Modelling Session II [56K warning]

[The Grim Squeaker]

Second modelling session. Critique (and I know there's a lot of it coming, mainly negative) welcome .
IMG_0164

IMG_0145


Selection 13-03-2010 10-57-03

Selection 13-03-2010 10-59-08

Selection 13-03-2010 11-08-55

IMG_0422

Selection 13-03-2010 11-36-37

Selection 13-03-2010 11-39-14

IMG_0522

[JLTucker]

Your closeups always make me uncomfortable. I have no idea why. They just do.

[Thanas]

You shoot too close to the model. And then the face of the model is not smiling, but instead focused right on the lens. Which leads the spectator to feel as if he is being focused upon or stared at. This also prevents focusing at the surroundings or the model, as one is drawn to the eyes/face of the model too much.

[salm]

I like them. Can´t tell you much more, since i don´t know much about photography.

[Shroom Man 777]

Thanas is right. They're kind of devoid of expression. The models need to, you know, model and do modelly things rather than stare blankly at the screen/camera/whatever. And we need to see more of them than their heads. Unless they're head models. Like how in Zoolander, there was this hand model - who's hand was on all sorts of magazine covers, or something.

[J]

You shoot too close to the model. And then the face of the model is not smiling, but instead focused right on the lens. Which leads the spectator to feel as if he is being focused upon or stared at.

Yeah, that's definitely a problem, having models staring right at me is unnerving. Even when their faces are angled to the sides a bit the eyes are focused dead straight on the camera, and since they're close-ups it's not a fun feeling. If the photographer is shooting vagrants, homeless people, or some other subject where a shocking/unsettling effect is desired, then it works fine. But young female models? No. Just no.


For cute female models, smiling is encouraged. If she has a tendency to stare at the camera have her wear sunglasses.
Like this, as my body double demonstrates.



Or better yet, have her look away from the camera in the pose.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Umm, those 2orrid. pics kinda look h

[Ace Pace]

Uh Doofus? I think you're the guy with skewed perspective. The first picture is smiling, acting out something, not just looking at the camera. It might be grainier and a worse camera than yours, but it's a picture people will actually look at.

[Bounty]

I've said it before and I've said it a million times: stop using those stupid zoomed-in lenses for everything because it makes your pictures look like the private collection of a stalker.

And how do you talk to these women? Do you give them directions? Do you tell them what you're after? Do you give them input?

[aerius]

And how do you talk to these women? Do you give them directions? Do you tell them what you're after? Do you give them input?

I suck at people pictures, but as I've had it explained to me by other photographers, there has to be some sort of interaction between the photographer and the subject so it doesn't look all wrong, there's gotta be a connection of some sort.

For example;


C'mon honey, smile at me and look cute

I could've taken the picture any time and she'd still look good, but if she's smiling at me (or even if she's giving me a WTF look) it adds a connection and level of intimacy to the photo.





It's the same as above with this photo, pretty much any picture of her would look hot, but if I get her to smile at me and pose her dog at the same time it makes the picture a lot better. There's a connection there, she's doing something for me and enjoying it, I'm not just some weirdo walking around the beach with my camera.




Rock out hard girl!

I could've just had her pose with the guitar in between songs, but she's not a professional model and I'm a shitty photographer so that would look dumb. Instead, we all got nicely buzzed at the party and I did something silly to make her totally crack up and lose it just before I snapped the picture.

---

As a photographer you're not just there to take pictures, you're there to help make things happen. Sometimes it's just some basic instructions to the model(s), sometimes you gotta get really creative to set the mood, make things happen, and get the shots you want.

[Phantasee]

Your model is cute, your photos of her are terrible. I agree with Tucker and Thanas is right.

You seem like a stalker caught in the act in most of those photos.

[Simplicius]

Confrontational, uncomfortable portraits are very legit, even when the models are young women - but they really ought to be the product of the photographer's intent, and that's what I'm really not seeing here. The setting, lighting, and the models' expressions say "casual/glamour lite," which doesn't mesh with the shooting style in some of these at all.

One thing you should keep working on in these model sessions is your awareness of the whole shoot, because in order to make successful photos they have to coherently reflect your vision. This means being constantly aware of the mood created by the setting, the light, and the model (on her initiative or your direction), as well as how your camera will translate all these things. If you lose track of your scene or your camera, good luck getting a photo that works (and that a client will be happy with, if you're shooting commercially).

For the headshots, really, back off. Unless you're conveying some really intense feeling, like you need to catch the fear in someone's eyes, stick to ~85mm (equiv.), 100mm max. Getting right in someone's face adds a lot of tension to the photo, so don't do it unless that's going to be the mood of the shot. Since it obviously wasn't meant to be here, it was a bad call on your part. Even 0422 - she's not acting it strongly enough, not when the scene is so prosaic.

Some of these are okay - the first one you posted, the fourth if it were not so in-your-face, the seventh with some compositional adjustments - but a fair bit of that is because the faces are pretty. You're not catching very much personality, which is a big problem for a portraitist unless you happen to be cloaking your portraits in some kind of artistic commentary or you are doing pure commercial stuff. Otherwise, your goal should not be to make your subjects look pretty, but rather to show them as people, to catch some of their character. A shoot that is 'face face face face face face' won't do that for you, especially when the subject is making a 'nice' pose face and not, say, talking animatedly about something. Try to introduce more variety into your shoots - full-body poses, gross movements, hands, connecting facial expressions to action. Get them to telegraph stuff to the camera, and shoot that. Then keep your eyes peeled for all the subtle, natural things that shine through in between the leaps, belly laughs, and what have you.

What you've got here is a lineup of competently-exposed pretty faces, but it's all very canned - LifeTouch one-shot-per-customer mall photography, if you will. I think it's time you start trying to break through this easy stuff to try to produce something that's really interesting.

[Shroom Man 777]

Try to have them experiment with facial expressions. And, yeah, more of them than just the face would be nice.

[Stofsk]

I might have to buck the trend and say these photos are actually pretty good.

[Dragon Angel]

I'm also going to buck the trend, and say that while his tendency to snap extreme close-ups does not work with most of these pictures, I believe it does work with at least two of them...

IMG_0164

This would definitely have worked better if you had zoomed out a little to encompass some of her upper body, as well as more of her parasol. I like how her face is not completely centered in the picture - it is a nice use of the "rule of thirds". I also like your use of depth of field here, showing some of the setting and giving a bit of context to the picture.

IMG_0145

Umm...this shot is way too zoomed-in for my liking, and her expression does not blend well with the near "lack" of background (that is, I do see a little bit of a setting, but it otherwise appears to be somewhat of a void - it lacks the level of context that was present within number 1).

Selection 13-03-2010 10-57-03

This one feels like you cropped the bottom part a bit too much. The composition looks alright, but it just seems incomplete where her body is supposed to be in contact with the bench. Perhaps what you could have done here is zoom out a little more, to include the rest of her body, as well as the top edge of the bench seat? Also, I think the depth-of-field was not as effective as it could have been at her feet...it could probably be toned down somewhat.

Selection 13-03-2010 10-59-08

I have the same opinion of this as with number 1, but I will emphasize more on not making it so close-up - include some more of her body! Also, her expression feels a bit stiff and "forced".

Selection 13-03-2010 11-08-55

I wasn't sure of what to say about this one at first, but after some thought, I slowly began to appreciate it. Before, I thought that her pose was okay, as well as the lighting and shadows, but her expression and the background seemed a little bit dull and uneasy. However, following my thought train, I realized that those two negatives could actually work together inside the picture; the dull background and her uneasiness can possibly complement each other into something more "whole". Oh, and some more zooming-out would've helped it a little.

Other people's opinions may vary on this one though. I expect to be the odd-one-out here.

IMG_0422

Haha, this one is excellent! I love the motion blur effect that you have going on in the background, and her expression and pose also go amazingly well with it too. This is, also, one of the two pictures where I believe your extreme close-up shot was very effective. Very nice work!

Selection 13-03-2010 11-36-37

This shot is also pretty good. I don't really have much to comment on here...just that this is the second of your pictures with an extreme close-up that I can approve of, and I think that you picked just the right time and location when it comes to the lighting.

Selection 13-03-2010 11-39-14

I liked this one the best out of all your pictures. The composition, depth-of-field, lighting, expression on your model...they all joined together very well! Good job here.

IMG_0522

On the other hand...I believe this is the weakest of what you posted. I don't know exactly why I think that - for whatever reason, I just get a feeling of confusion whenever I look at it. Like, I am not exactly sure what is going on inside this picture. Maybe a little more context would have helped in this case, but..yeah.

-whew- Ok, that's all of the art critic I've got inside me at the moment. Let me know if you need some more clarification on whatever you need.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Thank you very much