# My first paying job!



## kelley_french (Nov 19, 2007)

Not sure if this is the right place to post these but here ya go.






















He plans on using some of these on an up-coming CD he is currently working on.


----------



## Trenton Romulox (Nov 19, 2007)

I think the first three are pretty bad and just don't have that professional "POW" that the last one has. The last one looks really professional to me, clean, simple, well-done. The last one is great! Get more shots that look like that and you'll be golden like them teeth.


----------



## 391615 (Nov 20, 2007)

The last is the best of the bunch, thats probably where I'd like to be working from. I'ts hard with the white background I think, I'm not sure if black would work though?


----------



## Rhubarb (Nov 20, 2007)

Pic 1 & 3, are you using a camera mounted flash? You're getting shine of the face and it is really distracting. If it's not from a camera mounted flash you need to re-position your lights sources, or make your light 'softer'.

The thing that really kills these two pics for me is that his eyes are out of focus. Get those eyes sharp. 

I have to agree, the last shot is all class.

Best,
Rhu


----------



## LaFoto (Nov 20, 2007)

The eyes not in focus was the first thing I saw. It is very obvious (and distracting). Same applies to his hair against the background in Photo 1. There he looks kind of "cut and paste" into a new background.


----------



## a5i736 (Nov 20, 2007)

Wow the last one is very underexposed on his face. The second one is very weird and boring the comp is also not that pleasing. the third is oof and bad comp the flash is also distracting. the first one is the only halfway decent one, though i would not use it on an album. its also underexposed.


----------



## Double H (Nov 20, 2007)

Your masking needs work, especially if someone is paying you. How about getting your subject outside on an overcast day, or in the shade?

If you are using the magic wand, stop now! It is not a very reliable method of selecting pixels for masking purposes. Learn how to use the pen tool. It is the most time consuming, but it can give you the best results when masking.


----------



## Mesoam (Nov 20, 2007)

gangsta gangsta


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Nov 20, 2007)

I'm curious, what was this for?


----------



## ShaCow (Nov 20, 2007)

nice, but i think they are a little soft..


----------



## N'Kolor (Nov 20, 2007)

Only one real comment, I am sorry he paid you for these shots!  Not trying to be rude but man these are not very good at all.  You did a terrible job of clipping his hair (or whomever hair...) out.  You should also remove the red veins in his eyes.

I also don't like the third shot.  I think the pose looks very positioned and unnatural.


----------



## a5i736 (Nov 20, 2007)

N'Kolor said:


> Only one real comment, I am sorry he paid you for these shots!  Not trying to be rude but man these are not very good at all.  You did a terrible job of clipping his hair (or whomever hair...) out.  You should also remove the red veins in his eyes.
> 
> I also don't like the third shot.  I think the pose looks very positioned and unnatural.



I feel bad he paid for them too.


----------



## LongDucDong (Nov 21, 2007)

I see some people offered the OP some tips, which is the correct thing to do. The rest of you are just flat out cruel. It was obvious it was their first paying job, and theyre here to learn. Offer them some helpful hints w/o the smart ass "I cant believe they paid for those" crap. Rude.


----------



## Viperjet (Nov 21, 2007)

What about using an urban environment background?  That would look better.  The last one is by far the best.


----------



## N'Kolor (Nov 21, 2007)

LongDucDong said:


> I see some people offered the OP some tips, which is the correct thing to do. The rest of you are just flat out cruel. It was obvious it was their first paying job, and theyre here to learn. Offer them some helpful hints w/o the smart ass "I cant believe they paid for those" crap. Rude.



Funny, you offered no input!


----------



## kelley_french (Nov 22, 2007)

wow I came in here to learn from you guys, and look what you do....put me down. WOW I am just learning and have only limited equipment. I only had a single window for light, oh and an external flash. I know these are not the best but considaring what I had to work with I would say they are not bad for the first time out.  As far as him paying well I gave him a very very chaep price, not that its any ones business.


----------



## jstuedle (Nov 22, 2007)

kelley_french said:


> wow I came in here to learn from you guys, and look what you do....put me down. WOW I am just learning and have only limited equipment. I only had a single window for light, oh and an external flash. I know these are not the best but considaring what I had to work with I would say they are not bad for the first time out.  As far as him paying well I gave him a very very chaep price, not that its any ones business.



It's not a put down, you wanted advise. When talking of a paying job, the tables are turned from that of an amateur playing around. You just turned "PRO" my friend. Often the only difference between an amateur and a Pro is the Professional takes money for his/her work. And limited equipment has little to do with it. Some of my best work was done in the mid sixties with a 35mm SLR. A Nikkormat FS without auto anything, not even a built in meter, and a 50mm f/2.0. Primitive? Ya. Limited? Only by my/your abilities and imagination. Don't use your equipment as a crutch. Get past that and listen to what people say to you. Most of the things said on this forum have value. If you are going to put your work out there to be evaluated and not listen to what is said, then it was a waste of time and electrons.

While some posts were harsh, they can be a gage of just what the general public might think when seeing your work. If the publics reaction is such, then presenting your work on a new release CD will do little for it's sales.


----------



## a5i736 (Nov 23, 2007)

jstuedle said:


> It's not a put down, you wanted advise. When talking of a paying job, the tables are turned from that of an amateur playing around. You just turned "PRO" my friend. Often the only difference between an amateur and a Pro is the Professional takes money for his/her work. And limited equipment has little to do with it. Some of my best work was done in the mid sixties with a 35mm SLR. A Nikkormat FS without auto anything, not even a built in meter, and a 50mm f/2.0. Primitive? Ya. Limited? Only by my/your abilities and imagination. Don't use your equipment as a crutch. Get past that and listen to what people say to you. Most of the things said on this forum have value. If you are going to put your work out there to be evaluated and not listen to what is said, then it was a waste of time and electrons.
> 
> While some posts were harsh, they can be a gage of just what the general public might think when seeing your work. If the publics reaction is such, then presenting your work on a new release CD will do little for it's sales.


Exactly what i was thinking, you put it well. Regardless of how much you charged him for the photos, i'd feel bad. imo im sry


----------



## Joxby (Nov 23, 2007)

Forget about masking/photoshop crap, shoot the thing right in the first place.
Theres nothing wrong with a white background, especially with dark skin tones, it means you can afford to use more light on his face without background shadows, the last one you might lose a little definition on that white suit but I think photoshop is appropriate for that.
The point is, that the light isn't good enough to make his face stand out, use flash but bounce it, use natural light but diffuse it, *subtle* changes in lighting strength can make a huge difference.
Practice on someone, then when you do the shoot for real you know roughly what you need without dragging your subject through a hundred test shots.
You need to sort out some focussing/dof issues aswell.
You dont have much gear, but what you do have can give much better results, with practice.
Paid or not is irrelivent and shouldn't be a focus of critique or even a general comment.



N'Kolor said:


> Funny, you offered no input!



:raisedbrow:


----------



## ambriz001 (Nov 23, 2007)

Hip hop?


----------



## jstuedle (Nov 23, 2007)

Joxby said:


> You dont have much gear, but what you do have can give much better results, with practice.
> Paid or not is irrelivent and shouldn't be a focus of critique or even a general comment.
> :raisedbrow:



Outstanding portraits can be had with nothing but a backdrop (can be a sheet) and an open garage door for a light source. Google Ron Kramer and look at some of his students work with bare bones equipment. 

Paid is relevant. If its a freebee, most won't bother to critique the shot with a critical eye. Most will say, "That's nice, but...." and not get down to the meat of the problem. Once it's stated it's for pay, a professional gig, then most of us look at the image from a more critical perspective. But, it is a fact, for pay or not, if a shot has issues, they still exist weather it be for pay or pleasure.


----------



## gizmo2071 (Nov 24, 2007)

Also check out Richard Avedons work from his trip across America. Nothing but a white bed sheet and natural light.
If using window light, then You could have done with using a reflector to bounce light back into his face. You say you have limited equipment, but a piece of white cardboard makes a great, cheap reflector.
Better luck next time and just keep on trying!


----------



## Joxby (Nov 24, 2007)

jstuedle said:


> Paid is relevant. If its a freebee, most won't bother to critique the shot with a critical eye. Most will say, "That's nice, but...." and not get down to the meat of the problem. Once it's stated it's for pay, a professional gig, then most of us look at the image from a more critical perspective. But, it is a fact, for pay or not, if a shot has issues, they still exist weather it be for pay or pleasure.




I just dont think critiquing an image based on financial gain, is a solid foundation for impartial opinion.
Generally, there could be some sound financial advice regarding an image as part of critique, but it cant be the sole input or reason to post and at the same time be impartial....can it ?
Sometimes I think commentors care little for the poster, but take the oppertunity to make themselves feel better about their own work.
Fact is, without good shooters & pro's, hell would freeze over before any usefull advice made any difference.
Rough/Smooth


----------



## JIP (Nov 25, 2007)

kelley_french said:


> wow I came in here to learn from you guys, and look what you do....put me down. WOW I am just learning and have only limited equipment. I only had a single window for light, oh and an external flash. I know these are not the best but considaring what I had to work with I would say they are not bad for the first time out. As far as him paying well I gave him a very very chaep price, not that its any ones business.


 
Hey if you can't take a little criticisim don't post your images.  You need to realize getting some advice and criticisim here is better than having your client refuse to pay you because your images are not good.  You should take all the posts here "cruel" or nice as a learning tool and take wht you can from them.  Besides if you don't want criticisim don't post any images.


----------



## ambriz001 (Nov 27, 2007)

Igor Lubenski said:


> rude or not,this pictures suck.
> Horrible.... ]=
> you want to learn? great,read books,do projects, do this for free...but don't take money for a crapy job like this....are f*#@ serius?
> I hate people like you, you give photography a bad name...only thinking about money...



Please don't put down people. Maybe this person is barely learning, and wants constructive critisism, and not put downs.


----------



## Trenton Romulox (Nov 27, 2007)

Based on how poorly the critique was handled, I'm not sure the OP will ever produce "professional" work. Nobody starts out as Ansel Adams. The difference between the mediocre photographers and the great photographers is that the great photographers were the mediocre photographers that never gave up no matter what people said.


----------



## Richard (Nov 28, 2007)

Kelley,

I think for a first time you did a good job, but that is depending on how much you charged. I see no problem charging a little for your time, even if the photos did not come out with a pro finish look. Of course as long as the person paying knows about your experience and that there is no 
guarantee.

The last one is good IMO and the others would be fine but the eyes not being sharp is the biggest problem.


----------



## Igor Lubenski (Nov 30, 2007)

I'm not putting people down, i'm telling the truth.
look,i dont have a problem whith beginers,i relly don't...i'm 17 years old and i'm photographin for less than a year, i own a 20d from september and before that i had fuji s5600.
I'm no Ansel Adams,BUT!!
if you charging from someone for yor job, then do it right!!
you call that mediocre? that's horrible ]:
dont take a job if you can't deliver...it doesn't matter how much you get paid, or who's &#1496;our client, there are some minimal standards!!
these pics are really bad,thats the truth...and any man with a little self dignity wouldn't take money for them...but this guy....


----------

