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)
