# A couple of shots done for a friend



## Do'Urden's Eyes (Aug 23, 2011)

After leaving TPF for a good two years (to photographically find my path) im glad to say im back. This was my first attempt at studio style portraiture, that is directing the model instead of hiding behind the bushes and sneaking candid spy shots. Had to over come a few things like no ambient light, and a room that was currently being renovated. tried to hide that fact instead of embrace it. These turned out much better than i anticipated considering it was my first time. 




Fashionista-7 by rastapai, on Flickr




Fashionista-5 by rastapai, on Flickr




Fashionista-2 by rastapai, on Flickr




Fashionista-33 by rastapai, on Flickr




Fashionista-31 by rastapai, on Flickr




Fashionista-19 by rastapai, on Flickr




Fashionista-17 by rastapai, on Flickr

Any comments are appreciated.

Andrew


----------



## randy! (Aug 23, 2011)

Nice shoots


----------



## joealcantar (Aug 24, 2011)

Favoring -19 
-
Shoot well, Joe


----------



## IgsEMT (Aug 24, 2011)

Fashionista 2 - be careful when placing extremities closer to the camera, they will look bigger. In this case it's a 50/50 thing doesnt subtract from the model but it doesn't add to her either. However should her legs be a bit larger it would have been horrible shot ;(
Overall very nice. I like the ration you have going on, it adds depth to the image and enhances the model. 
The redshoe shot- not my flavor BUT that's subjective 

Keep shooting and enjoy wonderful life of LIGHTING


----------



## Do'Urden's Eyes (Aug 24, 2011)

IgsEMT, i assume you mean ratio? as in lighting ratio I actually wasnt using an off camera strobe or flash i was just bouncing my 430ex off of anything i could find in the room lol but thanks guys. just got commissioned for a wedding partly thanks to these...


----------



## bennielou (Aug 24, 2011)

Ok, I might be flamed for saying this, but I think there is a lot of work that needs to be done here to make them to the standard of professional level.

Flame away, but hear me out first:

1.
The red balance is over the top.  It's super red.  The white balance is not correct.  The hand on the right side of the image comes out of nowhere.  The elbow on the left side is cropped at the elbow.

2.
The red and yellow channels are super dominent.  Again the white balance is way off.  And what's up with her hair?  She's a pretty girl, but she has some crazy hair in this photo.

3.
Yellow channel is off the charts here.  Plus her feet look 2x bigger than her head.  Big feet....not good with ladies.

4.
I have no idea what this photo is about.

5.
Pull her away from the wall so there isn't that huge shadow.  What's going on at the right side of the photo?

6.
Photo is flashed to hell and back and there is a super "creative/weird" in camera crop.  I don't get it.  It seems akward to me.

7.
Best of the bunch, but still the white balance needs major correcting.

Please don't take any of the above wrong.  I just see a lot of major problems here.


----------



## Do'Urden's Eyes (Aug 24, 2011)

I hate to say this, but as much as I really appreciate your feedback Bennielou, this is one of the reasons I stopped posting here. I understand you mentioned to take it with a grain of salt, but what this kind of criticism leads to is a very boring standardized style of post editing. I realize the colour is obviously off balance with these, but i think its pretty clear that it was done intentionally. as with the photo being "flashed to hell" its a personal/asthetic choice to blow some of the highlights in her face. You dont like it? cool just say so. these photos were meant to demonstrate the fashion stylings of a friend, so the focus should be on what she is wearing. Now the stuff i do appreciate is some of the framing issues you brought up like the obtrusive limbless hand entering the frame in the first one.


----------



## bennielou (Aug 24, 2011)

Sorry, I'm just speaking frankly.  You said yourself this was your first time doing this sort of thing, so I offered suggestions or reasons I wasn't in love with the photos.

The "off" white balance doesn't look intentional to me.  I'll be frank again, and say it looks to me like lazy editing.    Tell me the steps you did, the programs you used to get this "look".  It's not any disernable style as far as I can see.  It just looks like bad white balance. Again, JMO.

I'm sorry you don't like the CC.  I'm honestly trying to help you grow.  If you tune out, then you stay the same.  I'm telling you from a perspective as someone who makes their entire living off of making and selling photos.  What I don't think you understand, is that I am trying to help you get better.  I'm not the be all, person at all.  You might get a lot of differing opinions.  I say hear them out, and really take into account how you could become better. 

These shots don't suck, but at the same time there is some really avoidable problems here.  These are things easily corrected in the future.

As for the flashed out shot, maybe convert to B/W.  Her cheeks are totally blown.

Again, I'm sorry that you don't what I have to say, and I certainly don't think it's worthy of hiding under a rock over.  Just mull it around in your head, and perhaps try some new things.  You never know.  You just might get even better.

All the best to you.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 24, 2011)

Do'Urden's Eyes said:


> ... but what this kind of criticism leads to is a very boring standardized style of post editing.


I would hardly call what bennielou posted criticism; it seemed to be a pretty objective review of the images you had posted and one with which I agree on every point.



Do'Urden's Eyes said:


> ...I realize the colour is obviously off balance with these, but i think its pretty clear that it was done intentionally.


Really?  How is that clear?



Do'Urden's Eyes said:


> ...as with the photo being "flashed to hell" its a personal/asthetic choice to blow some of the highlights in her face.


True; an unusal approach to be sure however.



Do'Urden's Eyes said:


> these photos were meant to demonstrate the fashion stylings of a friend, so the focus should be on what she is wearing.


Fair enough; for my own edification though, how am I supposed to form an objective opinion of her clothing if it's not represented accurately?  While I am not, and do claim to be a professional fashion photographer, I would rather doubt that too many designers would approve of advertisements which depicted their clothing using inaccurate colour and/or blown highlights.  My understanding of fashion (advertising) photography is that it is generally intended to show off the product (in this case the clothing I understand) in the best way possible.  If the shirt (for example) is a white shirt with red stripes, where is the artistic merit or advertising benefit in displaying it with over-saturated red/yellow channels and blown highlights?

Granted there are often artistic reasons from departing from the normal process or style, and while I disagree with your assertion that it leads to a boring editing style, it's a valid opinion.  The other side of the coin is however, that very often people (in any field) who produce something that's not quite where it should be cry "Creative license" when people point out what seem, to the majority, flaws in their work.


----------



## bazooka (Aug 24, 2011)

Bennie, you get a "Like" from me for the courteous critique and responding to the blow-off in kind.


----------



## Chris R (Aug 24, 2011)

Do'Urden's Eyes said:


> I hate to say this, but as much as I really appreciate your feedback Bennielou, this is one of the reasons I stopped posting here. I understand you mentioned to take it with a grain of salt, but what this kind of criticism leads to is a very boring standardized style of post editing. I realize the colour is obviously off balance with these, but i think its pretty clear that it was done intentionally. as with the photo being "flashed to hell" its a personal/asthetic choice to blow some of the highlights in her face. You dont like it? cool just say so. these photos were meant to demonstrate the fashion stylings of a friend, so the focus should be on what she is wearing. Now the stuff i do appreciate is some of the framing issues you brought up like the obtrusive limbless hand entering the frame in the first one.



I tend to agree with you about the people here (and all other photography forums). Photography is an art and in my opinion there is no right or wrong way to take a photo. I've seen fantastic pictures with awful white balance, technically bad composition, and things wildly out of focus. If everyone followed the same "rules" of photography, everyone's pictures would look identical and boring. I understand such critique can be helpful but it generally comes off as people just trying to flex their "I've read more books on photography than you" muscle.

Anyway, nice shots. #2 is my favorite... Not sure why though it just catches my eye.


----------



## SkyBlue (Aug 24, 2011)

I like Fashionista 2 & 17, 
It looks so real... Ideal for 'Reader's Digest'


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Aug 24, 2011)

Chris R said:


> Photography is an art and in my opinion there is no right or wrong way to take a photo.


Ok, so why do people post images and ASK for critique?

 If its all art, and no right or wrong, then there is absolutely no point in asking for critique. 

Apparently, when the OP said, and I quote, "Any comments are appreciated" he wasn't being genuine.

This is a prime example of why I critique less and less here.

 Deaf ears. 


Carry on.


----------



## Do'Urden's Eyes (Aug 24, 2011)

whatever, same old tpf. have fun boys.


----------



## JenniferHynes (Aug 24, 2011)

Bennielou, props to you for presenting both the original criticism and your rebuttal in a constructive and helpful manner. Andrew, no matter what level you have achieved in your photographic practice it is always a little disappointing to hear our work isn't a masterpiece but being open to other's opinions and suggestions is what makes our work stronger, not conformist. As with any medium there are basic principles and elements of design and execution, photography because it is a technical medium has more than most. By learning the basics of composition, exposure, white balance and development (true for film or digital) you give yourself a solid foundation for your creative departures. If you post to the pro pages you will get a higher level of criticism by people who (hopefully) really know their stuff. It is a bit of a cop out to chalk all choices up to creative license, and I would agree with Bennielou's comments. I would add that fashionista_19 was my favorite of the group, as a portrait, not a product shot. The choices you made with dof and perspective were flattering and I quite like high key images (use that term in the future instead of "flashed to hell"). That image shows direction, style and post production qualities that are lacking in the other 6. 1 out of 7 is a good batting average for a beginner, I like to keep a quote in mind when editing- Ansel Adams used to say if he had 12 successful images he considered it a good YEAR, think about that the next time you are scrolling thru your images.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Aug 24, 2011)

Do'Urden's Eyes said:


> whatever, same old tpf. have fun boys.


 Yup, whatever indeed. Same old people asking for critique who don't really want to hear it.


----------



## bennielou (Aug 25, 2011)

Do'Urden's Eyes said:


> whatever, same old tpf. have fun boys.



Hi Again,

Look, I get frustrated too sometimes when I don't hear what I want to hear.  I've blown up more than a few times.  I also have a lot of pride for my work, and my different (IMO) style of doing things, which I sometimes defend vigorously.

But you know what?  I blow up, get all pissed off, lash out............and then I realize in many cases that I just heard what I needed to hear.

For instance, I did a job a few months ago, posted it here, and got slammed.  I was pissed and lashed out at others.  But then I went and thought about what was said, and I went back and looked at the photos I posted, and damned if what was said wasn't totally valid.  I'm a bit prideful, and hate to be wrong, but I'm also have a ton of ambition, and I want to constantly up my game.  The honest deal, was that I realized I had "burned out" and I wasn't doing the best I could.  So I took steps to get better.  This was all due to the people who initially pissed me off.  Now I am grateful to them, because I listened (not initially, I threw a tantum too) , applied what was said, and now my phone doesn't stop ringing.  In short, hard crit actually helped my business. 

You have mentioned this was a product shoot. What product was being shot?  Was it the shoes?

Anyhoo, I'm hoping you have had time to think about things, and understand that people who take the time to answer, might actually have your best interests at heart.  That's something I've come to realize only lately.


----------



## KmH (Aug 26, 2011)

Do'Urden's Eyes said:


> whatever, same old tpf. have fun boys.


 Adios niño.


----------



## gsgary (Aug 26, 2011)

Do'Urden's Eyes said:


> I hate to say this, but as much as I really appreciate your feedback Bennielou, this is one of the reasons I stopped posting here. I understand you mentioned to take it with a grain of salt, but what this kind of criticism leads to is a very boring standardized style of post editing. I realize the colour is obviously off balance with these, but i think its pretty clear that it was done intentionally. as with the photo being "flashed to hell" its a personal/asthetic choice to blow some of the highlights in her face. You dont like it? cool just say so. these photos were meant to demonstrate the fashion stylings of a friend, so the focus should be on what she is wearing. Now the stuff i do appreciate is some of the framing issues you brought up like the obtrusive limbless hand entering the frame in the first one.




Bull**** we cannot see what she is wearing, if you can't take negative comments don't post, Bennielou was only telling you how he see's it, i won't say what i think you will probably leave again


----------



## gsgary (Aug 26, 2011)

bennielou said:


> Sorry, I'm just speaking frankly.  You said yourself this was your first time doing this sort of thing, so I offered suggestions or reasons I wasn't in love with the photos.
> 
> The "off" white balance doesn't look intentional to me.  I'll be frank again, and say it looks to me like lazy editing.    Tell me the steps you did, the programs you used to get this "look".  It's not any disernable style as far as I can see.  It just looks like bad white balance. Again, JMO.
> 
> ...




You have nothing to be sorry for


----------



## christian.rudman (Aug 26, 2011)

Man, no wonder he was gone for two years, can't take two minutes of constructive criticism. It's really easy to avoid getting your feelings hurt in critiques on the web, don't post photos and ask for other people's opinions. If you want to just revel in your "artistic license" that is perfectly fine, get your own website and don't take anyone's **** ever. I think benni did exactly what you asked and you flamed him hard for it, bad form. If you can learn to take the good criticism as well as the harsh you have no place in photography. And much better another photographer than one of your PO'd clients.

All that said, nice work, but I agree on benni's finer points. Grin and bear it.


----------



## Dani41780 (Aug 30, 2011)

I'm not even close to being a 'pro' and I thought the CC giving was very helpful.. The images could really use some sprucing up.


----------



## Stanza (Sep 9, 2011)

Nice shots. I think the number 2 (fashionista 5) have too much "air", too much wall and not too much girl.


----------

