# 1st time as a professional!!!



## KAikens318 (Oct 21, 2009)




----------



## SpeedTrap (Oct 21, 2009)

You are posting in the Pro section so this is going to be a bit stronger of a critique than in other sections.

Image 1
I can see the Rembrandt lighting in this but the focus point did not hit the eyes, they are soft when they should be sharp.

Image 2
This image lacks in a few ways, thing like the underwear showing, the wrinkles in the background and not enough contrast in you black and whit conversion. This looks like you need at least one more light on the background.

Image 3 
This image looks awkward, to me it looks forced and not natural, as well it looks like it should have been shot horizontal, but you lighting looks better on this one.

Image 4 
It is a bit too small to tell if it is sharp, but again I do not get the peaceful feeling I think you where going for with this one. It seems like there is a bit to much black space around this one. You subjects head is too centered. (See Rule of 3rds)

Image 5 
I like this one, it is fun but could use a bit more light to really make it pop.

Image 6
Without the hand coming in from nowhere this would have been a stronger shot. With no arm attached to the hand it is just floating there. For this type of shot a wider crop would be better. And it looks like you white balance might be a bit warm on this one.


This is just my opinion.


----------



## Herro (Oct 21, 2009)

work on quality and composition.


----------



## Christie Photo (Oct 22, 2009)

The first two are nice, although I feel a somewhat lower camera angle on the second would help....  not so much that his body become foreshortened...  just a bit.

Three of the rest are shot "out of key," and it's not doing anything good.

I gotta ask...  the shot of the two guys together?  Umm...  what is their relationship?  Placing them into this pose...  with that pinkish background...  well, I think its clear what the problem is.

-Pete


----------



## KAikens318 (Oct 23, 2009)

Only problems I have with 'working on composition' is that I work at a portrait studio where we have no control over the lighting or camera settings. We are not allowed to position where the strobe is located, cannot touch the ISO, Fstop or shutter speed (Which as a photographer is killing me)

But thank you for the critique, I do appreciate it!


----------



## KAikens318 (Oct 23, 2009)

Christie Photo said:


> The first two are nice, although I feel a somewhat lower camera angle on the second would help....  not so much that his body become foreshortened...  just a bit.
> 
> Three of the rest are shot "out of key," and it's not doing anything good.
> 
> ...



They are married. There is no problem. They wanted the red tulle underneath their heads.


----------



## twocolor (Oct 24, 2009)

KAikens318 said:


> Only problems I have with 'working on composition' is that I work at a portrait studio where we have no control over the lighting or camera settings. We are not allowed to position where the strobe is located, cannot touch the ISO, Fstop or shutter speed (Which as a photographer is killing me)
> 
> But thank you for the critique, I do appreciate it!


 

?????????

That's not a photographer, that's a button pusher. What kind of a portrait studio gives the photographer no control of the results?????

On another note, composition doesn't have anything to do with ISO, aperture of shutter speed, those are the keys to correct exposure.  Composition is the pleasing arrangement of the subject in the portraits.  You DO have control over that right?


----------



## iflynething (Oct 25, 2009)

That's not a right place to work as a "professional"

~Michael~


----------



## Josh66 (Oct 25, 2009)

KAikens318 said:


> I work at a portrait studio where we have no control [...]



Is that where these were taken?

(Wouldn't your employer own the rights to these photos?)


----------



## iflynething (Oct 25, 2009)

O|||||||O said:


> KAikens318 said:
> 
> 
> > I work at a portrait studio where we have no control [...]
> ...




That's exactly what I was thinking.....shouldn't be posting these on here

~Michael~


----------



## Lyncca (Oct 26, 2009)

> ?????????
> 
> That's not a photographer, that's a button pusher. What kind of a portrait studio gives the photographer no control of the results?????


 
From what I understand, that is exactly how Target, Walmart, etc. run their portrait business. And yes, agreed, that is a button pusher. I considered trying a part time job at one of these places until I understood it wouldn't help me learn anything about photography.


----------



## KAikens318 (Oct 27, 2009)

O|||||||O said:


> KAikens318 said:
> 
> 
> > I work at a portrait studio where we have no control [...]
> ...



No, I bought the cds and rights to these photos


----------



## iflynething (Oct 27, 2009)

Did you know the boy and the men?

~Michael~


----------



## Christie Photo (Oct 28, 2009)

iflynething said:


> Did you know the boy and the men?
> 
> ~Michael~



GOOD question.  

I'm wondering WHY you would do that and why your employer would agree?

-Pete


----------



## CCarsonPhoto (Oct 28, 2009)

I'm going to second what most everyone else here said. As far as the shots of the two men in question...regardless of their sexual preference, they are still men, and you don't want to shoot men in feminine poses. Things like a tilted head or a hand angled a certain way take away from the masculinity you want to portray.


----------



## iflynething (Oct 28, 2009)

Christie Photo said:


> iflynething said:
> 
> 
> > Did you know the boy and the men?
> ...



Only reason I ask is because I am wondering why you bought rights to the images if you didin't know the people. I don't think legally you should be able to buy these images, even though you shot them.



CCarsonPhoto said:


> I'm going to second what most everyone else here said. As far as the shots of the two men in question...regardless of their sexual preference, they are still men, and you don't want to shoot men in feminine poses. Things like a tilted head or a hand angled a certain way take away from the masculinity you want to portray.



Doens't matter to me what their preference is, I'm just concerned the OP bought the images


What did you pay for the rights to these images. Was it JUST these images or the whole session - both for the boy and men?

~Michael~


----------



## Josh66 (Oct 28, 2009)

For now, I'm just going to assume that you do know them - friend of the family, or whatever.  (Buying portraits of strangers would be a little weird...)

I would try to do some sort of reshoot, at a place of your choosing.  Try some different poses, and all that - you can even try some different settings on your camera, lol!  (I don't think I could shuffle people in and out of a seat day in and day out just to press a button for very long...)


----------



## CCarsonPhoto (Oct 28, 2009)

iflynething said:


> Christie Photo said:
> 
> 
> > iflynething said:
> ...


 
I was only referring to the shot itsself, since everyone else was commenting on the oddity of purchasing the photos/rights. Now, I will say, when I worked at a studio, we had the lights preset and the camera preset, but we were free to shoot and pose as we judged appropriate. The studio I worked at was for kids, and we had 15-30 minute sessions, so there wasn't a lot of time to get fancy, so I can understand what the OP had to work with.
And I did purchase several photos that I shot at said studio. I did not buy the rights, and I did get exclusive permission from the parents to use the shots I took for my portfolio, and only for my portfolio. I got permission to buy prints because I was proud of my work and wanted to display what I could do for potential other clients. In that light, it doesn't seem so odd to me.


----------



## Shutter_to_think (Oct 28, 2009)

I don't understand the TITLE of the thread


----------



## Flash Harry (Nov 2, 2009)

"Things like a tilted head or a hand angled a certain way take away from the masculinity you want to portray."

Theyr'e gay, how "masculine" is that. H


----------



## SrBiscuit (Nov 2, 2009)

anybody see "one hour photo" with robin williams? *shudder*


----------



## NateWagner (Nov 2, 2009)

Flash Harry said:


> "Things like a tilted head or a hand angled a certain way take away from the masculinity you want to portray."
> 
> Theyr'e gay, how "masculine" is that. H



let's not go there.


----------



## KAikens318 (Nov 3, 2009)

Christie Photo said:


> iflynething said:
> 
> 
> > Did you know the boy and the men?
> ...


 

The boy is my son. The men are two of my best friends. I bought the CD and photos of them for a present and got the okay from them. I would not illegally post pictures on the internet and would not post random people's pics without release. I think I am just going to delete this post because obviously this is not 'professional' to anyone but myself. Sorry.


----------



## KAikens318 (Nov 3, 2009)

CCarsonPhoto said:


> iflynething said:
> 
> 
> > Christie Photo said:
> ...




THANK YOU!!!!! At least someone understands.


----------



## Christie Photo (Nov 3, 2009)

KAikens318 said:


> Christie Photo said:
> 
> 
> > iflynething said:
> ...



Oh, I don't think legality was ever a concern.  We're just curious if you know these folks.  It would be odd that you would buy these images if they were merely of random customers.  Mystery solved.



KAikens318 said:


> I think I am just going to delete this post because obviously this is not 'professional' to anyone but myself. Sorry.



No need to do that.  You're getting some honest feedback.  How else can you grow?

Good luck.

-Pete


----------



## Shutter_to_think (Nov 3, 2009)

NateWagner said:


> let's not go there.



Sorry, we missed the words "*site moderator*" under your name.

_


----------

