|
|
Critique By:
Spencer Clark (K:409)
10/19/2007 9:53:31 PM
Hi Martin,
For this image, I'd suggest putting a bit more flash on the subject in order to bring out her eyes. (They are a bit dark)
Anywho, just thought I'd let ya know I've left usefilm.com permanently due to them not removing your blantant abusive statements. Aka, attacking personality & me personally rather than any critique on the photograph. In fact, you went considerably over the line into extreme verbal abuse. Enjoy usefilm - all of those here, enjoy it as well. I simply won't put up with a website that tolerates such blantant abuse.
As for this image here - it is rather flat and her face seems to be slightly out of foucs. Using some or more fill flash on the subject would have helped considerably. Also, her expression is somewhat lackluster - while this may be a great expression on her if you know her personally, from an outside perspective, it doesn't seem to be at the pennicle of the emotion.
|
Photo By: Martin .
(K:24957)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Spencer Clark (K:409)
9/29/2007 1:32:53 AM
Hi Martin,
So, I decided to start looking at more of your work. :)
This is a nice shot, but it seems all of the subjects are not in focus. The front girl is definitely in focus while the back is definitely not in focus. To resolve this, if you reshoot it that is, I'd suggest using an aperture closer to f11-f22. That is, unless you meant for only one subject to be in focus.
My only other critique would be their lack of expression. Though, that could definitely be the models at hand. But, there seems to be nothing in their expression - there is no story being told.
Just my 2 cents.
|
| Photo By: Martin .
(K:24957)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Spencer Clark (K:409)
9/29/2007 1:24:03 AM
Hmm, not too bad compositionally and I like the ideas of the lights. However, on her face, it is rather dark. While this might have been intentional, I think it really would have made a better photograph if at least one light had been a bit higher up. Perhaps a light outside of the frame slightly infront of her face or bounce light from the cieling ... or even a flashlight dimly shining towards her. Anything to bring just that touch of light so that we can identify her eyes & face a bit better. As it stands, I can only focus on what I am not seeing ... not in a positive way either ...
What I would have done:
Set the camera up on a tripod. Have the camera with a flash setup with a bounce card on the flash at a 90 degree angle. Aka, the flash is firing directly above and some of it is being bounced in the direction of the model.
I would have the image set around 100 or 200 ISO with f22. This will give it a very long shutter speed - I'd want at least 4 seconds give or take. What this will do: it will give the model the light needed to bring out her features a bit more while keeping the moody atmosphere of the lighting. I'd probably have to take two or three shots adjusting the settings until it was just right.
Another really cool thing I might do: Set an off-camera flash to go off with my camera - no on-camera flash. Have it to the left (the darkest side) at -3 setting with direct flash. It'd be perhaps two feet above her head and two feet infront of her. This would give her very dramatic lighting - with the shutter speed and aperture set to get in that ambient light - it'd make a superb shot. Just my 2 cents.
|
| Photo By: Evren Arasil
(K:-866)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Spencer Clark (K:409)
9/29/2007 1:09:49 AM
Hi Kes,
I simply am amazed at what some point & shoots are capable of - 2.8 aperture!! That is nuts! Our 24-70 2.8 lens is bigger than most point & shoots on its own! Just craziness - makes me really respect the P&S cameras.
I actually assumed you had studio lighting here at how even the lighting was across the image. Very nicely done!!
For what I was proposing - I'd stand 8 feet up from the floor ... or however high I could get. Though, best of luck suspending that guitar in mid-air.  Actually, there are some good stands for this. Anyway, for the lighting you would pretty much have to at least use off-camera flash. Basically you would aim to get rid of the shadows and keep the lighting even.
And yep, colorblind - red/green & blue/yellow. I have a poorly made website on it - http://www.colorblindfriendly.com . Being colorblind definitely makes post processing difficult. Though, it really isn't all that bad - I can at least usually tell skin tones ... usually. I'd say the worst part of it is seeing the focal lights inside the canon camera - all the focal points are RED!!! I can't see those suckers 1/2 the time.
Anyway, best of luck! I think I will go post another image now. :)
|
| Photo By: Nelson Moore [Kes] -
(K:20241)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Spencer Clark (K:409)
9/28/2007 4:31:38 AM
Nice shot here. Good use of Depth of Field. I like the natural look of the lighting. Overall nice shot.
My only complaint would be the plant in the background - I might place it slightly lower than where it is simply to have it away from the middle of the frame. But, that is just being too nit-picky.
Nice shot. :)
|
| Photo By: Phil Cassell
(K:1054)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Spencer Clark (K:409)
9/28/2007 4:28:35 AM
You know, if I wasn't colorblind, I bet I could see a lot more in that rug. I can tell there are other colors than blue .... hmmm ... but I can't tell what they are. It is a nice guitar.
Overall, a nice shot. But, nothing 'pops' to me. Perhaps if the guitar was higher and you used a lower aperture to show some depth of field it would work a bit better. As it stands with everything in focus, the guitar gets lost within all the detail of the rug.
If I were to do this shot, I'd lift the guitar about 4 feet off the ground & shoot it from about 8 feet up with the 24-70 2.8L lens getting the same framing but at 2.8 or 3.2. This would make the guitar look crisp and in focus but make the rug slightly out of focus. I might even have to bump the aperture p to 4.0-5.6 with this method.
Nice shot though. :)
|
| Photo By: Nelson Moore [Kes] -
(K:20241)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Spencer Clark (K:409)
9/28/2007 4:18:50 AM
Her eyes look just too white to me & a good bit of gaussian blur on the face (a bit too much in my opinion). Also, she seems to be looking just off from the camera - slightly above it - it just looks odd. It could have been a striking look had she been looking directly at the camera or intentionally away from the camera. As it stands, she just looks odd.
Just my 2 cents.
|
| Photo By: Ricardo Alonso
(K:2186)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Spencer Clark (K:409)
9/28/2007 4:07:23 AM
Hmm, I am trying to figure out what you were going for here. I assume you were intentionally blowing out the background and overexposing the subject. Unfortunately, this also lost the shoulders completely! It also shows his red skin tone quite well - though, I am not sure if this is what you were going for.
It is neat that I can see you in his eyes.
Not an overly bad expression though. It looks like either he is thinking or has a headache, but still not a bad expression.
What were you going for in this photograph? I really think a 2.8 or 1.2 aperture would have done a bit better if your intention was to bring attention to his eyes. Here, it really looks like you just used too bright of flash and compensated for too dark of a subject (aka, blowing out the background). I understand the high-key aspect, but this just doesn't seem to hit it. You might want to try grayscaling the image or at least lessening the red luminance. The red in his face is really distracting from the rest of the shot.
|
| Photo By: David Clark
(K:422)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Spencer Clark (K:409)
9/28/2007 3:54:55 AM
Excellent shot! I love the expressions on their faces!
|
| Photo By: Anna Brady
(K:914)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Spencer Clark (K:409)
9/23/2007 7:27:41 PM
One little thing I also noticed here - I think this would be a much better shot if it was a horizontal image. Her in the same place, but the image just horizontal continuing to the left. This would add some nice negative space. Just something to try.
|
| Photo By: Paul Lara
(K:88111)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Spencer Clark (K:409)
9/23/2007 5:15:50 PM
Ah, meant to say 70-200 2.8L IS lens - do NOT get the lens without IS. :)
|
| Photo By: Joel Garabedian
(K:2041)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Spencer Clark (K:409)
9/23/2007 5:14:50 PM
That is great to hear!! We use this product for a bounce card - it is much more durable, works every time, and looks a good bit more professional.
http://www.dembflashproducts.com/flipit/
I also suggest getting the book "Digital Wedding Photography: Capturing Beautiful Memories" - this is more about the business than it is about techniques, but it has both. It will help you tremendously in what to expect in wedding photography and also what to offer. One key thing is to have a style and stick with it. You can see our site http://www.clarkproduction.com/ and get a good idea of our style by looking at the images - all of your images should seem to be shot by the same person, basically. :)
Lets see, what else. The 5D is great, it is what we use. We're waiting for the 5D Mark III that is rumored to come out next year in the Spring. We use the 24-70L and the 70-200L. You might want to consider purchasing the 70-200 on down the line as often times you want that tight shot of the bride at the altar (you usually don't want to get too close). Also, in most cases, it is a very good idea to hold off using flash during the ceremony itself - even if they allow it. It can be very distracting for the guests - and the guests are your potential clients! You want everyone to think you are simply -great-.
Hmm, what else ... I know there is a good bit. Ah, one thing - DO NOT underprice yourself. If you do, you will get the "Bridezillas." Price yourself at what you are worth - see what the other photographers are charging, second shoot with them. They are NOT your enemies - they can be great friends and great connections. I ensure you more weddings take place in your town every weekend than there are photographers to photograph them. If they do see you as competition, simply write them off and go on to the more friendly & helpful photographers that want to see the level in photography in the area continue to rise.
Anyway, just my 2 cents. You can send an inquiry our way through our site and I will be happy to email you back with more info. I figure putting everything here wouldn't be a great idea. :)
|
| Photo By: Joel Garabedian
(K:2041)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Spencer Clark (K:409)
9/23/2007 5:00:33 PM
This is a nice shot, but the subjects don't really 'pop.' This is most likely due to the high aperture - it is most likely at f11 or higher from looking at this shot. Perhaps even f22.
If you were to take this shot and you want it to pop a bit more, you could do two things.
#1) Use a lower aperture - perhaps 4.0-5.6. In that range, you will still be able to tell what is in the background just fine; however, they will be slightly out of focus. Thus, it will bring the attention to the bride and groom.
#2) Use off-camera flash!! If you had a small off-camera flash synced to your camera at the botton of the image just giving a touch of fill flash on the bride and groom, it'd make all the difference! You could then expose for the background, adjust the exposure 1/2 stop lower, up the fill flash to fill the bride & groom properly, and then take the photograph. This would result in a very rich and vibrant image with the bride & groom definitely the main subjects but also have the background look just fine as well.
Hope this helps!
|
| Photo By: Rayia Banjar
(K:50)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Spencer Clark (K:409)
9/23/2007 4:55:15 PM
This is an alright setup here, and good lighting. Though, I must say, their faces look a bit green to me. The only complaint I have with this photograph is their expressions and focal points. They seem to be looking at slightly different points - just barely though. The one thing I would expect to come across in an image such as this would be their joy on their wedding day ... and that doesn't seem apparent here. When I look at it, I see two people that could be complete strangers - nothing particularly stands out screaming "I will be with this man/woman for the rest of my life." But, I probably simply have different expectations when it comes to wedding shots.
It is well composed and balanced. Other than the greenish skin, it has good color.
|
| Photo By: Peter Skjold Petersen
(K:971)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Spencer Clark (K:409)
9/23/2007 4:50:08 PM
One other note - when you use a 430 EX flash, be sure to use a bounce card and bounce the light off the ceiling. You can have the card at roughly a 95% angle - the majority of the light will bounce off the ceiling and fill the room while still a good portion of lighting will hit your subjects and properly expose them. This will result in a "wow" photograph. :) Aka, don't ever use direct flash - it will blow out your subjects and make the background non-exsistant. :)
|
| Photo By: Joel Garabedian
(K:2041)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Spencer Clark (K:409)
9/23/2007 4:47:19 PM
This is a nice shot, but some lighting from an off-camera flash would have helped tremendously on the right side. Losing all detail on her front side is a bit distracting to me. The next time you take a shot with these lighting conditions, consider putting a synced flash the right of the subjects in order to light up the dark side .... unless that was what you were going for.
Also, there is a good bit of noise in the background.
|
| Photo By: David Clark
(K:422)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Spencer Clark (K:409)
9/23/2007 4:33:57 PM
Nice dramatic lighting here.
|
| Photo By: Paul Lara
(K:88111)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Spencer Clark (K:409)
9/23/2007 4:30:52 PM
This shot is ok ... but the noise in the shot is rediculous!! You definitely shouldn't be getting this much digital noise at 200 ISO with proper lighting. Also, to me, the look in her eyes and face doesn't reflect a "James Bond" secret angent look - it looks more questioning than anything else. I suppose it is a fun shot, but her expression definitely does not reflect the idea you were trying to get. Also, the ring on her finger seems to be blown out - you've definitely lost a good bit of detail in it; the same goes for the fingernails.
If you were to take this again, first off, find out how to get rid of the digital noise. Secondly, adjust your lighting so that you don't blow out the details such as the ring, the fingernails, and some of the other jewelry. Lastly, make her look fierce or coy. The coy look is definitely a james bond look - here, the expression is rather flat. Hope this comment helps. I'd definitely look into at least purchasing some post-processing software for that digital noise - I hear good things about noise ninja.
|
| Photo By: Clay Boutin
(K:28722)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Spencer Clark (K:409)
9/23/2007 1:20:38 AM
Ha, fun shot here.
|
| Photo By: ck 1
(K:1475)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Spencer Clark (K:409)
9/23/2007 1:15:55 AM
This is an ok shot lacking a few key things.
First off is the exposure. If you were meaning to have the image look very dark, then you have done well. If you wanted it properly exposed, bringing up the exposure by 1 stop would do. Or, conversly, taking the shot with a bit more flash in the first place. I can see what you were going for - but instead, the whole image just looks too dark to me.
Also, her eyes seem to be mostly closed - and not in such a seductive way. Rather, it looks like she was blinking at the time.
Otherwise, it is a decent shot.
|
| Photo By: Rui Coelho
(K:24)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Spencer Clark (K:409)
9/23/2007 1:11:32 AM
This image seems rather blurry and out of focus. While I admire trying to time the shot appropriately, the look the the subjects eyes just don't scream what you are going for. His eyes definitely tell a different story - no real 'life' in them. This is most likely due to lack of proper lighting. Of course, given the situation and place, there may not have been room for proper flash. The main thing that stands out to me is that it seems his shoulder is more in focus than his eyes.
|
| Photo By: Andreas Droussiotis
(K:4757)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Spencer Clark (K:409)
9/23/2007 1:03:18 AM
This is an ok shot, but more fill light would have helped in this situation. Especially with the blown out background - there is no need for that! (unless you were intentionally going for a blown out background)
To get this exact same shot with a bit better exposure, do the following:
Adjust your exposure for the background
Set the Flash as High as it can go (if using a SLR, you would set the flash to +1-+3 ... with the S3 IS ... eh, do what you can)
Now adjust your exposure slightly lower (1/2 stop) than it was for the background
Take the shot.
What you will get is an image properly exposed for both your subject and the background. You did this by basically lighting up your subject as much as the background was lit up. With the exposure slightly lower, it will provide you with a very saturated image that will have the background not -as- prominent as your focal points.
It is definitely nice, but you loose the edge of the bride due to the blown out areas. Again, expose for the ambience and then just up your flash to match it.
|
| Photo By: Meg Metcalfe
(K:6114)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Spencer Clark (K:409)
9/23/2007 12:56:28 AM
It is definitely a good moment, though I have to admit I can easily see the digital noise in that image. The 350D simply doesn't do well in low light - period. Did you use a flash? Perhaps a 580 EX flash? If you had lowered the aperture, that would have helped tremendously - perhaps 2.8-3.2 aperture would be good. And what a low ISO!! If working in the dark, you should definitely have the ISO set appropriately. Aka, the grain is much worse on a 400 ISO shot where you have to bring up the exposure in post processing compared to a shot done with 800 ISO that is properly exposed. If light was the issue, I definitely would have lowered the aperture and upped the ISO to 800 or 1600. (We have the 350D as well)
As for the focusing, you can set the camera to only use a certain focal point instead of using all of them. This might have helped in this situation.
Definitely a good shot, but I do have to make note that there is almost no background to this image - definitely looks like there was flash and you caught none of the ambient light in the background. My suggestion, if you were to redo this, is to use fill flash on high speed settings and be sure to have the aperture/ISO/shutter speed set so that the couple is frozen with the flash but you still get some ambience in the background as well.
Still, it is a good moment in time. Congrats.
|
| Photo By: Joel Garabedian
(K:2041)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Spencer Clark (K:409)
9/22/2007 5:45:42 AM
Very nice, but what is that in the bottom right hand side? It looks like it could be a road or a boomerang. My attention keeps on being drawn to it.
|
| Photo By: Gregory McLemore
(K:35129)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Spencer Clark (K:409)
9/22/2007 4:23:16 AM
I sure hope you were at the 70mm end of that lens. 18mm is just too close to a bee for me!
|
| Photo By: Greg Scott
(K:1990)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Spencer Clark (K:409)
9/22/2007 4:21:06 AM
Wow! This shot is AWESOME!!!
|
| Photo By: Anna Brady
(K:914)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Spencer Clark (K:409)
9/19/2007 4:12:16 AM
This is nice. But I would suggest lowering the exposure slightly and slightly increasing the contrast or saturation. It would really make the image pop a good bit more. Just my 2 cents. Nice photo though. :)
|
| Photo By: Mostafa El shershaby
(K:162)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Spencer Clark (K:409)
9/12/2007 12:39:02 AM
Great Work! Couldn't be better!
|
| Photo By: Anna Brady
(K:914)
|
|
|
Critique By:
Spencer Clark (K:409)
9/24/2006 1:52:56 AM
This is really neat! I like the texture and color. Well done!
|
| Photo By: Anna Brady
(K:914)
|
|
