Some photos I took for a friend in Oregon a while back - any good?
>>4485327
She’s ugly
>>4485334Well that’s mean
There is a big '10 vibe in it, I like it.>>4485327This one is good.I don't like the composition in these :>>4485329The face is too far from the centre, and I would have preferred a higher, more flattering angle.>>4485333Were you craving those legs? There is nevertheless a punk-rock album cover potential in this one.>>4485334We'd like to see your face, anon, just for a quick comparison.
>>4485334i dont think its her. as in - the photos are very unflattering.they just dont look right anon, from the green tones visible on her skin to the poses that somehow feel unnatural.
>>4485339True. She had never been in front of a camera
Her facial expressions give a kind of 'I'm uneasy I wish I wasn't here" feeling
>>4485333clipping her head is not good. >>4485327they are ok. I would use a smaller FOV crop in around her, a lot of weird composition, faster fstop(why are your backgrounds so sharp?), you are holding the camera low and it feels weird,
>>4485334Well she’s not ugly, I’d eat peanuts out of her shit given half a chance, but OP didn’t give her suitable direction and her face fell into a “this is work” look. OP once you set up the shot, the final thing I do when I have humans in the frame is give them a few prompts to lead to the facial expression I want. You can be as creative or boring as you want with it, depending on how serious your model takes herself, but if you want happy, you start with, “okay I’m going to grab a couple test shots in this position to see the shadows on your face, pretend you’re a wild tiger about to bite with your ferocious fangs”, then “ok and now you’ve switched places and are terrified by the chomping tiger!” “ok that was great, now close your eyes, you’re at your favorite place of serene peace and feel the deepest sense of contentment gloss over you” & then “super, now think about doing at the thing you’ve always wanted to do, the sheer happiness and pure joy of being the right person at the right time & it all working out just for you!” “Ok back to serene, and again to joy…”The first couple prompts yank their face out of their current mindset & the last couple give you a range of what you want. But you have to get it out of people by asking for it.
>>4485334Men are not lonely enough
>>4485327Effortpostin from Oregon, 1/4?Posing normies is a skill of it's own, you can get better with practice. A good rule of thumb for me is to always have the "throwaway" or lamest shots first, as most people tend to loosen up and get more comfortable as the session goes on.For the first image, I would consider a small rotation which makes her appear to be less slouchy and makes the lines on the door a bit more pleasing.There's too much empty space on the left and bottom sides, so crop in a bit. If you want to start actually editing, the pipe and graffiti on the side are distracting elements, and if something doesn't add to the frame, leave it out. Now you have an imaged focused on the girl, balanced with the heart.Going extra, I would have her back leg be a bit more vertical to align more with the flow of lines on the wall. Also might change the pose for her front arm, quite sure what, but I feel like it could be placed better.
>>4485329This too could greatly benefit from a small adjustment to the framing.If re-doing, I would try to have her more middle of the door too, instead of back into the corner, so her legs are more centered on the art.One thing to keep in mind is the focus of the image. Is it her? Her dress? The art outside? Etc. I think in the original she gets both lost to the entryway design, and lost behind the dress.I would play around with the angle too, going lower or higher to change the emphasis further.Many times portraits just end up as subject / background, and it can make it feel like might as well have been taken in front of a green-screen. This is a good example of not doing that, using the angle to have both background and foreground elements.2/4
>>4485333Not usually good to crop on head, but if you are, go more extreme. Something like this de-emphasises the person in favor of the shirt or outfit or vibe.Another good rule of thumb is to avoid cropping at body parts that move / hinge. So avoid the wrists, fingers, feet, ankles, knees, etc. For her right arm, might be better to include hand all the way or pose such that it crops mid-forearm.The only thing anyone's going to think of look at this is her crotch though, x-marks the spot.
>>4485341Too much empty foreground, and you missed a good opportunity to align her head to have the fencing be a crown. Exposure seems a tad hot on her skintones too.4/4Good job on posting OP!
>>4485329When taking full body's vertically hold the camera at waist height like my penis
>>4485802Oregon?
>>4485334Tell me you are a 400 pound 1/10 neckbeard.
>>4485959>>4485808>>4485802Great advice!
>>4485967not even closeI’m a 6’3” gay bodybuilder
>>4485959imagine that disgusting smell
>>4485327subject looks oddly familiar...
How are these anons? I tried using fill flash
>>4486000The hand came out kind of a weird yellow (maybe white balance issue) I had to do a little editing
>>4486001I feel I'm not good at finding people's correct face angles
>>4486000This is quite nice but I think you missed focus a little. Another remark would be that the post being at a slight angle isn't great, plus the blurred orange line at the back is also a bit distracting. >>4486001Overexposed>>4486002I'm not too fond of the model's expression here. The background being half overexposed isn't great either. Overexposed backgrounds can be okay but here you still have distracting details in it.
itt why few people do portraitsif you’re not rich or chad, the model that’s comfortable won’t be good looking, and the model that’s good looking won’t be comfortableive heard pretending to be gay works
I was this poster >>4485802But dumping some of my first portraits, easy to see where I could've done better now, lolbokeh
>>4486006>tfw my qtgf doesn't like taking pictures because she always looks bad in themIt's a self fulfilling prophecy sadly, if someone is uncomfortable their smile will be forced or their poses will look off, and then they see the photos and dislike them reinforcing the idea that they aren't "photogenic"
>>4485341Had you ever been behind one?
I saw this girl on /s/ in a thread called Oregonian Girls or something like that. Was that you posting that too? From the day I assume yes, in which case that's weird to post pictures of your friend on /s/.Anyway, I don't like the photos. I don't like where they are set, and I don't like the outfits she is wearing. I'm not sure if that's on her for choosing and you're making the best of what you've got, or on you for directing her to dress like that and go to those places.You've also got cut subject and your composition is whack.I get that she isn't a model so I guess you can't really fault her posing and demeanor that much. I don't know. Depends if you're asking whether you did well or whether an uninterested observer would come to appreciate them.>>4486000This one is better. No cut subject (well, with the pillar, but in an OK way that looks better, I think it's less grating when it is with an object rather than the camera being pointed in the wrong direction).It's a little plain, but I prefer that to "less plain but what you do get is bad".
>>4485334She’s cute and is in decent shape. You either are a rich gigachad with astronomical standards to match or are trolling.
>>4486038This is a good example of bad or low quality feedback for threads like thisMost of your criticism is essentially just "I don't like it", how useless for OP
>>4486120And this is the issue I've tried bringing up otb before.Nobody gives actual critisism. Even most the time when people think they are, they're not. They're complaining at best, and being a dickhead at worst.>pic relEveryone here should be aiming for definition 2), not 1)
>>4486120What, is he paying me or something?He asked if the photos were good, and I told him what I thought.
>>4486135If your comment offers nothing of value, you might as well not commentToo bad you have an ego problem, maybe one day you'll get over yourself
>>4486137Man, my therapist is here in the thread too.
>>4486137>your comment offers nothing of valueCan you read? He clearly stated what he disliked in the photos. If you value preserving your feelings over improving your photography just don't post photos, or if you find criticisms wrong discuss them.
>>4486142He said he didn't like>the photos>the outfit>the set>IDK what's on her face>cut subject>composition whackBut didn't say what he didn't actually like about them, say which was cut and why, or what's whack about the composition, nor what OP could've done betterAre you sure you can read? Is that the quality of comment you'd prefer we have here?>I don't like it lolThat's what you're defending?
>>4486144Do you seriously need to be explained how a cut subject is bad and how to improve it?
>>4486147If it's worth bringing up as a critique, you should at the very least mention which photIt wasn't hard for me above to offer a better example cut and acknowledge a good rule of thumb of what to avoid cuttingCutting the subject isn't always bad necessarily, but OP's case there was clear room for improvementYou should share some of your portraits ITT too since you're so invested in this
>>4486147It's also okay to just admit your lazy and just like to mostly complain, I totally get that, whining is always much easier than putting the effort in to contribute
>>4486149You're the one whining about feedback not matching your expectations. Sure the critic was blunt and probably not the most helpful, but receiving it the way it was received instead of asking for precisions is just pure butthurt and definitely won't help
>>4486150>I want this board to have more feedback along the line of "I don't like it" instead of people putting any ounce of effortOkay nophoto, we just went different things for the board I guess
>>4486150>asking for more specifics when given feedback is bad lol
>>4486152>muh nophotoI post photos regularly though. Why would posting a photo here make my point more right?
>>4486158It's a portrait thread that you seem invested in, you should share some portraits of yoursIt's always nice to see where criticism is coming from, and see how your own work can relate to the topics being discussedI posted some of mine for the sake of itDo you also regularly defend low effort posts in other threads? It seems like you're more interested in that than contributing positively, but idk
>>4486170What do you mean by "invested in", do you know which comments are mine? I've simply seen yet another person giving feedback, although it may not be of the highest standard, being attacked for answering the question OP asked. OP literally asked "any good?". As for my work, why should it matter where the critic is coming from? If a good point is made who cares if it's from a professional or a beginner? Ignore it if you think the poster is wrong, ultimately OP is the one who decides what to do with the feedback. Reacting the way you do to critics even if they're low effort only leads to nobody criticizing any more. If you're unhappy with the critic ask for more details or just don't answer, as long as they're not attacking you what's the point.
>>4486170Also if you care that much about who the critic is coming from, there are many non-anonymous forums dedicated to this
>>4486183You're defending low effort posts, doesn't really matter which comments are yours or aren'tAgain, "I don't like it" isn't feedback worth posting>yes, I am a nophotoYou could've just started with that>>4486184I don't care about their identity, I care about their own experiences with photographyGood criticism stands on its own, and I wouldn't have bothered it it weren't so low effort
>>4486183>only leads to nobody criticizing any moreIt's possible to criticize in a better way, my posts had criticismsIf you think my reaction leads to less criticism, surely you must think your defense of low effort posting would lead to more low effort posts? Sorry to hear you want the board to continue getting worse, I don't
>>4486191I think "I don't like it" is acceptable feedback as long as it isn't a personal attack, especially when it's basically what the OP asked for. Experience with photography is a part of someone's identity. And why wouldn't you accept criticism from beginners anyway, or even non photographers? They're also part of the people watching photos, their opinion counts. Or do you believe that only a secret elite club has the right to have an opinion on art?>>4486192Yes it's possible to criticize more thoughtfully ofc, if you don't like his comments I encourage you to simply ignore him instead of attacking him when he was obviously trying to help without being aggressive.
I would recommend not posing models this way. It always looks fake. She has a look that says 'I'm getting my photo taken'. Fuck that.just hang out with them and tell jokes or even do breathing tantric eye contact for a while or do something physical like running or get high
>>4485327"a while back" is a odd way of saying 12 years ago
>>4486241I agree, OP your friend is simply put, not a model
>>4486208I don't like your comment>>4486262I don't like your comment
>>4486208>why wouldn't you accept criticism from beginners anyway, or even non photographers?Absolutely would, did someone identify themselves as a beginner and that's why they won't show photos? Are you a beginner? For the third time, it's not about their own skill level. If someone can't even stand by a picture they took, but wants to offer critique, it just shows how much ego they haveIt is possible to give bad feedback, sorry you don't think that, sorry you want the board to be full of low effort comments
>>4486241>tantric breathingYeah and if you want to capture a genuine unrehearsed reaction that’ll show on camera, go in for a closeup of her face til you’re right in front of her, just inches away with your wide angle lens, & then reach a finger down and quick jam it up her butthole when she’s not expecting it. oooh that authenticity!
>>4486290I don't like this comment
>>4486284>If someone can't even stand by a picture they took, but wants to offer critique, it just shows how much ego they haveliterally whatI don't understand why you feel the need to see someone's work in order to accept their critique>Are you a beginner?In portrait kinda yes since I nearly never practice this genre, in photography not at all. I don't see how me posting landscape or macro photos would help anyone itt, it's simply irrelevant>>4486282Kek
>>4486293I don't like this comment You have too many words, we are low effort in this part
>>4486293>in order to accept their critiqueIt's bout about accepting the critique or notIt's about understanding where the critique is coming fromIs it someone in their dunning-kruger phase or an actual expert or an actual beginner? EtcIf you were confident in your work, you wouldn't have a problem posting, which just makes me think you aren't confident in it, so you probably aren't as good or knowledgeable as you are trying to portray yourself
>>4486293I don't see why it's so hard for people to post photos on a photography image board
>>4486293We've actually had some excellent landscape photographers here in the past, who's advice I would absolutely listen to, but they also posted photos and that's how I knew they were worth listening toAt least you admit you don't take portraits, but you should also keep that in mind when giving feedback about portraits then
>>4486295You're absolutely insane, you're living in an alternate reality. I challenge you to tell which comment on OP's photos was mine itt. Also newsflash: you can be perfectly aware of portrait technique and composition without practising much. Some skills are highly transferable between different types of photography. You can even have an opinion and analysis on art without practising said art at all.>>4486296>>4486297Why would I even post a landscape in a thread where OP is asking whether his portraits are good? I'm not here to derail threads by showing off unrelated stuff. This is completely nuts...
>>4486298I don't like your commentYou prefer this board to be full of low effort comments so there you go
>>4486299It's fine I understand your lack of reasonable arguments
>>4486298Surely you've posted them elsewhere on the board? We did have a landscape thread not too long ago, you can just link the ones you've postedI have +50 images on board right now, surely you must have a few
>>4486300My arguments>people should try to put an effort into feedback they give>posting photos here is goodYour argument>no one should need to post photos ever>low effort posts are good
>>4486298>you can be perfectly aware of portrait technique and compositionOkay, which comments that you made for OP show an awareness of portrait techniques and composition?
>>4486301I haven't posted many photos last couple of weeks, I guess there must be 20-30 of them on the board right now but here's one >>4482764Picrel is the last one I processed. Not my latest shot but I have a huge backlog. >>4486302It's a reading comprehension issue then>>4486303You tell me, since apparently you got me all figured out. You also conveniently left out my last sentence.
>>4486307What is really that hard just to link a photo? Thank you, now I can see better where the criticism comes from (well not yours necessarily)Too bad you prefer low effort comments on the board, but I'll try to keep that up going forward
>>4486308I'd have preferred not to come to this since I think it's a stupid argument which has nothing to do with the topic. But the thread is already derailed so whatever
>>4486298>You can even have an opinion and analysis on art without practising said art at allTrue, but that doesn't mean all opinions are equally valid, if they gave a good opinion form the start, never would have bothered to begin with
>>4486311I frankly believe that the opinion you're referring to was mostly correct, although maybe poorly worded and direct, but not aggressive
>>4486310It only got derailed because you wanted to defend low effort postsThat was also much more important to you than simply linking a photo
>>4486313See >>4486312 I don't think it was a bad comment (it wasn't mine btw). Could've been better, sure. But it wasn't worth debating over imo and I think the argument about me showing a photo was completely off-topic hence my resistance.
>>4486314It was just whining It offered no detailed criticism nor opportunities for improvementWhat a good opportunity for you if you agreed to take their post and elaborate further on it with some specificsInstead, you'd rather take the time defending low effort feedbackI don't like your photo, that's my opinion and it's valid!
>>4486314>But it wasn't worth debating overAnd yet here you are lol, might not be a nophoto, you just defend the low effort ones
>>4486316>I don't like your photo, that's my opinion and it's valid!Yes completely, especially when that is what the author is asking for.>It offered no detailed criticism nor opportunities for improvementNot cutting the subject, directing the model's pose and demeanor, are both good suggestions for improvement imo. I'd even argue that comments on the outfits and location could be counted as such, but it would simply require OP to ask for more precisions. The anon who commented may have thought that it was obvious. >>4486317It seems that many people have a hard time accepting criticism. Discussing said critics is fine, but here it didn't seem to have much to do with what that anon wrote, plus his post was directly interpreted as a personal attack (wrongfully imo)
>>4486321If it's what they ment they would've clarified on my first replyYou are being generous with the actually saidIt's about the quality of criticism You're okay with>I don't like itI'd hope we can start asking for a little more than that, an actual why? Maybe even room for improvement No one ever said it was a persona attack on OP, but OP also saw it as useless feedbackIf the feedback you give is too poor for it to be received, you need to work on communication
>>4486321>Not cutting the subjectWhich photo? Which cut? Why? Is cutting always bad? Is there ever a good time to cut? Are there rules of thumb or guidelines to follow for when to cut?You want a baby level of engagement, I'd hope we can strive for a bit mor
>>4486321also, I don't like your comment its bad
>>4486322I think both sides need to work on communication (giving and receiving). Also reading said comment, I'm pretty sure this anon suspected that it was a shitpost reposting old photos, which also explains the low effort
>>4486325>Yes, it was a low effort comment that I wanted to defend and am now distancing myself after seeing how retarded I am
>>4486325>reposting old photos, which also explains the low effortDo you think we can't put good effort into giving feedback for old or reposted photos?
>>4486326m8 a quick google search shows results from 4 years ago at least, cope as much as you want>>4486327It's not worth putting much effort replying to a shitpost though, is it?
>>4486328nvm the oldest is actually at least 8 years ago, model's name is Nicole Carrigan
>>4486328Even assuming it was a shit post, so what? Does that mean the feedback they have became better? Why are you defending "low effort" feedback for a shit post then? Doesn't that make it worse for you? I was trying to keep the thread focused on actionable feedback, people can still learn even if it's an old photo New rule for /p/ I guess? We can no longer ever analyze or give feedback to any older photos ever
>>4486330>I know I'm wrong about supporting low effort feedback so let's try to turn this into something elseSad
>>4486331>so whatWell then there's no point trying to be nice with the op or expecting a discussion since he obviously doesn't care about feedback. Analyzing other people's work is fine but it's not the same exercise, since you can't expect a discussion and your analyses won't help him improve
>>4486338It was never about being nice>threads can never have an actual discussion unless it involves OPNahOther people can see the images and other people can see the feedback and other people can learnI used to legitimately learn lots here, back when we had photo posters
>>4486339Yes feedback on your own photos is much more valuable, since you understand what you could've done differently and sometimes how.Plus being lied to is simply not nice, if that wasn't obvious enough. I don't think many people enjoy getting b8ed. It's also very hard to admit it.
>>4486339There's also the flipside to no one posting photos. No meaningful engagement from other people.
>>4486340>feedback is completely irrelevant unless it's your own photo, you can never learn from looking at someone else's photos and especially not from discussion about those photos Nah, you just copingWho cares about whether OP is legit or notYou were the one saying basically "it shouldn't matter where the feedback comes from" but now where the photo itself comes from, thats all that mattersHypocrite
>>4486341That sounds like a downside
>>4486343Never said it was completely irrelevantI'm starting to think that you're the op kek
>>4486345Not sure what your issue with OP being a phony is then
>>4486346It's just not worth putting effort into replying to someone who doesn't care, even if some bystanders could use the information. Is it hard to understand?
>>4486347That just sounds like post-hoc cope nowBut it was worth the effort to defend low effort comments though?
>>4486349Not really but I was bored desu so I don't mindHope you enjoyed what came out of your b8
>>4486350I did, I made some effort posts and will continue to putting effort into making this board betterLooking at photos and figuring out what was done poorly and what could be done better is a great exercise I would encourage everyone to doHopefully you come around and would like to see the board be better too one day
>>4486350Oh and I'll keep trying to call out low effort useless feedback too, hope you can do the same
>>4486353>>4486354All you ended up doing was randomly posting in other threads with the "lel that's old" seethe routine and start more fights. You are a loser.
