DSLRUsers.com

Thanks for looking-critique ALWAYS welcome.









Cheers
dan

Dan - I quite like all but the first here. I don't really like the PPing on the first one, it looks like she's scratched. The others show creativity and good posing.

Dan, I am by no means an expert on portraiture (unfortunately), but:

1. I like the effect, however, I think the vertically striped background takes too much away from the model (although perhaps because it is at a different angle to the 'scratches', it looks somewhat orf).
2. Nice image, although it lacks some punch (I accept this is not a potential solution and only a criticism, however, I am not sure how to improve it).
3. To me, the girls are lost in all the distractions on the wall.
4. This is my favourate as, to me, it shows a much more deliberate thought process as to comp, pose, lighting, etc. Love it.

Despite my comments on 2 & 3, the exposure and sharpness are spot on.

Cheers

P

Thanks Geoff and Reschsmooth........cheers

Hi Dan,

For me the last is the standout and is head and shoulders above the rest, the pose, the light, the model, all work really well, at first it was worrying that she only had half a face.. but that could just be my crt
As a suggestion, not sure if it would of worked, but I'd of loved to see the same pose but with an additional light behind the model, nothing to bright just to give her outline a bit more definition, but I'm certain a novice in this field so take the suggestion with a grain of salt.

#1 Interesting.. almosts works for me.. kind of a brushed/destress metal look, definitely creative but not sure if does your model justice

#2 Compared to your more dynamic and unusual stuff, this one seems a little tame (no offense) it's almost like your making the image around the location, not about the model, if that makes any sense. I'd have liked some sexy lighting, perhaps from the back, or from the one of the sides, as it lacks a little impact

#3 IMO the weakest of the set, the models don't spring to live, they just sort of blend to much with the background. (is it true b&w, or highly desaturated ? as it some of it has a brown/red to it? (non calibrated crt). Not a fan of the composition, I keep tilting my head, the poses don't do too much, perhaps had they been interacting.. laughing at each other through the windows.. beckoning at the camera.. but overal this one feels a bit flat and lifeless (again no offence)

Hope this helps, I tried hard to verbalise what I liked and disliked.

Dan,

The last one is great, beautiful tones and treatment.

Alex

Dan, the last one really appeals to me (and being a girl I don't usually get excited by nude female pictures!)

Like them all. 1st one is my least favourite whilst I absolutely love the 4th image.
Great lighting and the shadows get you wanting to see more of the woman

i like your use of urban locations with lots of grafitti it gives the image attitude and context
but in some case too much grafitti can detract from the model especially in terms of colour harmonies and general image tidyness so just be aware that backgrounds should not detract from the main subject the model they should 'compliment' it

as a complete image i like the last one but your exagerrated tonal manipulation makes the image look posturised is this intentional
if it is its fine if its not just thought i should point that out but it's just a technical thing not a big deal at all

keep it up

Last one is great - beautiful overdone tones and great sense of mystery. Wonderful shot.

Thanks guys......

Funny what a good sleep does...i now too do not like number 1. The poster giving himself critique......lol

Dan

With respect, I don't see any of these as being portraits.

They're too stylised - which is perfectly ok, because that's what I think you're wanting to do, but in adding the styling to this images, they've taken on a commercial feel, and again, there's nothing wrong with that in and of itself.

But to me a portrait should be much more personal - a look at an individual, perhaps with a peek inside to see their personality reveled within the image.

Adding the commercial "flair" gives these images a totally different feel to these images - they don't have that personal feel, and I don't fedel as though I getting any feel for who these ladies might be, apart from commercial models.

Thus these images don't match my perception of what a portrait is.

I like all except not too sure on the first one, the last one gives great shadows.

gstark wrote:With respect, I don't see any of these as being portraits.

They're too stylised - which is perfectly ok, because that's what I think you're wanting to do, but in adding the styling to this images, they've taken on a commercial feel, and again, there's nothing wrong with that in and of itself.

But to me a portrait should be much more personal - a look at an individual, perhaps with a peek inside to see their personality reveled within the image.

Adding the commercial "flair" gives these images a totally different feel to these images - they don't have that personal feel, and I don't fedel as though I getting any feel for who these ladies might be, apart from commercial models.

Thus these images don't match my perception of what a portrait is.

Yeah very true Gary.....wrong choice of words to describe the shots....i, to be honest, couldnt think of a header for them either.....thanks

Dan,

#1 would be good on it's own without the brushed steel look on the model.

#3 actually looks better in colour and straighter , saw that on your website

#4 is very nice but maybe just a bit too dark for my taste, but that may have been what you were aiming for.

Out of interest, what is the market for these photos? Are the models paying you to build up their portfolios or just glamour photos for themselves, magazines, ...? Just wondering.

thanks,

André

#4 is the pick however did you do any curve manipulation to this? Watch the spectral highlights on her shoulder and face as they've been blown and create a very strong contrast to the rest of her, which has been lit with very soft lighting.

PiroStitch wrote:#4 is the pick however did you do any curve manipulation to this? Watch the spectral highlights on her shoulder and face as they've been blown and create a very strong contrast to the rest of her, which has been lit with very soft lighting.

To be perfectly honest i messed the levels up badly......here is the original....i was just playing around.



dan

I'd say number 2 is your best, but I don't think that black & whites are an area you bode well in, quite frankly.

You lack any real sense of tone in number 3 and as such my eye is more drawn to graffiti than the girls, the black holes of the windows being the only element that draws me anywhere near them.

Four has just been over-processed to all buggery IMHO and you need to work a lot more with feathering different parts as well as a different and more-proper tonal black & white conversion rather than -- as Wendell has said -- a somewhat posturised look as you have here.

Nnnnsic wrote:I'd say number 2 is your best, but I don't think that black & whites are an area you bode well in, quite frankly.

Well i would have to totaly disagree with you there, but your other points have merit.

What would be ur advise for me to improve them then? Do you have some examples i could see so i can see what you are trying to say as i dont understand what you mean by "tones"?

Dan

You're allowed to disagree because it's an opinion of mine. So far I have yet to see you pull of a really good black & white. Colour seems to be where you do decently... which probably means your eye is attuned to shooting in colour and you're thus post-processing with hopes that your shots work in black & white.

I ran that original image you posted above through one of my presets designed to emulate how I used to work in the darkroom and pulled this out.



A bit of feathering around the other side of the face, the feet (both sides), and around the eyes to bring them away from darkness.
The filtration acts as if it's being run through a green filter and tones are more prominent. Yours are there, but they're being flattened by the heavy blacks and intense whites. She's too three-dimensional for the image and she loses black & white appeal, becoming somewhat mundane.

What's more, her form is simple, but you're photographing for detail because she's on an angle and because she's looking at us, so while a simple and bold monochromatic look like this can be good, I wouldn't use it for an image like this. There's a look in her eyes and we need to see it.

As such, you don't want her face or body to blend into the darkness unless you're going across the face, across the skin like a gradient. Her nose acts like a bridge or a fence so you probably want a dark-but-not-black rest of her face so we can see in the back of our minds that she is paying full attention to us, the viewer, and not just being cycloptic.

Wow that is good.......thanks dude.......love the "grain like" effect you have pulled as well.

Cheers
Dan

Leigh
the preset you used is it a photoshop one you have made up or ???
are you willing to share it. with the great unwashed

as an aside I would like to see an area for people to post some of their presets for different looks or maybe just put them up in the post processing forum.... not just post but write up the type of photo you would use it on and why and what you are actually doing in the preset with a few examples

It's one of mine for use with the plugin B&W Styler. I have various presets I've designed based off of the way I worked in the darkroom for this (because I can define it to the T and match my processes from the darkroom, including the use of Agfapan which is what that setting is based off of), virtualPhotographer, and Alien Skin Exposure.

I occasionally give them out to friends who want them so I guess I could. I'm usually hesitant of giving presets away in fear some people will claim credit and try to sell the things as I've seen that sort of thing occur in the past.

should be noted even if you had the presets it doesnt mean you could apply them to your own work and expect the same in depth results with the same visual artistic maturity displayed by the original artist

tone is different in each image and it interplays with so many elements in a photograph

instead of relying on presets one must first understand tone and colour theory, composition and good judgement in the application and balance of that theory in their work

otherwise your just relying on a preset which was intentionally made for a certain type image on a set of images that may not warrant it or accommodate it

so id say study tone in art fine art paintings and the endless amount of proliferrated advertising campaigns and you will have more than enough reference then you would get going to a 4 year fine art course

That's somewhat true, too. Not wanting to take this too far off-topic, I shoot primarily with a black & white eye... because I understand black & white and most of what I prefer doing is monochromatic imagery.

Having the presets won't necessarily make your images strong or look like a good black & white. The image should probably be a good black & white contender in the first place.

Although with a bit of selecting feathering, curves, and layering, you can generally make most images conform to a good black & white style... but it goes without saying that you can PP most images to all buggery and somewhat destroy them but get a "look" out of them.

Nnnnsic wrote: Not wanting to take this too far off-topic, I shoot primarily with a black & white eye... because

He's actually a border collie in disguise.

gstark wrote:

Nnnnsic wrote: Not wanting to take this too far off-topic, I shoot primarily with a black & white eye... because

He's actually a border collie in disguise.

I see. Hence the preference for arf-tone.