Well its review time!
It's easy to just say, "great shots" and/or "great model", but that rarely really does much for the overall all goal that all of us have as photographers, and that is to advance our work to the next level.
I think the four photos have some good things going for them such as crisp lighting, a pretty model, good makeup and and interesting setting that has good potential.
But I think in general that there were details about the setting that tended to distract from the overall impact of the photo.
Photo #1 is the most obvious example of this situation. First there is the tilt of the photo that makes it look odd and adds nothing to the photo but just calls attention to itself. The slant of the window is particularly evident and because it is directly behind the model (and in particular her head), it forms a compositional element that leads the eye to it rather than the model. There is also a general clutter in the scene such as the silver flashlight on the table and the brown and white blocks behind the model. I think these look out of place. I like the way the lighting was done to include the ambient light from the table lamp, but I wonder about the consistency of the light. Since outside of the window is black, we assume that the scene would be lit by ordinary interior light. But the light on the model is not consistent with the light provided by the lamp. In other words it looks like strobe lighting of a ambient lit room. For a glamour shot to really work in a "normal" setting, one likes to see the light on the model and the scene believable for the scene. The pose of the model is also a bit off, in my view. She looks uncomfortable and is slouching a little, probably due to leaning slightly forward with her hands on her knees. The seated position coupled with this slight lean forward tends to make the legs flatten out a bit and thus does not portray them as well as they could be shown.
Photo #2 as many of the same setting issues such as the lantern, the stove pipe and the brightness of the lamp above her head that all work against concentration on the model. Also cropping issues.
Photo #3 has the same lamp problem as the other two but the pose seems more relaxed.
Photo #4 gets rid of the distracting elements by zooming in on the model, but the position of the upper arm seems awkward to me.
So, given that scene and the model, I think a lot more could have been done with it. One thing would be to match the light closer to the ambient light and to do something about the speculars that appear on the sofa (a tricky issue, but one that would improve the photos).
Given that these shot were made in a workshop environment, it is often difficult to control all of the issues that I've been noting. But it would make a good excercise to show those in attendance how settings can be re-arranged for maximum impact and lighting can be matched to a setting.
Anyway, I hope there is something of use here, and if nothing else it gets out of the rut of the "great shot" method of critiquing photos that we all often find ourselves getting in to.
Cheers,
rfs
IP: 24.118.115.224
Re: Melissa from Super Shoots Peoria
). I also like critiques of photos I post. Of course, a collage usually means one wants a critique about the collage itself, rather than each image in it. I have a rule that each collage has to have at least one photo in it with something that someone can call me to task on.
Re: Melissa from Super Shoots Peoria
Linear Mode
