Bartender Girl Photoshoot - Critiques Please

Here is a shoot I did a little while ago. I used my Pentax K10D with the kit lens and a 55 mm manual lens. Tell me what you think. I have more of this up on http://www.kemal.ca

A nice relaxed model, but very overwhelmed by the green backgrounds that compete for attention, as do the huge swathes of white.

The images are not sharp anywhere either.

You obviously have a good rapport with the girl, so why not try again against a more neutral backdrop and with close attention to focusing on the eyes.

And welcome to the forum, hope to have more input from you soon!

Your model is stunning.
The images are very nice.
I agree that another reshoot is called for, I do like the softness, but I suspect that you could make the most of your subject with more drama by choosing a different light situation.

Do you thinkt he K10D kit lens can offer sharper images?

They look mis-focussed, not "unsharp".
If you look at the wall by the side of the model, it is in focus at a point either behind or in front of her.

If this was a manual focus lens and you are using the focus-assist - make sure you check the green hexagon in the viewfinder, and not the red viewfinder LED! The red one shows you which sensor has a lock, but isn't accurate for manual focus

(Personally, I always manually select the focus point, usually using the centre point and additionally make use of the AF button on the back and the custom functions to stop the focus-on-half-press.)

Matt

A bit of weak flash would have helped too (or a white reflector) . The eyes are 'dead', no sparkle because of all the toplighting. I set my flash on my digital to -2 in a dull light situation like that.

Agreed lovely model.

For me the background is too distracting.

Fill-in flash would help and definitely a different background, even if it was just the wall would improve the image a lot.

You asked for an honest opinion

The shots are very poor in terms of focus,sharpness and lighting

If I saw these before buying the K10D I would not have brought it.

They could have been shot on my camera phone better.

Call me harsh and to the point buts thats my 100% honest opinion

Im sure you can do much better as we all know the k10D can

PS No offence but I have had my fair amount of knocks here also

This is one of mine taken with the K10D and the Pentax 50mm F 1.7 lens ideal for portraits

Yes its not brilliant but shows what the camera can do

Pete,

That's probably the most relaxed she's looked so far!

Natural and well cropped.

Clear with great colour.

Bravo

Pete,

If you only learn one thing about portrait photography, it's got to be skin tone. The original posters shots IMHO are excellent. Yours . . . .

The hair is lovely, the hair band is pin sharp, the fur around the collar is excellent, the coat is superb, and the backdrop is nicely out of focus . . .

BUT . . .

The skin tone . . . is apalling.

I have to agree with mannesty, the technical part of pete's shot is very nice but the skintone is not good.
The skintone of the OP's images look a lot better to me allthough I have to agree with Pete that they are not in focus and that the exposure isn't very good.

Your must be having a laugh !

My God I wish I had skin tone like this. I seriously think some of you guys folks need there eyes testing or monitors caliberated one or the other

You must remember she has naturally darkend skin tone

Pete

Pete,

Look at the bridge of Helen's nose and her right cheek (the one on the left in the pic, just to be absolutely clear), they look almost white.

I'm not saying Helen doesn't have good skin tone, only that it is not captured/displayed/presented very well in your photo.

The image is so sharp in places, you can see the tiny hairs on her chin. Portrait photography is not about sharpness, it's about accurate colour rendition and . . . flattery. Your pic does not flatter her and it is too sharp.

My Samsung 930MP monitor is calibrated with a Spyder 2 - it displays colours correctly, believe me.

The OP's pics may be out of focus or possibly a soft focus lens was used. It does appear to me that the plane of focus is a liitle in front of the 'bartender' model, evidenced by the somewhat sharper corner to the wall in the first two shots.

If there's one thing this thread proves, it's how subjective this lark is.

I get pilloried for shots that aren't quite sharp enough, Pete gets roasted for shots that are too sharp.

And meanwhile there's a special language, where you have to be "in the know" to have the slightest idea what people are on about. I'm supposed to ensure that there are shadows, so that there's more supposedly interesting contrast across the face... but apparently that's called "modelling", and if you have it, it's "good", but if you don't have it, that's "bad".

And now there's "skin tone". I, like Pete, imagined that skin tone was about the quality of the skin, but it seems that in this case, "bad skin tone" means that he's used a bit too much fill in flash, resulting in some over-shiny patches. But this is "appalling", where exactly the same thing can be found on a photo published here recently (albeit to a lesser extent), yet it was described as "technically excellent".

And then we have this thread, where images are described variously as "very nice", down to "very poor".

Don't get me wrong. I'm very grateful for the feedback (I'll be asking for more!), and I try to take it on board and figure out how to do things differently. But please, experienced people, use language that is clear enough for us relative newbies to understand, and separate out fact from opinion.

I quite liked Pete's shot. Apart from the overexposure, I think it's the least contrived of everything he's posted here. I didn't like the OP's shots, since although the model was very attractive and looked relaxed, the backgrounds were distracting, they were horribly back lit, and they were blurred.

Ok Guys

Here is the run down

I spoke with a top London Photographer in Depth at Focus and his tip like many others is not to conform to the rules in photography. I asked him the best way to achieve good skin tone in a portrait and he said two words
" Over expose" He explained it is not the only way but to flatter someone with un even tone this is a well used method. He also said natural lighting is best if used in the right way. He said some others would dis agree but this way works for him.

Many pros use this technique including Damien Lovegrove who explained at one of his talks.

My monitor is a 19 inch HP 1440 x 900 Pix calibrated with eye one.

I take both your points on board. I have a few similar shots of Helen I will see if I can dig out another one.

Finally I have said this many times and I will say it again. We all see images very different on different types of monitors and so it is very difficult to make a real judgment unless you see the printed version. Then there's our eyes and the way we perceive an image. Ever body sees things different as the saying goes. So who is to say what’s right or wrong ????

Pete