing us to edit, you will get some good feedback you wouldn't get other wise. You can turn that on in your profile / settings!)


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 8, 2013)

skieur said:


> The two major problems are brain amputation and the shadow across her left cheek.



The crop at the head isn't a major problem imho.


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 8, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > The two major problems are brain amputation and the shadow across her left cheek.
> ...



I don't care for it... it seems to be becoming an accepted norm with a certain class of photographer (you know, the ones with Facebook PRO pages, huge watermarks, bad WB and lot of wide open aperture fuzzy "Bokeh" shots). Same for bad horizontal framing on portraits...


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 8, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > skieur said:
> ...



Like this class of photographers? 

Volum' Express® The Rocket? Waterproof Mascara
Clean Express!? Classic Eye Make Up Remover
Revlon Products: Makeup, Fragrances, Hair Color, Nails, Beauty Tools
P!NK | COVERGIRL Talent


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 8, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Ballistics said:
> ...



Maybe by the class of photographers that pay attention to this kind of crap! lol! Since I don't use makeup (or watch TV, or read Chick Magazines), I guess I don't see this stuff too often (thank goddess!)! Nice to know that you do, though!  lol!


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 8, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...



The wife's a makeup artist.


----------



## slow231 (Mar 9, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Ballistics said:
> ...


heh heh.
i personally like the fill the frame look.  chopped heads don't bother me and I do it a lot.

i think cgipson1 was fine in mentioning his preference, but I think one should be careful with just reasoning with a negative stigmatization of the opposing opinion. as photographers we should be careful about tastes becoming purely cultural and losing touch with true aesthetics. i fully and wholeheartedly understand that this does naturally bother some, and can be a bit of a pet peeve.  but i really think a whole lot of people don't care about (or never even notice) head chops, and it's actually quite common among "good" professional shots.  so i'd venture a guess that those who it really bothers are in a minority...

that said, imo you can chop heads, but OP's crop _is_ too tight on the top.  and there's like half a dead space to the left and right.  if you want to leave dead space (for contrast, environmental ties, to address a gaze, etc.), give more of it and leave it on one side.  the space on both sides only makes the top crop seem that much tighter and unbalanced. 

a general rule of thumb is to also shoot people at slightly below nose level. the downward perspective can give an overbearing type of feeling. but i think in this case this "rule" is broken well. the warmness of her expression into the camera pretty much negates any overbearingness, and it almost gives a trusting kind of a feel.


----------



## texkam (Mar 9, 2013)

^ and this... http://www.cacchioli.co.uk/core/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Royal-Wedding-Portrait.jpg


----------



## texkam (Mar 9, 2013)

For a non-formal snap it's very pleasant save the fall of the shadow on the cheek. I know you shot this in the "golden hour", but you may consider removing a bit of magenta. Easily done if you shot in raw. The crop and horizontal framing works for me.


----------



## ronlane (Mar 9, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> ronlane said:
> 
> 
> > There are ways to diffuse the pop up flash but that is not idea. Something like this with just the diffuser placed between the sun and your subject would have helped.
> ...



I've got this AWESOME teacher, so of course I learned something. I may have trouble putting it into practice but I have learned.


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 10, 2013)

brookiepictures said:
			
		

> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Original on top


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 10, 2013)

texkam said:


> For a non-formal snap it's very pleasant save the fall of the shadow on the cheek. I know you shot this in the "golden hour", but you may consider removing a bit of magenta. Easily done if you shot in raw. The crop and horizontal framing works for me.



It's easily done no matter the file format. You can edit Jpegs in Camera Raw.


----------



## brookiepictures (Mar 10, 2013)

Its a beautiful edit! Is it just an air brush? Did you use photo shop?


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 10, 2013)

brookiepictures said:


> Its a beautiful edit! Is it just an air brush? Did you use photo shop?



Airbrush? There's no airbrushing anymore lol. It's *ALL*&#8203; photoshop. Anything you see in magazines is all down in some form of photoshop.


----------



## brookiepictures (Mar 10, 2013)

I use light room.


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 10, 2013)

brookiepictures said:


> Its a beautiful edit! Is it just an air brush? Did you use photo shop?



Yes, Photoshop! I did some "virtual" airbrushing to even out the shadows and highlights, with some light cloning. Then ran the image through portraiture for some soft skin smoothing. Then added some light to the eyes with the gradient tool and paintbrush. Glad you like it!


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 10, 2013)

brookiepictures said:


> I use light room.


Which is an element of  photoshop.


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 10, 2013)

It's Sunday night, I'm not busy so I can't pass by without saying something so I will say two things.

Don't spend a huge amount of time, editing a photo that has really basic things wrong, like all the space on each side and chopping so much off the head and the big shadow.
Go back and get some of it right in your concept and in the camera.

And 



slow231 said:


> but I think one should be careful with just reasoning with a *negative stigmatization* of the opposing opinion.



Isn't that redundant?
What would a positive stigmatization be? "You're a miserable monstrous fat ugly person with bad breath but you hardly smell when you sweat."

:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 10, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> It's Sunday night, I'm not busy so I can't pass by without saying something so I will say two things.
> 
> Don't spend a huge amount of time, editing a photo that has really basic things wrong, like all the space on each side and chopping so much off the head and the big shadow.
> Go back and get some of it right in your concept and in the camera.



Besides the fact that the picture is composed well, whether the picture is flawed or not, telling someone not to edit due to the flaws is telling someone to waste a massive amount of time. 
Why not learn how to edit *and* take quality pictures at the same time? A picture shouldn't have to be worthy of an edit, in order to learn how to edit. That's silly.  

You older members need to get with the times. This whole anti-horizontal portrait and anti-head cropping ship has set sail and isn't coming back. As I've already shown 4 examples, this style of photography 
is extremely popular among high end portrait photographers.


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 10, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> *Besides the fact that the picture is composed well*, whether the picture is flawed or not, telling someone not to edit due to the flaws is telling someone to waste a massive amount of time.
> Why not learn how to edit *and* take quality pictures at the same time? A picture shouldn't have to be worthy of an edit, in order to learn how to edit. That's silly.
> 
> _*You older members need to get with the times*_. This whole anti-horizontal portrait and anti-head cropping ship has set sail and isn't coming back. As I've already shown 4 examples, this style of photography
> is extremely popular among high end portrait photographers.



I assume you mean that your opinion is that it is composed well. 
On the other hand I think the there is so much space on the L&R and her neck and head are so truncated that it looks a bit like she is being squeezed into that frame.

I don't need the weight of popular opinion to tell me whether I like something or that its good or not.
The fact that something is popular in general doesn't make a specific instance good.

Trying to make your argument more sensible by making me be less believable because I am older seems a like an attempt to shore up a weak position bu attacking the opponent and not his argument.

You are young.
There are lots of young fools here who can't take pictures either.
Does that make your opinion foolish and your pictures bad?


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 10, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > *Besides the fact that the picture is composed well*, whether the picture is flawed or not, telling someone not to edit due to the flaws is telling someone to waste a massive amount of time.
> ...




You need to read the words in the post without adding any of your own. Starting from the bottom:



> Trying to make your argument more sensible by making me be less believable because I am older seems a like an attempt to shore up a weak position bu attacking the opponent and not his argument.



For starters, there is no possible way you could have interpreted what I said that way, without purposely doing so. 

I said: 



> _*You older members need to get with the times*__*.*_



And what that means, is that you older members, need to get with the times. 
Watered down - that says, you guys who have been doing photography a certain way for a long time, need to understand that things,like composition, evolve. 
This may have been a nono 20 years ago, but it is done in the professional realm right now.  



> I assume you mean that your opinion is that it is composed well.
> On the other hand I think the there is so much space on the L&R and her neck and head are so truncated that it looks a bit like she is being squeezed into that frame.



Yeah, just like I assumed you mean that in your opinion that all the space on each side and chopping so much off the head are basic things that are wrong.




> I don't need the weight of popular opinion to tell me whether I like something or that its good or not.
> The fact that something is popular in general doesn't make a specific instance good.



I disagree. If the general public think your work sucks... I got news for you... you may want to rethink how you do things.  
As for the popularity of something, top tier professional photographers shoot this way. So who is one supposed to follow in regards to what is right and wrong?
Some stranger on an internet forum? Or published portrait photographers that currently shoot for revlon/maybelline/MAC etc?


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 10, 2013)

You didn't hear me or you are capable of understanding.

I don't care what is popular or what 'professional photographers' think is _au courant_.
I don't need anyone to tell me what is good or bad.
I have my own creative opinions and that's what drives my work and how I see other's pictures.

You can follow whatever leaders you want.
You know what every sled dog but the leader sees?


----------



## Thayli (Mar 10, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Ballistics said:
> ...



Without being argumentative, (really), those 4 examples are all selling a product, specifically makeup, so are those shots not cropped off to enlarge the face area? In other words the focus is on the product, not the person?


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 10, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> published portrait photographers that currently shoot for revlon/maybelline/MAC etc?



It is called advertising! It is not necessarily good photography, it is meant to emphasize whatever it is they are trying to sell! Want EYES... cut the forehead.... it sells more makeup! 

It does go against the guidelines, which have been around much longer that madison avenue and all these advertising people that do things like this. And yes.. it is popular with certain segment of the population... mostly young girls and women that read the fashion magazines that are basically financed and controlled by the clothing and makeup industries. Shots like that are really popular on Facebook... and that alone should make you pause before you praise it, or say it is the "new way of doing things"! If they start doing massive Selective Color, and fake vintage crap, you going to fall right in line, and praise that too?


----------



## Parker219 (Mar 10, 2013)

cgipson1- Nice job getting rid of the shadows, but I think you went a little overboard on the skin softening.


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 10, 2013)

Parker219 said:


> cgipson1- Nice job getting rid of the shadows, but I think you went a little overboard on the skin softening.



It was a tough call....


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 10, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> You didn't hear me or you are capable of understanding.



Really? And I'm the young one? Don't be bitter - 



> I don't care what is popular or what 'professional photographers' think is _au courant_.
> I don't need anyone to tell me what is good or bad.
> I have my own creative opinions and that's what drives my work and how I see other's pictures.


I heard you the first time - which is why my response was


> I disagree



Followed by why I disagreed.


> You can follow whatever leaders you want.
> You know what every sled dog but the leader sees?



You need to learn how to be led, before you can lead. If you ignore those that are in the position 
where you want to be, you'll never know how to do what they do better than they do it. 

I don't care what you do or don't follow - you tried pointing out that what I said was an opinion.
Guess what Lew? What you said is an opinion as well. The difference is, I provided some evidence as to why my opinion was what it was.

You on the other hand, manipulated what I said to turn it into an attack against you, so you can attack me back and insult my intelligence.


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 10, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > published portrait photographers that currently shoot for revlon/maybelline/MAC etc?
> ...



I'm certainly not going to say " This is wrong" and then insult every person that thinks it is right. Everyone has their tastes, but to call something done by high-end professionals wrong... my response to you is, be a high-end professional first, then tell your peers that what they are doing is wrong.


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 10, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Ballistics said:
> ...



The photographers (my peers!)  are NOT calling the shots... it is the advertising geeks!


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 10, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...



This kind of composition is not limited to fashion and advertising photography. Texkam already showed an image of the prince and his wife in this style comp. Neither fashion, nor advertising.


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 10, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Ballistics said:
> ...



Yea, sure... whatever! Not worth arguing about... you win, ok! You want to shoot like an MWAC? Go for it... I don't care!


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 10, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...



What is it with you guys, carrying on a disagreement for 5 or 6 posts and then suddenly saying it's not worth arguing about it, only to end with subtle insults? 
I'm at a loss here. Is it because I'm just supposed to take what you and traveler say as gospel and that's it? Can't question it?
You guys are saying it's amateur to do this, and when I provide proof that high level pros are doing it, it's blasphemous and then I'm hit with these little passive aggressive comments about
reading womens magazines . 

No matter how much you don't like it, MWACs are not photographing Royalty, or shooting for revlon and maybelline, Charlie.


----------



## rexbobcat (Mar 10, 2013)

I generally agree with the concensus, but saying that ALL chopped headshots are amateurish is the kind of blanket statement that needs to be scrutinized for credibility or truth lol.

This guy is really into chopped headshots and everybody seems to love him:

http://peterhurley.com/


----------



## slow231 (Mar 11, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> And
> 
> 
> 
> ...



not sure what you point is. it's really not all that uncommon to be redundant when describing something, particularly when you want to highlight a certain aspect, in this case it was the fact that a justification was made just purely around making a negative association.

so did a quick search on your posts, and the 4th post down is this:


The_Traveler said:


> While I like the picture a lot, it is *calm and soozing*, I do think that the image as posted is oversharpened.
> Virtually every straight line has a sharpening halo.


what do you know, soothing by definition is calming...  
\[begin pointless drivel (yes that's redundant too)] 
isn't that redundant? what would a frenzied soothing be? + blah blah blah...



cgipson1 said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...



why don't you just say "i don't like the way it looks because ..." instead of saying "anyone that does that is a *insert name/NEGATIVE stigmatization here*" (again that's for you lew).  it's quite clear that plenty of working photographers do this, and that it doesn't bother plenty of people, regardless of if it's driven by the ad "geeks" (again more name calling/stigmatization of those who don't agree with you about something aesthetic...) or the photographers. saying that the OP was too crowded especially up top would be fine (and also true imo), or even just saying that cropped heads are something you notice and it bothers you.  but just attacking the opposing viewpoint with opinionated associations is childish and self fulfilling.


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 12, 2013)

OK, Slow, time to stop trying to prop up your self-image and post pictures.


----------



## manager2301 (Mar 14, 2013)




----------



## skieur (Mar 14, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > The two major problems are brain amputation and the shadow across her left cheek.
> ...



It is for most successful professional portrait photographers in my area of Canada.


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 14, 2013)

skieur said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > skieur said:
> ...



http://arttattler.com/Images/NorthA...eum of Fine Arts/Yousuf Karsh/FidelCastro.jpg

Yousuf Karsh strongly disagrees with you.

http://www.martinphotography.ca/galleries/index.html

This guy seems pretty successful. 

http://ginasportraits.com/2011/05/top-portrait-photographer-in-canada/

This female portrait photographer seems legit. She does it too.  

What part of Canada are you from so I can narrow down my search?


----------

