photo critique

[marten_holmes]

<p>It's been a while since I posted a photo for critique so here is one. This is pretty much what I was hoping for result wise, so now over to you guys to find out how I could make it better.</p>

<p>The bride has strong features, some of which she is self-concious of. I think she is beautiful and posing this way really shows her beauty to the full.</p><div></div>

[theresa_skutt]

<p>One eye looks much larger than the other, and she looks unhappy.<br>

The lighting is good, but a little over in the back.=)</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>To be honest I don't care much for the pose, the lighting or the post-work. She's definitely a stunning girl but the the pose and the lighting exaggerates her nose. A flat lighting scheme or "butterfly lighting" would be more flattering. The blown-out background and excessive light spill is troubling for me..... although it does isolate the subject. I like her eyes and her expression here but I'd like to turn her head toward the camera to allow for some meat between the eye (to camera right) and the edge of the face. Here's an alternate post-view below. Thanks for sharing the image and braving all the potential responses.</p><div></div>

[marten_holmes]

<p>Thanks David - maybe I'm about to be reminded why I don't post critique requests often! Trouble is, I guess it's that or stagnate.</p>

[emma_g2]

<p>This is a nice image, I think it would have benefited from a small amount of fill so her face isn't as hazy. I'm not to keen on David's edit as it's too sharp, but somewhere in between those two mediums. The blow out soft light is lovely on her collar bone and hair... but it also seems a little blue too but you can sort that out easily. I'm not saying she has an orange tan, but it is hard at times when you have cold daylight, and a really orange bride!!</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>Marten, posting images and getting feedback is one of the best ways to grow as a photographer. I wish people would do it more often on the forum. I'd also like to see more sample images in responses to questions. In the alternate ps post above, I could describe the curves adjustments, cloning activity, etc.... but the image tells it all. With images, people can describe what they'd like to do, but the proof is in the "doing" not the describing.</p>

[neilambrose]

<p>I'll echo some of David's comments.</p>

<p>For me there's way too much light. It's spillled absolutely everywhere. Consequently she has lost any dimensionality, and there's an odd combination of a very low contrast image where at least 65% has been lost to blown highlights. If your aim was to lessen her profile it might have been better to position her on a much tighter angle to the lens. In this case, by posing her in 3/4, you've actually got the opposite effect. And the perspective of your lens and subject camera distance has distorted her features.</p>

<p>Suggestion: use a much longer lens. (I often use 200mm for portraits; you need to be pretty far back, but it compresses the subject's features very well). Try a softer, flatter light source that falls onto the face, not across it. Don't be shy about flagging out any light you don't need so nothing spills. (And always avoid large areas of shine off skin!)</p>

<p>David' suggestion of butterfly lighting works. You could enhance it with rim light from high and rear to keep some of the backlit feel you've got here.</p>

[gregory_c]

<p>What mm lens did you use ? Needs to be longer, composure is good, just it is over exposed. Using a fill may have cancelled the effect from the window. Bracket the shot, change f stop 2 clicks(#'s) each way. Could have used a light reflector instead of a flash. What I do is turn bride 3/4 towards window, no flash, expose with hand meter, & bracket shot several times. Hey, its digital, why not bracket the pose !!!</p>

[john_deerfield]

<p>I agree with what many have said, the image is simply over-exposed. I might guess that you wanted some sort of high key image, but this isn't the way to do it. The skin on the chest is clearly blown and that is not a good distraction. There even looks like a good amount of lens flare going on, but as it's over-exposed it's hard to tell. I don't agree with your choice of using ISO 1600- even if you wanted to over-expose the image. I don't think any flash was used, so again I will assume that you wanted a natural light shot. I see from the EXIF data that the FL was 62mm and would agree that a longer focal length would flatten (compress) many of the facial features. Now perhaps a longer focal length wasn't possible in this room, in which case, change rooms! Or, if you have a fast prime, I might try taking it from above, wide open. Focus on one-eye and let the rest go softly OoF. The red dress/top also catches my attention and seems to clash with the tiara? The tiara is also distracting because it seems more OoF than the hair surrounding it- which is probably a by-product of being over-exposed and/or using some sort of filter on the lens.</p>

<p>All of that said, she is a beautiful women- although most women I know are self-conscience about something!</p>

[wedding-photography-denver]

<p>I don't know what you are looking for in a critique, but you did ask for one...<br>

I would have her breathe through her mouth for this type of shot and to drop her chin just a bit (or get higher yourself).<br>

The upside of this pose it that it gives a dreamy look. The down side is this appears to be lacking balance/fill.</p>

<p>A longer lens may help to flatten her features, but also turning the face a little more to the camera (or stepping to your right a step) would help with the features you are working to flatter.</p>

[marten_holmes]

<p>Gregory - the lens was the long end of 24-70mm which is what I use for nearly all my wedding work. No flash, 1/125 at f3.5. From memory I did bracket the shot but didn't bother to use a hand meter. I didn't use a reflector altho' I did have one with me! Maybe a mistake.<br>

If I turn the model 3/4 towards the window, presumably I wouldn't get the blown white background but will get background detail?</p>

[marten_holmes]

<p>David - I don't know what I was looking for critique wise. I'm just glad that it isn't too heavy. There's lots of stuff to think about and try out which is all good. I'm trying to conceptualise the effect of dropping the chin? Need to try it out.</p>

[theresa_skutt]

<p><strong>Did she like it?</strong></p>

[marten_holmes]

<p>Loved it. Said she can't believe she was that beautiful!</p>

[gregory_c]

<p>Marten, the 70mm is fine, turning the bride towards the window gives her the 3/4 lighting angle you want, if you compose the shot, not much of the background will show. Also it will be dark because of the amount of light falling on the bride. you actually almost stand against the wall, bride 3/4 toward window, light falls across her. Can't show you an example now, my images are at my house, I am at my other job,,,,</p>

[ed_lemko]

<p>I think David's fix is too contrasty, and actually prefer the initial, but agree with the light spillage comments. <br>

And please, tell the bride that if she thinks she should be self conscious, she should look around... beautiful girl. It's always that way though, isn't it? The beautiful ones are wary, the ones who should be concerned are oblivious...</p>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>She is very pretty and the shot is pleasing. I do like her expression. My first thoughts are, the eyes are dead, no sparkle or catchlights of any kind, a very small pop of fill or the use of a small silver reflector will correct this. Need a bit longer lens. Maybe a very mild diffuser to soften her features Tiffen FX1. Her pose is a little awkward and her front shoulders too low because her feet and hips are not set. All poses start from the ground up. They all need a foundation. The light and exposure and all else doesn't bother me at all. I like the side light etc, it gives it character. She is pretty though, is she married? ;)</p>

[pete_harlan1]

<p>Neither shot is particularly good, original or the PP's one which is far too contrasty with a severe color shift.<br>

You may try duping the image w/overlay as a blending layer, then gaussian blur to salvage the image.</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p><em>"Neither shot is particularly good, original or the PP's one which is far too contrasty with a severe color shift. You may try duping the image w/overlay as a blending layer, then gaussian blur to salvage the image." -Pete</em><br>

<em></em><br>

Go ahead Pete, Give it a go................I'd like to see your efforts.</p>

[pete_harlan1]

<p>Okey-Dokey..as soon as I get home I'll take a shot at it.<br>

As I said in my response, the original is a case of salvage work as it was not<br>

shot properly 1st time around. We shall see.</p>

[pete_harlan1]

<p>Marten,<br>

Perhaps this might be more to your liking.</p>

<div></div>

[pete_harlan1]

<p>A little softer</p><div></div>

[prettygeeky]

<p>Marten,<br>

I can't comment so much on the photography aspects of the shot as I am just starting off on this myself. However, with regards to post-production I would suggest to not be afraid to clean up images; this will be your next best option, other than retaking the shot.</p>

<p>A few simple things I did in Photoshop.<br>

- removed distracting elements (top right corner, bottom right corner).. this will put the focus back onto the bride.<br>

- level adjustment (will make black levels pop.. enhancing the eyes)<br>

- desaturated some of the yellow. (soften up the overall tone)<br>

- added a little contrast</p>

<p>Hope this helps,<br>

Ty</p><div></div>

[pete_harlan1]

<p>A couple more for ya' Marten..and my frind NW of me in the windy city. ;)</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[pete_harlan1]

<p>4th Process</p><div></div>