Where do i keep going wrong? *pictures*

X

xSitara™

Messages
1,296
Edit My Images
No
I know there's something not right with the way my pictures are turning out, ok some the flowers are sightly over exposed but what is the problem?
I still can't pin point it.

1
8ydput.jpg

2
351y7sw.jpg

3
2eol92d.jpg

4
10yga4k.jpg

​
 
Last edited:
they look good to me, maybe the crop is a little tight and on number 3 because the flower is white the eyes look a little grey, i'd also move your water mark on #2 down to where the others are.

Also, the eyes in 3 are a little soft.
Overall they are better than anything ive done
 
No 1 - The flowers are so white that my attention is draw to them.
I think you need to "Darken the Highlights" which gives definition to the flowers and some tone back in her skin.

No 2 is the best - really interesting idea - but I would have prefered more DoF.
The feather is taking precedence. She looks a little pale, "Darken the Highlights" which gives some tone back in her skin.

No 3 - can't put my finger on anything.
The lighting seems a little bright again and there is quite a strong shaddow from her nose.

All the above aren't major they are small adjustments.
 
No1. the flowers are too distracting agree that DOF could of been used to help with no.2 and possibly no3 as well. i dont think these are bad images just little things to watch out for!
 
It might be my eyes or monitor, but the skin seem over processed. :shrug:
 
Apart from the slight over exposure of the flowers that you have identified (although the detail in the hair in the first would have been lost if you had got some detail in the flowers) the exposure is not far off, just that the dynamic range of the first image is just too great for the sensor, so you have to lose something, either the dark tones or the light tones.

You believe your photographs have something missing, I agree, what could it be then, you have good subject matter, you have a creative mind as regards the image, the 2nd image shows this with the makeup mirroring the peacocks feather, so what is letting you down?
I believe (and it is just my opinion mind) that it is the quality of the light. What do i mean by this?

Well you seen to have fallen into the diffused light trap, this is to say that most of your photographs seem to use a diffused and very soft light source, which whilst good for reducing blemishes and wrinkles on less than perfect skin also reduces the impact and definition that can be brought out by the use of a harder light source, creating better shadows, specular highlights and more contrast.

As your models tend to be young with good skin and good makeup, the use of soft lighting is actually not as complimentary as if the subject was shall we say not so fortunate.

Soft, diffused lighting is not a blanket use for everything light (although eminently better than 'on camera' flash) and if you really want to make some stunning images, learn to use light, create shadows (and then fill them where you need) use harder light sources aimed where you want the light, block it out with 'flags' where you don't and fill where you want the light subdued.

Okay, all the posters above seem to think you images are fine/good and have concentrated on depth of field and exposure, but they are just 'not getting it' yes they are okay, but they are not stunning! You on the other hand obviously are 'getting it' as you can see an issue with your pictures but just cannot quite put your finger on how to improve them.

Photography is all about painting with light, depth of field, aperture and shutter speed settings are the mechanics of how you capture the image, but the best and most revered images are 'all about the light'

You have beautiful models (I wish you were closer, I could do with some stunning models), good ideas and quite good camera technique, just practise with the lighting!

Just my two-penneth, hope it is of some use!
 
TwentySixDays said:
No 2 is the best - really interesting idea - but I would have prefered more DoF.
Click to expand...

By that I suspect you mean less?

More depth of field is when the amount of image which is seen as sharp either side of the actual focas point (hence the term 'more depth') and is obtained by utilising a small aperture (large f number)

Shallow depth of field (or less) is when the amount of the image is maginal either side of the actual point of focus and is obtained by utilising a large aperture (small f number)

Why do people keep getting this mixed up? It aint rocket science :bang:
 
I think its quite hard to correctly expose for everything perfectly, especially with such high contrasting colours.. It's kind of like when you're taking a landscape sometimes and have to use a filter to keep the sky in.

You could try Burning in the flowers on #1 so they are exposed better, might work, might look a bit odd. It looks fine though, the exposure on the model looks good.

#2 Doesn't work for me, as lepster74 said the skin is over-processed... Looks like a lot of Blur has been added.

#3 I like the shot... The skin is a little bit off for me with the editing, but its alright

Make up looks quality though.
 
Last edited:
EdBray said:
Apart from the slight over exposure of the flowers that you have identified (although the detail in the hair in the first would have been lost if you had got some detail in the flowers) the exposure is not far off, just that the dynamic range of the first image is just too great for the sensor, so you have to lose something, either the dark tones or the light tones.

You believe your photographs have something missing, I agree, what could it be then, you have good subject matter, you have a creative mind as regards the image, the 2nd image shows this with the makeup mirroring the peacocks feather, so what is letting you down?
I believe (and it is just my opinion mind) that it is the quality of the light. What do i mean by this?

Well you seen to have fallen into the diffused light trap, this is to say that most of your photographs seem to use a diffused and very soft light source, which whilst good for reducing blemishes and wrinkles on less than perfect skin also reduces the impact and definition that can be brought out by the use of a harder light source, creating better shadows, specular highlights and more contrast.

As your models tend to be young with good skin and good makeup, the use of soft lighting is actually not as complimentary as if the subject was shall we say not so fortunate.

Soft, diffused lighting is not a blanket use for everything light (although eminently better than 'on camera' flash) and if you really want to make some stunning images, learn to use light, create shadows (and then fill them where you need) use harder light sources aimed where you want the light, block it out with 'flags' where you don't and fill where you want the light subdued.

Okay, all the posters above seem to think you images are fine/good and have concentrated on depth of field and exposure, but they are just 'not getting it' yes they are okay, but they are not stunning! You on the other hand obviously are 'getting it' as you can see an issue with your pictures but just cannot quite put your finger on how to improve them.

Photography is all about painting with light, depth of field, aperture and shutter speed settings are the mechanics of how you capture the image, but the best and most revered images are 'all about the light'

You have beautiful models (I wish you were closer, I could do with some stunning models), good ideas and quite good camera technique, just practise with the lighting!

Just my two-penneth, hope it is of some use!
Click to expand...

Thanks alot for the detailed response, i know i have to invest in some decent lighting, so far I only have my canon EOS 450d, built in flash and natural day light this is what i'm trying to work with until i purchase some lighting.

The makeup i applied myself and all the ideas are mine too but I know i just can't get portrait/glamour photography right in my back garden, using Manual mode is getting more complicated even though portrait mode is easy i'm still trying to use 'M' since i have more control, i still think along with lighting there is something else missing, i think my focus is also wrong.

Devon? Damn, well whenever you're in London with your lighting equipment let me know i'll get the models and apply the makeup, you can take the photos and teach me a thing or 2, and we can share tips :p

Seriously though, i find myself very lucky to have such willing family and friends, these girls are always up for helping and i guess i just have patience when it comes to applying makeup since i love that too it makes a photo something else, i think at the moment the only thing i have going for me is the make up until i learn how to use light the photos will remain crap, it's harsh but true!
 
Last edited:
EdBray said:
By that I suspect you mean less?

More depth of field...

Why do people keep getting this mixed up? It aint rocket science :bang:
Click to expand...

You have posted really good useful critque which I found very interesting.
But I mean more DoF, more of the image in focus.

There IS only one point of focus for a given lens.
DoF (Depth of Field) refers to the allowable amount of fuzziness around the focal point, the circles of confusion.
The size of the Circles is relative to the Focal Length (F) and the size of the Aperture (A) the smaller the Aperture the smaller the circles and consequently the acceptable level of fuzziness around the focal point.

F numbers are a reciprocal ration (i.e. 1/n) this means the bigger the number (n) the smaller the size.
Consequently the bigger the Fnumber the more depth of field.


Back to the image...
The feather, to my eye, is the point of focus and the model is the background.
Maybe it is just as you have said, that the lighting is too soft.

But to me the effect is that I see the feather - of course this could be just the effect that Bablee intended. :)

If you want to see what I mean roughly mask round the feather, then blur the feather and see what happens.
 
Last edited:
only a slightly different tack, I think you have too much hair in the first shot, it seems to dominate the picture to me, and with no eye contact I think it's too much.

Perhaps crop out more of the hair, or look at the camera?

At the moment the picture seems to lack a reason

Hope thisn't isn't too waffly
 
Arrgh .. you've add an image and change the numbers around.
This is going to make it really difficult for someone trying to follow the thread.

No 1 - Looks much better.
I don't know if the white flowers are symbolic? The style of flower is great but I would have tried a 'orange' or 'rust' colour.

I think No2 is really good. (the feather and the girls eyes open)

What expression/look were you going for?
In No2 she looks distant and perhaps a little annoyed with something going on in the distance.
 
Last edited:
TwentySixDays said:
You have posted really good useful critque which I found very interesting.
But I mean more DoF, more of the image in focus. My apologies, I thought that you were implying that the feather needed to be more out of focus!

There IS only one point of focus for a given lens. Only true for a fixed focus lens, not strictly true for a photographic lens as it is actually possible to change the point of focus by using the focus ring which changes the relative positions of the elements inside the lens (sorry just being as pedantic as you were :LOL: ) DoF (Depth of Field) refers to the allowable amount of fuzziness around the focal point, the circles of confusion. Trus
The size of the Circles is relative to the Focal Length (F) and the size of the Aperture (A) the smaller the Aperture the smaller the circles and consequently the acceptable level of fuzziness around the focal point. True

F numbers are a reciprocal ration (i.e. 1/n) this means the bigger the number (n) the smaller the size.
Consequently the bigger the Fnumber the more depth of field.


Back to the image...
The feather, to my eye, is the point of focus and the model is the background.
Maybe it is just as you have said, that the lighting is too soft.

But to me the effect is that I see the feather - of course this could be just the effect that Bablee intended. :) True again, which is why I thought you were implying that the feather should be defocussed thus concentrating on the model's face!

If you want to see what I mean roughly mask round the feather, then blur the feather and see what happens.
Click to expand...
Have tried this as you are no doubt now aware due to the PM.

What i like about this thread is that it has invoked discussion and whether anyone agrees with my suggestions or not that is what makes photography such a great subject for debate!
 
For me the only element that does not work for me is the PP on the skin, which just looks a little too smoothed.

Top marks on the make-up, it ties the images in nicely (y)
 
EdBray said:
...What i like about this thread is that it has invoked discussion and whether anyone agrees with my suggestions or not that is what makes photography such a great subject for debate!
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more after all it's the TP website(y)
 
Last edited:
V8burble said:
For me the only element that does not work for me is the PP on the skin, which just looks a little too smoothed.

Top marks on the make-up, it ties the images in nicely (y)
Click to expand...

Why thanks, i love applying make up also... i just need to improve the photography now :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top