View Full Version : Anyone really bored
10-20-2007, 03:11 AM
And want to review some of the images I'm considering? There are some from the same sessions in here, ignore that. I only did that because while one may not be worthy to submit, another may. I realize I can only use one per client. So, if you're really bored and could give me a yes and no to them, that would be super awesome! And since I was told to sumbit these as I would to clients, I just pulled them from my client's online gallery files (hence some w/annoying watermarks etc.).
Another question, I have many more files on my other computer including all of the weddings I second shot this past year. Can I use images from weddings where I was the second shooter even if I was just let loose and did everything I did (poses and all) on my own without any direction from the other photographer?
And yes, I know these aren't competition worthy, but are they acceptable enough to submit for CPP?
The gallery is located at
10-20-2007, 03:45 AM
What i noticed most on the review is the inconsistency of your lighting. In some cases you have nice ratios across the body, and the next will be on camera flash, followed by something that has a lot of potential, followed by a lack of control on the light. Really look at he images, and ask yourself if you were in control, or the light was controling you.
10-20-2007, 03:49 AM
Thanks for the feedback, Jeff! Most of them were on location (in clients homes etc) so depending on the room available to me, I try to bring lights, but have had to bounce now and then. Is the differences in lighting (other than when executed poorly) a bad thing?
10-20-2007, 04:24 AM
Tracy, Jeff was posting while I was thinking about what I wanted to say, and he echoed my thoughts pretty much exactly. The strongest images are 12(needs to be printed down), 20,21,33 & 45. If you look at these images, you will see they demonstrate an understanding of light direction and control. Because these are showing good understanding, it empahsizes the lack of direction and ratio in the other prints. A strong print will make a weak print look weaker when they are presented together. The panel will look at these as a whole and say "if she good do this on image x, y & z why can't she do it on the others?". It's not a matter of what light source you used or how you modified it, but rather if you did so successful, with obvious understanding and control of the given situation. The images I mentioned also show an understanding of posing a body (especially 33 and 45), while some of the other images seem to be snapshots caught on the spur of the moment. There is NOTHING wrong with a natural or PJ style of portrait, but you still need to catch those natural and supposedly spontaneous images when the subject is in a flattering position (or a position that is deliberately distorted for a graphic or compostional reason). If I were on the panel, and saw the good images in your set, I would not be as tolerant of the marginal images because I would see that you are capable of so much better. Also watch your lens choice asin several cases the focal length was too wide causing inappropiate distortion. I understand you work in people's homes and are limited by the size of the room but some of the images I am refering to were outdoors where you are free to back up. As far indoors where you can't use a longer lens - just don't pick those images to submit. Remember the panel only can judge what is front of them, you are not allowed to speak up and say "but the Jones' living room was only 12' long".
10-20-2007, 04:47 AM
Thank you for taking the time to give me that detailed feedback, Keith. :) So I have 5 in my "likely" folder. Guess I'd better go dig up some from my main computer and get to working on some new ones. :p Should I use boring, strobed, posed alter shots for my wedding portion?
10-20-2007, 04:49 AM
I'm curious on the sunset engagement session (the two w/them IN the water #35 & 36), what could/should I have done differently with those? I ask because that was one of my favorite sessions. :p
10-20-2007, 05:34 AM
Tracy, I can understand why you enjoy the beach engagement session. It looks like it was fun and creatively stimulating. But when we enjoy the session and the people, sometimes we have a hard time seeing the challenges. I have an image of a little girl that I still can't understand why it won't merit. I have to chalk it up to being emotionally involved with the print and blind to what two different panels at two different judgings could see as shortcomings. ( Don't you just hate 79's?)
#35- a perfect example of what I mean by wrong lens length. Notice how how her body has been distorted. Her foot which is closer is quite a bit larger than her hands - more so than is normal. She appears to have an abnormally long lower half of her body when you compare it to the upper half. I like how the line of the water is leading to her and you do have directional light. the challenge is the direction is wrong for the subject placement. Look how the light is straight into her chest-completely flattening that area. She may well be a small chested woman, but the direction of the light has flattened out any curves that might have been there. Also her face is turned away from the light creating a broad light pattern. What would have made this image better is if you had flipped her the opposite direction so the light skimmed across her chest, creating dimension. Then if you had turned her face into the light you would have created the preferable short light pattern. While I appreciate the concept, the technical issues are what would make me hesitate to submit this image for CPP.
#36 Again good idea, but placed improperly to the direction of the light. As it is now, you are lighting the underside of the features. Ever sat around a campfire and told ghost stories while holding a flashlight under your chin? Granted that is an exageration of the lighting pattern you have here but uplight is almost never a flattering choice. If you had rotated their bodies so their feet were pointed towards the water rather than bodies parallel to the water, then the direction of light across their faces would have been improved. Another choice would have been to use a scrim to block the harsh light and a reflector to redirect the light where you wanted it. That's the kind of understanding and control of light in a given situation that the panel is looking for when evaluating images.
As far as wedding images - no, to suggest that you have to use "use boring, strobed, posed alter shots " for CPP images is completely not true. You just need to present images that demonstrate technical knowledge of lighting, posing, composition and lens choice no matter what the pose or location is. For example #7 - is a cute fun pose and the depth of field somewhat controls a less than desirable background - showing that you can control the situation.The problems are flat light, pocketed eyes and awkward cropping. I am not against cutting off the top of someone's head - if it is done for an obvious reason - like focusing the attention on the eyes. Here it just looks like you got too close and lost the top of his head and part of her shoes.
I was looking through your website and found a couple images there (that were not included in this set of images) that I thought were good choices. If you are interested I would be glad to give you my opinion FWIW. I haven't made it through the whole site yet but I have 6 families and a senior tomorrow so I am off to bed now.
Also remember you should never rely on just one person's opinion, after all I could be an idiot.
10-20-2007, 02:02 PM
Thank you so much for all of that, Keith! :) Yeah, I did actually guess the focal length and her foot/leg were the problem in the first one after I stood back and "looked" at it. So much so that I almost editing asking about that one out. The story that caused her to laugh in what was an inbetween real frames shot was funny, but like you said, the panel doesn't care about that. ;)
And I am always open to your opinions on the other images as well if/when you have time to share. You can speak here, or e-mail me. It's nice to sometimes get e-mails that aren't selling me something intended to enlarge something that I do no possess LOL! :p
Don't you just hate 79'sYeah, I'm sure I will if I ever work up the nerve to enter. :p
10-20-2007, 02:35 PM
I'm getting a 404 error (file not found) on the link posted in #1.
10-20-2007, 02:57 PM
Error message for me also.
10-20-2007, 05:12 PM
There was an outside link leading into this gallery, not posted by me and not coming from here. I know I'm paranoid like that. But I got what I had wanted, excellent feedback and advice from Jeff and Keith. :) If anyone else still wants to give input but haven't seen the gallery, feel free to PM me. :D