Critique Last shoot of 2017

Messages
777
Name
Amanda Herbert
Edit My Images
No
Hi all,

Just wanted to share some recent portraits as I've not been active for a while. Happy for CC on my photography (but not the model).

Thanks Mandy

#1

25498280_1759813764092523_5019981855204276126_n.jpg


#2
25348437_1753439728063260_6470073995179193064_n.jpg


#3
25354160_1754275361313030_7951615344871368140_n.jpg


#4
25446363_1758544084219491_6734584749492136917_n.jpg


#5
I've used a different skin processing approach here - I don't know if it looks too perfect?
25591571_1760740073999892_4358923539988966607_n.jpg
 



Hi Amanda,

The lighting, all around, is very pleasing but there are, IMO, issues
when it comes to renditions.

#1 insufficient DR and yellow overtones
#2 insufficient DR and magenta overtones
#3 adequate DR and no overtones. :)
#4 like #3 but could use separation from BG
#5 insufficient DR and skin work… she could be so perfect!
#6 insufficient DR but cool tonal conversion.

…hope that helps…. :cool:
 
Not competent enough to comment greatly. That said I can offer a lay persons feeling when viewing. They are great looking images. The ones where you say you did the skin smoothing different are the weakest for me i'm not saying that is because of the skin smoothing as that is something I don't do. I think it's because the skin colour is so different from the others. I get what Daniel is saying but I am pretty sure you processed them this way for effect/mood/feel.

Gaz
 
Number 3 is gorgeous
 
3,4 and 6 for me :)
 
my only complaint would be the inconsistent skin colour, when presented as a set.
seen Individually they are all excellent (I like the restricted tonal range)

4 is the strongest image
 
Last edited:
Personal opinion, I think she looks better with her mouth shut!!!
 
#4 is outstanding and #3 is very close.
The first two have a bit of that washed out color cast thing that's kind of popular, and I imagine it was intentional. But the color cast doesn't work for me, particularly the greenish tint in the first.
#5 is also very nice natural portraits.

I would say the biggest thing you need to watch for is the fly-away stray hair, it's affecting most of the images adversely... there's one that's cutting across cheek, nose, mouth in #3 which is a real shame. I wouldn't say it needs eliminated for natural portraits, just tamed down. In 1&2 the pose & lighting is causing her to loose her chin somewhat (more-so 1). And I suspect they were taken from a closer perspective w/ a wider FL as she almost doesn't look like the same person to me.
 
What a lovely set. well done.
I'll never purport to be a portrait photographer but I know what I like and number 6 stands out for me.
 
Really nice set...like the first two best ,
Not to keen on what PP you have done on her arms in #1 they don't look a natural shape to me ,
and also you can see where you have used the liquify tool on her arm on #6.
 
Thanks everyone for their comments.

@Kodiak Qc I always respect your opinion. Thanks

Everyone's comments about the colour processing is spot on, I'd reinstalled Alien Skin and was having a play.
I also appreciate your observations about skin colour - always the holy grail.

@wambam @sk66 You spotted the details accurately too. The brown backdrop was taken with a 23mm and I've made my peace with the distortion. I'm working in a small room with no alternative. Only #6 has been liquified and I'm a bit gunho with it. As I'm playing with processing I didn't bother with the errors!!

Cheers, Mandy
 
Quite an erratic set. I like three & four.

I've said on many occasions that a wide angle lens is unflattering for head and should portraits. Number one demonstrates this perfectly.

The pp in the last one isn't great imho.
 
Why not - looking to improve? Thanks, Mandy

Distortion. Big forehead, eyes wider apart, large nose. None of these are particularly flattering. And in the case of your first picture you've shot from a slightly higher angle and/or she's leaning toward camera which has made her head look massive.

But then you knew all that, as per your comment in post #14.
 
@Kodiak Qc I always respect your opinion. Thanks


I hope you got that my observations had nothing to do
with artistic intent which is, as it should be when expe-
rimenting, all over the place.

I really like your quest and devotion in it! Keep rocking :)
 
Distortion. Big forehead, eyes wider apart, large nose. None of these are particularly flattering. And in the case of your first picture you've shot from a slightly higher angle and/or she's leaning toward camera which has made her head look massive.

But then you knew all that, as per your comment in post #14.
Lol - sorry - I meant the post processing. I know wide angles distort faces. You've always been helpful , so thanks for sharing! Mandy
 
Lol - sorry - I meant the post processing. I know wide angles distort faces. You've always been helpful , so thanks for sharing! Mandy

No worries. In terms of PP I didn't mind any of them except the last one. For me the eyes are over done in particular. I think it's the the b&w conversion which emphasises it.
 
I know wide angles distort faces.

An ineresting Article on which Lens to use for Portrait Photography:- https://learn.zoner.com/why-should-i-zoom-in-for-portraits/

Seriously? Come on now. So we should never use anything wider than 85mm according to that article? I particularly liked how he opened with...."Portraiture is more than you think it is", then basically moved on to say how it's basically just head and shoulders photography (for him anyway). Portrait photography is so much more than that article or what most people consider it to be. I don't mind the first one here at all, Mandy. In fact, I thought it were very striking. Presented alone I feel it would draw less comparison with regard to focal length than when presented with the rest of the set...the same goes for the processing.

You definitely have a lovely style and I really like these, particularly the look in #3.






Hi Amanda,

The lighting, all around, is very pleasing but there are, IMO, issues
when it comes to renditions.

#1 insufficient DR and yellow overtones
#2 insufficient DR and magenta overtones
#3 adequate DR and no overtones. :)
#4 like #3 but could use separation from BG
#5 insufficient DR and skin work… she could be so perfect!
#6 insufficient DR but cool tonal conversion.

…hope that helps…. :cool:

Quoted this as it does feel somewhat contradictory when you add in your comments about artistic intent. Surely that's why we make photos like this? The word 'insufficient' suggests that it's wrong and we are shooting/viewing with lab coats on and we should adjust the PP according to the histogram. Hope you take my comments as intended. What I mean is, if we all shot to a formula...same focal length, same PP, same presentation, we would just be looking at the same image with different faces.
 
Quoted this as it does feel somewhat contradictory when you add in your comments about artistic intent.
What I mean is, if we all shot to a formula...same focal length, same PP, same presentation, we would just be looking at the same image with different faces.
Let me try to put it another way…
Architects will design all kinds of structures that will have
to pass the physical, mechanical, functional tests and be
accepted, ultimately, as tasteful by the client. In this, there
are the technical and the artistic aspects; one may not work
against the other.

Cooks have other considerations to work with but it all boils
down to good taste… and it is the same in all crafts and arts.

In these approaches, Amanda is obviously eager to experi-
ment, being very bold at it and this I appreciate greatly. So-
me treatments are valuable, IMO, for different reasons and
some points —in these treatments— are not so well achie-
ved making the final result insufficient in some regards as,
in the same portrait, other decisions may be tasteful.
 
Really like the subtle nature of these. Yes, a little more pop would improve a few of them, nothing that can't be tweaked in post. I'm curious as to what focal length you employed for shot #1 ?.

Great subject and compositions.

Enjoyed viewing.

Regards

Tim
 
Thanks for your observations @gazmorton2000 You know I'm a fan of your work.

@Phrasemaker #1 was with the 23mm, as were all the brown backdrops. I was careful to keep the non-model's face in the center of the lens, but you can see the distortion towards the arms at the bottom of the frame.

Everyone's comments have been really useful, I went back and adapted my edits to produce this image which I really like at the moment. I was careful about the DR and didn't use AS!

Se299P
 
Last edited:
That fourth shot is superb Amanda. I think kudos to you for trying things. I find 24mm my hoodoo FL, I generally struggle with the distortion but sometimes, framed centrally and in a certain manner, it can work great for lifestyle shoots, it's just not me I don't think. I haven't read through all of the above but the first shot looks to have a little too much green in the top section?

A great variety of shots and the last one posted ticks all the boxes for me, good work as always.
 
Seriously? Come on now. So we should never use anything wider than 85mm according to that article? I particularly liked how he opened with...."Portraiture is more than you think it is", then basically moved on to say how it's basically just head and shoulders photography (for him anyway). Portrait photography is so much more than that article or what most people consider it to be. I don't mind the first one here at all, Mandy. In fact, I thought it were very striking. Presented alone I feel it would draw less comparison with regard to focal length than when presented with the rest of the set...the same goes for the processing.

You definitely have a lovely style and I really like these, particularly the look in #3.





Quoted this as it does feel somewhat contradictory when you add in your comments about artistic intent. Surely that's why we make photos like this? The word 'insufficient' suggests that it's wrong and we are shooting/viewing with lab coats on and we should adjust the PP according to the histogram. Hope you take my comments as intended. What I mean is, if we all shot to a formula...same focal length, same PP, same presentation, we would just be looking at the same image with different faces.

I haven’t read the article you’ve referenced but I think most people with half a brain would agree that a portrait can be anything from a tight headshot to a full length shot with lots of empty space around the subject. To my mind they are all types of portraiture and any and all can suit the subject. All that being said, I firmly believe that when shooting head & shoulder portraits a wider lens should be avoided. Especially one as wide as 23mm. Whilst you might think it looks “cool” or “different” surely the ultimate aim of this type of portrait is to flatter the subject. I don’t see #1 as a flattering portrait at all.
 
my only complaint would be the inconsistent skin colour, when presented as a set.
seen Individually they are all excellent (I like the restricted tonal range)

:agree:

All that being said, I firmly believe that when shooting head & shoulder portraits a wider lens should be avoided.

Generally, yes, but I think it depends on face shape. I did photograph someone with an usually wide and flat face - 35mm was about right for her. Yet for another subject 200mm might be appropriate.
 
Quick thanks to everyone who gave me harsh critique - for my next session I kept the 23mm locked away and refused to use Alien Skin ... and I got back to my signature style!

Incidentally, I'm thinking of trading my fuji 35mm or 23mm for something squeaky sharp like the 56mm (fav lens that I own) - would the 18-55 be a good option for newborn photography and adult portraits?

27858120_1620993184646769_391641821715267982_n.jpg
 
Quick thanks to everyone who gave me harsh critique - for my next session I kept the 23mm locked away and refused to use Alien Skin ... and I got back to my signature style!

Incidentally, I'm thinking of trading my fuji 35mm or 23mm for something squeaky sharp like the 56mm (fav lens that I own) - would the 18-55 be a good option for newborn photography and adult portraits?

27858120_1620993184646769_391641821715267982_n.jpg


Clearly an 18-55 is an excellent lens, but is only F4 at the long end. This might be a bit restrictive for professional portraiture.
 
Quick thanks to everyone who gave me harsh critique - for my next session I kept the 23mm locked away and refused to use Alien Skin ... and I got back to my signature style!

Incidentally, I'm thinking of trading my fuji 35mm or 23mm for something squeaky sharp like the 56mm (fav lens that I own) - would the 18-55 be a good option for newborn photography and adult portraits?

27858120_1620993184646769_391641821715267982_n.jpg

Lovely!

Lens choice depends on your style of portraiture. I find zooms invaluable and rarely shoot wide open. I tend to use 70-200 on FF for head & shoulders shots, 24-70 for most other stuff and fast primes just occasionally.
 
Last edited:
Quick thanks to everyone who gave me harsh critique - for my next session I kept the 23mm locked away and refused to use Alien Skin ... and I got back to my signature style!

Incidentally, I'm thinking of trading my fuji 35mm or 23mm for something squeaky sharp like the 56mm (fav lens that I own) - would the 18-55 be a good option for newborn photography and adult portraits?

27858120_1620993184646769_391641821715267982_n.jpg

That is rather lovely :) I know you asked for no CC on the first model, but she has a gorgeous smile ...

If the lens you are thinking of getting is the Fuji 18-55 f2.8 then I'd say go for it - I have recently looked at this (for a system swap from Nikon D810) and was impressed with the lens, solid build, fast af and lovely rendering.
 
Back
Top