Results 1 to 10 of 37
Thread: Just got the bad news.
02-26-2008, 05:05 PM #1
Just got the bad news.
Well, I'm embarrassed and saddened to say that my image submissions didn't pass. I see what the judges were saying regarding some of the images, but wish I had a better idea of which ones they liked, and which ones they didn't. All of the images were images that sold well to my clients, though I do see the lighting issues now (I learned a ton at ImagingUSA). However, I wish I knew whether I should re-submit any of them or not. Since I've already failed, I'd open myself up to any critiques, but I'm not sure how to post that many images, and the images are already gone from the online portfolio. Also, any ideas on what "posing is to static" means? I try to make my subjects look casual, but maybe they still look too posed.
Anyway, if anyone wants me to send the images as a .zip file I can, I just don't know how to make it small enough to post here. I'd appreciate any input.
02-26-2008, 05:11 PM #2
I'm very sorry to hear that. Can you make a Photoshop gallery of the images and then upload it to your server and post a link to it?Tracy, CPP
Recording Secretary, VPPA State Board of Directors
2015 VPPA Convention Chairman
VPPA Tidewater District Treasurer
02-26-2008, 05:22 PM #3
Sorry to hear that, Angela, but you neither the first nor the last to have an issue with the image submission portion on the first try, so don't take it too hard. I would take Tracy's suggestion and create a gallery that you can link to (we've had people use flickr, photobucket, pbase in addition to one's own website, so you have options). Your own website is always the first choice, but if you don't have one, use flickr or something. We will help guide you to select your best work. We've helped some people who took several tries, so don't feel bad.
02-26-2008, 05:56 PM #4
- Join Date
- Aug 2005
What Mark said....hang in there. You'll make it.
As for the static comment I found this to explain what static means with regard to image making.
"At all costs, photographers are enjoined from placing the subject in the middle of the frame, because centered compositions inevitably produce a "static image". To achieve pictorial balance, Kerns (1980) recommends that photographers place the largest object in the frame at one point of intersection on the rule of thirds grid".
So the comment might be referring to the placement of subjects. Are most of your images centered? I would think if it was about subjects being posed they would have used a term like stiff or un-natural. At least that's what Jack says when he talks about my stuff.
02-26-2008, 06:19 PM #5
Thank you Tracy, Mark, and David for the kind words. It's still kinda depressing though. Anyway, as to David's comment on placement, I guess now that I look at them again, many of them are. And I know better, but especially when doing seniors, I find that they seem to want to be right up front and center (especially their more formal head shots).
Anyway, I've created an account on Flickr (my website is currently under construction - another thing I brought away from IUSA - update the website regularly!!!). My id is firstname.lastname@example.org (not sure if you need the yahoo part or not). So please feel free to take a look, and give me honest opinions. Can I make any of them better, which ones should I totally eliminate (I already know of several), and/or should I totally re-submit (with help from all of you, of course)?
I tried to submit a broad variety, since it said to proportion it according to how you shoot. I do alot of sports and events along with portraiture, so I thought I needed to have those in there. However, I'm sure that the dance recital was a no-go, and I'm not sure about the baseball player either. Also, they did tell me that the dachsund was beautiful, but the background detracted from the image. This was a doggie day event at a feed store, but the puppy was so cute - is there any way to save this one?
Last edited by Angela_Lawson; 02-26-2008 at 07:06 PM.
02-26-2008, 06:41 PM #6
Couldn't get in ...
Could you please post the path to your section ? Just your password isn't enough .. we also need a user name I think.
02-26-2008, 06:46 PM #7
Here you go, Craig. And you don't need th password (I PMed her to remove it from her post.)
Last edited by Mark_Levesque; 02-26-2008 at 07:15 PM.
02-26-2008, 06:51 PM #8
- Join Date
- Aug 2005
Do you mind if I play around with a couple of the images and re-post them here?
02-26-2008, 07:06 PM #9
Mark - thanks for answering D. Craig with the link. sorry about that. And I'll go back right now and take the password out. I didn't know if you needed it or not.
David - feel free to play with anything you want. Now that I've had a couple hours to digest the first results, I'm ready to take on all the extra help and critiques I can get. Part of the reason I decided to try for certification, was to improve myself as a photographer anyway, so I guess this is probably what I really needed.
I do have a couple of new ones that I think I can use to replace several others, but I'll wait for more feedback on the ones there first.
Thanks again guys, I appreciate feeling welcomed into the group.
02-26-2008, 07:15 PM #10
Ok, so I went and had a looky. Here's what I see: lots of flat, flat light, and direct flash. I will deconstruct a couple for you. Let's start with the first one. Where is your main? Where is your fill? It looks like an unfortunate case of the "two umbrellas at 45 degree angles". One of the things they are looking for is directional light, and this does not have it. Set your main camera left, and put your fill close to the camera axis 1-2 stops below your main. If you have a background light, use it, possibly with a gel to give some separation, or put a grid on it and aim it back at your subject. This will provide separation and give your subject more of a 3D look. So a very minor change with a significant result.
Now the second one. I see a strong "hat" light, and the rest kinda looks like fill. And it looks a 1/2-3/4 stop underexposed (at least on this monitor). Again, get your main light camera left. Fill with a reflector. Change where your accent light it aimed- it's giving his collar/neck a bit of a hot spot. Notice how there is no definition on the side of the hat that is opposite the accent light. Proper positioning of the main would ameliorate this.
I actually don't mind the sports photo, except as much as you have the lens stopped down that horribly distracting background is in focus. Open up several stops, if you can. And look for a less distracting BG.
No13, the engagement session. Black on black requires good light control. On this monitor at least there appears to be hands and hands floating in black space.Sometimes this effect can be fun, but for an engagement session you may want to demonstrate actual bodies.
No12, dance recital event. All you need here is directional lighting. The pose looks great. Move her a little forward away from the background.
No9 looks fine as is. Nice job. Good detail, texture in the sky. A keeper.
No6, outdoor senior. Ok, you have several like this. Looks like you had equal flash and ambient exposure, which means the subject looks blasted with light. Aim your flash at a 45 degree angle, use an omnibounce or white card, and use -1 2/3 FEC. You just want a touch of light. This is too strong, and looks flat and more or less similar to what you get from a point and shoot, which is fine for myspace, but not for professional output.
I'm sorry. I do not mean to discourage you. I am trying to help. You had the courage to put it out there that you didn't pass the image submission, and that's the hard part. I think you need to make some changes in how you shoot. Honestly, they are not major changes, but they will make a big difference in your results. You will find that the very process of getting certified will improve your work. We are here to help. I would go through your other files and see if there are other images which have more directional lighting, particularly outdoor shots with no flash fill (unless you have some with just a touch.)