I did a semi-nude session in the fall, and while the client loved them, I entered one into a informal local print competition, and the judges just tore it apart and said it was awful. It was the first nude I had ever done, and I would just like suggestions on what I should or could have done to make it better!
Full Version: Opinion please!!!
Two and three are absolutely stunning. Beautiful job. Love the lighting and color.
QUOTE(CL Park @ January 4 2007, 01:33 PM) [snapback]41203[/snapback]
Two and three are absolutely stunning. Beautiful job. Love the lighting and color.
+1
QUOTE(Kate817 @ January 4 2007, 04:31 PM) [snapback]41199[/snapback]
I did a semi-nude session in the fall, and while the client loved them, I entered one into a informal local print competition, and the judges just tore it apart and said it was awful. It was the first nude I had ever done, and I would just like suggestions on what I should or could have done to make it better!
I think they are awesome...Bottom line, your client like them. I am currious as to how they scored. Can you share.???
QUOTE(Kate817 @ January 4 2007, 01:31 PM) [snapback]41199[/snapback]
I did a semi-nude session in the fall, and while the client loved them, I entered one into a informal local print competition, and the judges just tore it apart and said it was awful. It was the first nude I had ever done, and I would just like suggestions on what I should or could have done to make it better!
Wow.. Not sure why they ripped those pix apart. I really like 2 and 3. What did the judges say about the pix? What picture did you enter into the conteset? I'd be curious to read other peoples CC on your images. I really like them... but then again.. that's MY opinion, and I have learned that in the field of photography/art, there are lots of people with opinions. Some make you feel good, some make you feel like crap.... but ultimately, I go back to the basics of what my old college photography teacher used to say... "there are many written rules in the books of how to do photography, but there is no one way of accomplishing them" Photography is art, not everyone will connect with what you produce, but if YOU believe in your work... then that's what should matter first. I'm all about learning how to improve my work, but it's easy to get confused with what is "opinion" and what is actually helpful/technical CC. Today photography is all about breaking the rules and molds. What some might view as garbage is another persons treasure. I try to remember that.
Anyway.. curious and looking forward to reading what others have to say. I'm wondering what "technical" reasons your pix may have missed with the judges. I'm still learning myself....
Just my thoughts......
j.k
I think you did great!! I think 2 and 3 are awesome, with no. 3 being the strongest of the bunch! But Im no photo contest judge. But then again, I dont get hung up on rules, I go by impact!!
QUOTE(MikeWarren @ January 4 2007, 02:55 PM) [snapback]41264[/snapback]
I think you did great!! I think 2 and 3 are awesome, with no. 3 being the strongest of the bunch! But Im no photo contest judge. But then again, I dont get hung up on rules, I go by impact!!
I agree Mike... Rules Shmules..... Shoot what you like, like what you shoot! I love the great variety of images I see. That's why I love photography so much. There is no "one" perfect picture.. there are soooo many! Especially here on OSP!
They are awesome! I like 3 the best! I see nothing wrong with any of them. I realize a contest they have to narrow down many excellent images, but I can't figure how they could have "torn the images apart". Like Jeanette said, I would be curious from a technical standpoint what the objected to. And I look forward to hearing everyone's opinion here and CC.
Like Mike said, don't get hung up on the rules, go for impact (that's all the clients care about anyway! )
My personal opinion, they are beautiful images, that you can be more than proud of!
Like Mike said, don't get hung up on the rules, go for impact (that's all the clients care about anyway!
)My personal opinion, they are beautiful images, that you can be more than proud of!
I am so encouraged to hear so many compliments on them!
I entered #2 and all three judges said that the lighting was awful, not at all complimenting the female figure, it had flat lighting, and they hated how the arms were cropped off short. I can't remember what it scored, I believe it was a 67? It scored the lowest out of all the images entered (there were probably about 50 total). I'm not too hung up on it I liked them a lot, and was just wondering if anyone saw where I could improve. I've worked at a studio for 5 1/2 years, but just started photographing in the past year, so it's all pretty new to me, and I sometimes have a difficult time seeing good light and working with flashes, etc.
Again, thanks so much for everyone's input, I really appreciate it!
I entered #2 and all three judges said that the lighting was awful, not at all complimenting the female figure, it had flat lighting, and they hated how the arms were cropped off short. I can't remember what it scored, I believe it was a 67? It scored the lowest out of all the images entered (there were probably about 50 total). I'm not too hung up on it I liked them a lot, and was just wondering if anyone saw where I could improve. I've worked at a studio for 5 1/2 years, but just started photographing in the past year, so it's all pretty new to me, and I sometimes have a difficult time seeing good light and working with flashes, etc.
Again, thanks so much for everyone's input, I really appreciate it!
QUOTE(Kate817 @ January 4 2007, 03:58 PM) [snapback]41301[/snapback]
I am so encouraged to hear so many compliments on them!
I entered #2 and all three judges said that the lighting was awful, not at all complimenting the female figure, it had flat lighting, and they hated how the arms were cropped off short. I can't remember what it scored, I believe it was a 67? It scored the lowest out of all the images entered (there were probably about 50 total). I'm not too hung up on it I liked them a lot, and was just wondering if anyone saw where I could improve. I've worked at a studio for 5 1/2 years, but just started photographing in the past year, so it's all pretty new to me, and I sometimes have a difficult time seeing good light and working with flashes, etc.
Again, thanks so much for everyone's input, I really appreciate it!
I entered #2 and all three judges said that the lighting was awful, not at all complimenting the female figure, it had flat lighting, and they hated how the arms were cropped off short. I can't remember what it scored, I believe it was a 67? It scored the lowest out of all the images entered (there were probably about 50 total). I'm not too hung up on it I liked them a lot, and was just wondering if anyone saw where I could improve. I've worked at a studio for 5 1/2 years, but just started photographing in the past year, so it's all pretty new to me, and I sometimes have a difficult time seeing good light and working with flashes, etc.
Again, thanks so much for everyone's input, I really appreciate it!
I guess I see what they have to say about the arms, maybe if it had been cropped at the elbows or something. But seriously, what I loved about the photo was the lighting. and "mood" it seemed to set. The lighting drew your attention through the photo with the face I felt the focal point)
I still love it and think they were a bit too critical!
Those are great! Especially for you first try... It would be nice to see the hands in #2 but it's still a great shot. I'm sure my first try would be much worse.
If you are looking for some ideas... try checking out Photo.net. There are a tone of "nudes" to look at. Some are beautiful but, quite a few are in rather bad tast. The majority of photogs are European men so their mentality is different than ours, keep that in mind. Regardless it's worth checking out...
If you are looking for some ideas... try checking out Photo.net. There are a tone of "nudes" to look at. Some are beautiful but, quite a few are in rather bad tast. The majority of photogs are European men so their mentality is different than ours, keep that in mind. Regardless it's worth checking out...
I absolutely love #2 - it's VERY soft and feminie, yet strong; and her skin is silky and glowing. you did a great job, it's a flattering pose and not at all trashy, even tho she's practically naked. : ) GREAT JOB GIRL!
<3 kristy
<3 kristy
agree about the arms, but i think its a minor point of view, guess it was the just the judges own opinions!
out of all i like the 3rd photo, its great, soft loving and its got power. plus the skins great, which leads me to ask for some help, ive been rolling over and over in photoshop trying to get the perfect settings for perfect skin, doing it customly and blazing thru the net but nothing i have found matches what i want. if anyone knows a site or an action or script something like tht to apply perfect MAGAZINE looking skin id most appreciate the recommendation link
out of all i like the 3rd photo, its great, soft loving and its got power. plus the skins great, which leads me to ask for some help, ive been rolling over and over in photoshop trying to get the perfect settings for perfect skin, doing it customly and blazing thru the net but nothing i have found matches what i want. if anyone knows a site or an action or script something like tht to apply perfect MAGAZINE looking skin id most appreciate the recommendation link
[start c&c sandwich]
I think you did a fantastic job, honestly these are very nice images, but....
On number 2, I think I'm in agreeance with the judges sorry.
I'd agree that the arms are not helping the image, I'd also agree that although the light on the face brings your attention there, but the rest of the light is fairly flat, I'd prefer to see some more drop off of light, or at least some diversity of shadowing on her back.
I hate to say it but I don't find the pose altogether flattering either, something about the ripples in her back/side is not sitting right with me, but that may be more the lighting at fault, the model is completely gorgeous.
I'm not trying to be an arse sorry, I actually like the image, I can just see what they're saying, remember they spent all day going through these images close up.
Might I ask what your lighting set up was? I'm guessing a soft box or diffuser to camera right (or perhaps thats just ambient which might explain it) and a gridded/gobo'd/zoomed in flash/spot high just to camera right (or maybe onboard).
As I see it you have 2 anchor-points - the face and the buttocks, if you were to shoot again you may want to try leaving the face lighting as is, but instead of having uniform light across the back, use another gridded/zoomed spot with 1/2 or 1/4 (or less) the power of the face light (at the same distance) aimed at the small of the back, I think it would give it a nicer dynamic feel.
and of course work the arms back into the image.
I hope this helps understand the male psyche
Now...... Number 3 is just completely gorgeous, classic, perfect, beautiful.
[end c&c sandwich]
I think you did a fantastic job, honestly these are very nice images, but....
On number 2, I think I'm in agreeance with the judges sorry.
I'd agree that the arms are not helping the image, I'd also agree that although the light on the face brings your attention there, but the rest of the light is fairly flat, I'd prefer to see some more drop off of light, or at least some diversity of shadowing on her back.
I hate to say it but I don't find the pose altogether flattering either, something about the ripples in her back/side is not sitting right with me, but that may be more the lighting at fault, the model is completely gorgeous.
I'm not trying to be an arse sorry, I actually like the image, I can just see what they're saying, remember they spent all day going through these images close up.
Might I ask what your lighting set up was? I'm guessing a soft box or diffuser to camera right (or perhaps thats just ambient which might explain it) and a gridded/gobo'd/zoomed in flash/spot high just to camera right (or maybe onboard).
As I see it you have 2 anchor-points - the face and the buttocks, if you were to shoot again you may want to try leaving the face lighting as is, but instead of having uniform light across the back, use another gridded/zoomed spot with 1/2 or 1/4 (or less) the power of the face light (at the same distance) aimed at the small of the back, I think it would give it a nicer dynamic feel.
and of course work the arms back into the image.
I hope this helps understand the male psyche
Now...... Number 3 is just completely gorgeous, classic, perfect, beautiful.
[end c&c sandwich]
QUOTE(rosstanner @ January 8 2007, 04:23 AM) [snapback]43629[/snapback]
agree about the arms, but i think its a minor point of view, guess it was the just the judges own opinions!
out of all i like the 3rd photo, its great, soft loving and its got power. plus the skins great, which leads me to ask for some help, ive been rolling over and over in photoshop trying to get the perfect settings for perfect skin, doing it customly and blazing thru the net but nothing i have found matches what i want. if anyone knows a site or an action or script something like tht to apply perfect MAGAZINE looking skin id most appreciate the recommendation link
out of all i like the 3rd photo, its great, soft loving and its got power. plus the skins great, which leads me to ask for some help, ive been rolling over and over in photoshop trying to get the perfect settings for perfect skin, doing it customly and blazing thru the net but nothing i have found matches what i want. if anyone knows a site or an action or script something like tht to apply perfect MAGAZINE looking skin id most appreciate the recommendation link
Hi Ross,
I frequently use a filter from Kodak called Digital Gem airbrush, and you have to be careful with it because if you don't play around with the settings, it can give your images a very fake look that's yucky. And it's not a miracle filter, it won't do all of the retouching for you, but it definitely helps soften up the skin. I usually use it first and then go in and do any additional retouching. You can find it here:
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professiona....24.3&lc=en
QUOTE(stateofthenation @ January 8 2007, 05:05 AM) [snapback]43637[/snapback]
[start c&c sandwich]
I think you did a fantastic job, honestly these are very nice images, but....
On number 2, I think I'm in agreeance with the judges sorry.
I'd agree that the arms are not helping the image, I'd also agree that although the light on the face brings your attention there, but the rest of the light is fairly flat, I'd prefer to see some more drop off of light, or at least some diversity of shadowing on her back.
I hate to say it but I don't find the pose altogether flattering either, something about the ripples in her back/side is not sitting right with me, but that may be more the lighting at fault, the model is completely gorgeous.
I'm not trying to be an arse sorry, I actually like the image, I can just see what they're saying, remember they spent all day going through these images close up.
Might I ask what your lighting set up was? I'm guessing a soft box or diffuser to camera right (or perhaps thats just ambient which might explain it) and a gridded/gobo'd/zoomed in flash/spot high just to camera right (or maybe onboard).
As I see it you have 2 anchor-points - the face and the buttocks, if you were to shoot again you may want to try leaving the face lighting as is, but instead of having uniform light across the back, use another gridded/zoomed spot with 1/2 or 1/4 (or less) the power of the face light (at the same distance) aimed at the small of the back, I think it would give it a nicer dynamic feel.
and of course work the arms back into the image.
I hope this helps understand the male psyche
Now...... Number 3 is just completely gorgeous, classic, perfect, beautiful.
[end c&c sandwich]
I think you did a fantastic job, honestly these are very nice images, but....
On number 2, I think I'm in agreeance with the judges sorry.
I'd agree that the arms are not helping the image, I'd also agree that although the light on the face brings your attention there, but the rest of the light is fairly flat, I'd prefer to see some more drop off of light, or at least some diversity of shadowing on her back.
I hate to say it but I don't find the pose altogether flattering either, something about the ripples in her back/side is not sitting right with me, but that may be more the lighting at fault, the model is completely gorgeous.
I'm not trying to be an arse sorry, I actually like the image, I can just see what they're saying, remember they spent all day going through these images close up.
Might I ask what your lighting set up was? I'm guessing a soft box or diffuser to camera right (or perhaps thats just ambient which might explain it) and a gridded/gobo'd/zoomed in flash/spot high just to camera right (or maybe onboard).
As I see it you have 2 anchor-points - the face and the buttocks, if you were to shoot again you may want to try leaving the face lighting as is, but instead of having uniform light across the back, use another gridded/zoomed spot with 1/2 or 1/4 (or less) the power of the face light (at the same distance) aimed at the small of the back, I think it would give it a nicer dynamic feel.
and of course work the arms back into the image.
I hope this helps understand the male psyche
Now...... Number 3 is just completely gorgeous, classic, perfect, beautiful.
[end c&c sandwich]
Thank you so much for your advice. I was using a large softbox, to the left of the camera (My left, if I'm standing behind it). I was thinking that if I did it again, of using some sort of light coming in behind here. Where would you position the additional spot? on the same side of the soft box, or on the opposite side? Thanks again!!
I thought about this last night before you posted and I think I would start with it as high up as I could get it and further to the left (at about 90-100 degrees around) than your soft box (assuming this was directly into her face), almost facing back to you, that far around. But then experiment.
I might even try it maybe 30-40 cm's above her, on the far left again for a different shadowing.
I might even try it maybe 30-40 cm's above her, on the far left again for a different shadowing.
I think they look great. I hate the concept of "judges" when you can pick up any magazine and in 3 minutes find a handful of shots that have flaws in them yet the client has paid big bucks for and created a campaign around it.
Just remember it is a judges view. stay true to your own shooting style.
Patrick
Just remember it is a judges view. stay true to your own shooting style.
Patrick
thanks kate,
its that horrible fake look i end up with so thats why i keep scrathing my head, ive tried the cloning tool, dab tool, filters, colour retouching you name it ive tried it somehow or other even with plugins!
but thanks for the aid of the site, ill run a look through it in a minute. keep me posted on your work
its that horrible fake look i end up with so thats why i keep scrathing my head, ive tried the cloning tool, dab tool, filters, colour retouching you name it ive tried it somehow or other even with plugins!
but thanks for the aid of the site, ill run a look through it in a minute. keep me posted on your work
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.