Brit 2541

I wonder if anyone can guess what my major concern is with this

picture? I don't mean, What's the biggest problem? but rather What is it

that I'm the most insecure about.

I can't see anything technical to be insecure about, Doug. It's beautifully done with perhaps just a touch too much fill, and if my monitor is correctly calibrated, the bright sun on the blond hair will be quite difficult to expose correctly.

 

There IS something odd adjacent to her right arm that looks out of place - her left arm? You recently made a remark about groomed hair, perhaps? What appears to be railroad tracks in the background, and how it's out of focus, is nice; though I might consider cropping just below the two upper bright spots.

you are a very good photographer. This photograph and the earlier photograph of the beautiful woman with green eyes are so nice. I really wish you wouldn't put a number on them. They are not numbers.

It does not seem like you are asking about technicalities. Aside from blown out highlights (my monitor at least) wich to me does not take anything away from the image I really like it. The composition is nice as well, I'd rather go with a blurier background, but then agin the main subject still over power the background.

What I think could concern you, and I can be miles away is that she seems to be rather young and there is a great deal of cleavage showing. As much as I like her smile and the facial expression I keep going back and forth between the 2. Depending on what is the purpose of this picture and who her father is that could be the concern.

Did I win anything :)

Congrats,

Alex

It appears there may be a train coming.... gorgeous and very natural young lady, too... Mike

 

Edit: OR, it's your daughter and you've just discovered that she is quite grown up now!

 

 

 

I like out door portrait work and this is very well exposed, wishing you all of the best my friend

Lovely, indeed.

 

Well, I'm quite amazed. Of all those from Brit's shoot that I liked, this was my least favorite, and that's because of the pose. I had to crop 3/4's of her body out to get where I wanted because the position taken by her legs and hips didn't make any sense to me, and presented problems with the frame edges. (see above). Luckily, there was enough left to result in this. I would have liked if the exposure were better balanced (with regard to her hair) but lots of people seem to like it, so I will forgive myself this minor flaw. I agree, it's hard to concentrate on her face, and this is a huge paradox with women, I think, that they have such compelling features, yet they insist that men look them in the eye, and that wandering eyes are offensive. We are only human, ladies. About the crop at the top, I wanted to show the tracks converging into that bright spot. I have to use the numbers to signify which image is which. I don't mean to indicate that she's a number, but the picture sure is.

Mike, I missed your other questions in my reply: Yes, that's her hand and yes, the hair is not as neat as I would have liked. The more I do this, the better I'll get at spotting that sort of thing before we shoot, and the more confident I'll get at pointing it out. I tend not to see it with all the concentrating on exposure and composition, etc, and with the pure distraction of working with a live person.

Alex, interesting comments. She's 20, which is still quite young, but that's middle aged in model years, I understand. Her mother accompanied her on the shoot, and actually set her in this pose. I shot it from where I was standing at the time, but really should have moved in closer. As I was trying to express, above, I appreciate your conflict, and that was part of my dilemma with how to crop. The closer I got, the more emphasis is taken off her face. The further out I cropped, the more trouble I had with her lower body, the missing leg, and so on. I decided that what you see, above, is what the shot was all about, so that's how I cropped it.

Technically perfect, model beautiful as can be, well neutralized background with the tracks makes original in some extent too! Bravo Doug!

 

PDE

I can appreciate the added distraction of her mother's presence particularly if they are newly acquainted. Your crop is logical. I would have done similarly.

 

The issue of "compelling feature" is interesting. It does add another prominent photographic element that can't be easily ignored, but at the same time shouldn't steal the show. I imagine how that's balanced would be difficult but I think you did it well in this picture - she's naturally beautiful without makeup, and the casual look/pose doesn't draw (too much) attention from her face. The alternative would be to cloth differently which would have altered the feel completely.

 

Since I prefer closeups, missing limbs is something I struggle with too. Going for full body shots is an area I'm less familiar with but have been studying Rene Asmussen's work. Perhaps the difference is, closeups are of, and about, the model, whereas full shots are more about the context in which a model interacts with her environment - a whole new dimension of photography.

thanks Pierre!

 

Michael, one of my pet peeves is that I have observed many women who, in my opinion, wear clothing that intentionally draws attention to specific parts of their bodies; butts, bellies, boobs, whatever, there's a garment made to make it look better. Lacy tops, tight tops, V-necks, push up bras, tight bottoms, words printed across the butt, bare midriff shirts, etc. I think much of this is from at least three sources: a woman's desire to be beautiful, a society's definition of what it means to be beautiful, and from the media's constant proclamation of who is (and sometimes who isn't) beautiful.

 

I don't have a problem with any of this, although perhaps I should. I'm not bothered innate desire, the definition, or the proclamation. The problem I have is that I can't freely appreciate it without sometimes being labeled as a creep, or a pervert.

That might be just a reflection of current cultural times, Doug. Sort of like working with children, and having to be constantly on ones toes about being perceived as a predator. I think women have always dressed in ways flattering to their most desirable attributes; same with makeup. The distinction might be in the degree of sexual connotation in ones intent. I see none in this picture - she posed innocently, and you took a picture - as long as it's fine between the two of you (and her parents).

Doug,

 

I just commented a bit on another picture of Brit, but I just couldn't pass this one by. What a beautiful girl, smile, teeth, eyes.

 

A couple of things to consider - Much better top for her that that orange strap thing. - she seems to be leaning in too much - a bit awkward. - watch for things coming out of, or going into, her head - the bright area between her arm and chest is distracting (should be a bit toned down)

 

I think it is time for me to look at your whole portfolio. I will make a quick comment on your body of work later.

 

So far I like what you do! With a few corrections you have great photographs -- keep it up!

 

Mark

Doug:

If this were a senior portrait I would worry about the pose and agree with others that if she and her family are OK with the shot let them have it. If this a modeling pose for a portfolio I am certain when she is my age she will be glad to have this. Not so sure that isn't true regardless. I agree the reflected light from the track is slightly distracting. I think if you crop it any more than this the reflected light from her hair might dominate the composition. You are a great portrait photographer.

My best regards

 

So far this is my favorite picture of Brit.

 

One thing I'd like to say is abouth the following sentence that I read on this interesting page:

 

"I would have liked if the exposure were better balanced (with regard to her hair) but lots of people seem to like it, so I will forgive myself this minor flaw."

 

I certainly hope people will like this, and if they do, be sure it's not "despite" some "minor flaw". There is NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING wrong at all, with blown hair in backlighting situations like this.

 

Just an example: check this page:

 

http://www.davidlachapelle.com/books.html

 

When you'll arrive on that page, top left, you'll see an alternance between 2 blinking pictures - one pix of a fireman, and another one with a blonde hair girl. Check the hair of that girl. Now what...? Who is going to say that David Lachapelle made some "exposure mistake", perhaps ? :-)) This story about blown highlight is a load of nonsense. So many great photographers have used blown highlights to their advantage. This is just ONE example, but I could serve you a hundred more of them.

 

Other things about your picture: I hate the original framing as much as you do, and I think the crop works well. If it were mine, I'd indeed clone off her left hand that's coming back in - as Michael noted. I'd perhaps clone off the rail road track as well, because it now looks like straight lines getting my attention without giving something really interesting. But these 2 things are very minor things, and this is a nice girl photo, even as it is. Regards.

Doug...

 

Forgive my previous post for being somewhat tongue-in-cheek. I still maintain this is a gorgeous young lady, not for any pose but for her fresh and unpretentious expression.

 

As for the photo, it is an obvious outdoor portrait in uncontrolled light - the bright hair (she is after all a blonde) and the railroad tracks don't bother me at all. If I were to compromise and do anything, it would be to slightly burn the edges and bring the focus of attention back to that wonderful face. As for the other view, it's natural, it's the fashion of today, and burning around the edges takes a tad of attention off. I did crop to 5x7 format; one to eliminate that bright spot at the top (sorry, I think you liked that) and two because it's such an appealing format (to me anyway). Just another $.02 worth - but if you do absolutely nothing to the image, it's fantastic as is. Thanks for sharing!

 

Oh yes, as a minor editorial - I ain't ever looked at anything that wasn't displayed!

 

wow, that's a lot to respond to...

 

Mike, I’m sure it is cultural. No question about it. It’s a fascinating field of study, the relationships and roles men and women seek throughout the world. I’m wondering how (if?) my venture into this kind of photography (model portfolios) will comment on the roles in place in our society.

Mark, I consider myself new to this genre and the part of the process I have the most trouble with is being able to see, as in, take notice, of things pertaining to the model before she gets in front of the camera. Clothes, make up, hair, etc. I tend to look right past these things, partly out of inexperience, partly out of nervousness, and partly by the pretty-girl-distraction. Brit had a van full of clothes and held up one thing after another. I don’t’ know about other guys, but I have trouble visualizing how a garment on a hangar will look on the body, although I’ll be quick to add that I didn’t mind the orange top at all, and in fact, it matched well with the orange rust colored farm buildings in the background. Anyway, I’ve accepted copious failure as a necessary pathway to success, so I’m not at all disheartened if something doesn’t work out right. This was essentially Brit’s first serious shoot, too, if you could call it serious, so we both have much to learn. Thanks very much for your thoughts, and your comment on my portfolio page.

Mitch, you’re right. Not exactly a senior portrait kind of shot. I think this pose will do some good in her portfolio. Michael’s crop, below, looks pretty good, I think. Thanks for your kind words.

 

Marc, that’s good to know about the blown highlights. I have trouble letting go of some of the technical things I learned in school. Seems like cloning out the railroad track would be a drastic measure. In my short time doing this, I’ve observed that shots by train tracks are a portfolio staple. Almost like an agency, or client would say “where’s your train track shot?” if they didn’t see on to begin with.

Michael Mancil, she’s gorgeous, I will attest to that. Better looking in person, too. No offense taken by your earlier comment. All of my daughters are growing up and becoming amazing women in their own right. It’s beautiful and gratifying and sad and scary all at the same time.

 

I like your thought about “uncontrolled light.” I like the idea behind that. Together with what Marc shared about blown highlights, this idea will help me get over the feeling of “error” that wild exposures bring on. I also like your crop. Anyone that’s known me for a while knows I’m not married to any cropping guides. And I like your last comment, too. :-P