Critique Thread for Photographers

[john_deere]

Originally Posted by Adonis

Photo 1: Beautiful, I wouldn't change a thing.

Photo 2: Subjective to each photographer but I would have played with the dof a little more - a little more or less may have worked better. Also, it may be a little hot just above the garters.

Photo 3: There is a blemish on the back cheek and lines on the front one. Otherwise, it's perfectly processed and cropped.

cool, and i can't disagree with any of that.

the blemish and lines…i'll address that because it's a common problem….my rule is, if a blemish won't be there next week, i remove it. i don't edit birthmarks or tattoos unless specifically asked, and for one simple reason: it's much harder to do it right than most people imagine, and it's hard to get paid for the time it takes.

same thing with those lines…that can be a rabbit hole. the best thing, if it's an issue, is to just slow down the shoot until they disappear, but, time is always at a premium so it's a judgement call.

[DDBD Photography]

Originally Posted by BDS

Since I suggested it...I guess I will go first!

Here's my first one...

Very nice. I agree with everyone about the blur but that's part of this industry when it comes to shoots. I like the angle, pose, etc. I would watch out for the cords next time. I just edited a shot where I forgot about one of my lenses on the counter. A second pair of eyes would be great in these shoots lol.

[DDBD Photography]

Originally Posted by john_deere

cool, and i can't disagree with any of that.

the blemish and lines…i'll address that because it's a common problem….my rule is, if a blemish won't be there next week, i remove it. i don't edit birthmarks or tattoos unless specifically asked, and for one simple reason: it's much harder to do it right than most people imagine, and it's hard to get paid for the time it takes.

same thing with those lines…that can be a rabbit hole. the best thing, if it's an issue, is to just slow down the shoot until they disappear, but, time is always at a premium so it's a judgement call.

I agree with Adonis and totally get why they were left. Great shots.

[john_deere]

the subject of tat removal has come up a lot lately and since i'm home with a cold i figured i can ad something to illustrate my point above….

this removal took me 2 hours of steady work in photoshop. i'm sure there are people who could do it faster and better, but when making my target rate depends on only having 6-8 hours total in the project it better be DAMN fast. and, this is only one image from the set….

[Guest030617]

Very well done...I hope to be able to remove tats like that one day! Until then I think I will use Dermablend when needed!

[john_deere]

^thank you.

here's something else from the discussion on my first shot with the missing toe that i remembered later...that day i was using a 50mm lens, which on my canon 1diii has a field of view about equal to a 65mm lens (1.3x crop factor sensor).

i remembered that when i was shooting that, i kept backing into the wall...i couldn't get far enough away. lens selection is important when you consider the size of the space you're working in! if you have a lens like my 24-70l, it's tempting to dial it back to 30 or 40mm, but you WILL get some distortion at that range.

my point is, always know your equipment and how it will perform in any given environment.

[Adonis]

~And it's almost always better to shoot wide open if you can. 70 is generally more flattering than 50 and 120 is generally more flattering than 70 and 200 is generally more flattering than all of the above. This is due to the compression factors in the glass.

[john_deere]

Originally Posted by Adonis

~And it's almost always better to shoot wide open if you can. 70 is generally more flattering than 50 and 120 is generally more flattering than 70 and 200 is generally more flattering than all of the above. This is due to the compression factors in the glass.

absolutely. shoot the biggest lens you've got room and money for!

using the term "wide open" might confuse some, though, since that usually refers to a wide open aperture.

[Guest030617]

[john_deere]

^try increasing the fill light - may be called shadows in lr5 - to bring more detail into the dress. i think you'll like it better.

[Guest030617]

I would like to know how you can shade a certain area but not the other areas like what you are talking about! I tried to use the brush, but since I'm new I just get frustrated! I guess it's one of those times, you take a couple of breaths and just play with the burn/dodge! Instead of throwing the computer across the room...cause it's only half way like what you want it to be! :0


I just get so excited and try to edit to fast....smh I know, newbie gitters!

[john_deere]

i understand completely…the lightroom brushes take some practice, but when you get good, they rock!

[guest091214-2]

I love this thread thanks for starting it!

<3 Leo

[DDBD Photography]

Originally Posted by BDS

I agree with john...a very nice shot but a little more fill would be nice. I still use some of my wedding presets on some shots like this and there are a few that would do the trick. I'll see if I can find them...yes I'm a preset cheat lol.

[DDBD Photography]

Originally Posted by Leo Lanini

I love this thread thanks for starting it!

<3 Leo

Young lady you know I'm looking forward to seeing more of your work