Some of my latest portfolio builders

[wannabe1979]

Still trying to get all the experience that I can. I'm getting some decent feed back so far but know that I've got a long way to go. Here are a couple of pics that I've done lately. Please let me know what you guys think. I've only got about a month of PhotoShop Cs2 under my belt so any addtional help there would be appreciated also.

Thanks for all the help.


1.
http://hallphotography.smugmug.com/photos/189148842-S.jpg

2.
http://hallphotography.smugmug.com/photos/189148779-S.jpg

3.
http://hallphotography.smugmug.com/photos/189147889-S.jpg

4.
http://hallphotography.smugmug.com/photos/189147627-S.jpg

5.
http://hallphotography.smugmug.com/photos/189149203-S.jpg

6.
http://hallphotography.smugmug.com/photos/188715996-S.jpg


Did I do too much blur on #3??? now that I'm looking back at the orig. prints it looks like too much. :scratch

My wife does the scrapbooking collages so I had to put one in. It's something different that nobody does around here.

[ShepsMom]

Hi Larry, cute children! My favorite is #5. I found #1 a little too dark. And #3, yes, it looks out of focus more then added blur effect. :D

[geminiphotos]

I like #2; Love the light; Not crazy about the crop Really good

D

[Swartzy]

but please allow me to share observations. The centeredness (ha, a new word) of 1, 2 & 5 take away compositionally. The dead space between the child's back and extra frame add nothing to the overall feel and desire of repetitive viewing. I've seen many shots blurred as an artistic form. I suppose its really a matter of what a particular individual likes. Blurred can be good if it sets a particular mood that the photograph already conveys. If the photo doesn't lend itself to that treatment, then it looks forced and out of place.

Personally, #3 would be much more effective if it were not blurred and the eyes sharpened. This is a child up close and forward, so the shot begs to provide clarity. The "dreamy" look works far better with a more open frame and with more distance between subject and lens. Think of some beautifully composed wedding shots for instance...the bride and groom, walking hand in hand, full body composition, with surrounding field or trees....then the "dreamy" effect works well. Up close for the most part (and I reiterate my preferrence) should be a sweet balance between soft focus and sharpness. We don't want portraits sharp like that of a rare bird or wildlife shot but in the same respect we don't want everything looking so unnatural that it's evident a filter in Photoshop was deployed to grasp such a look.

Simply my 2 cents. We all have our own styles and eye.

[snapapple]

Cute shots. The first is a little dark. Seems a bit green in the skin tones. It feels a bit tight on the crop.
I like #5 a lot. Nice light. Nice pose.
I think #3 is too blurry. On such a close shot I would love to see it sharp.

[wannabe1979]

Thanks guys for the input.

Swartzy, do you have an example of your new found word "centeredness"? I don't know if i completely understood what you meant.

[Swartzy]

Thanks guys for the input.

Swartzy, do you have an example of your new found word "centeredness"? I don't know if i completely understood what you meant.

Let's take shot #2 for instance. This was shot in "landscape" and the orientation of her pose with the flowers would look much more natural with a portrait orientation. If you stayed with the landscape version, then my suggestion would be to crop out the area behind her as it does not add to the photo (even with the vinetting). Since she is facing the flowers and to the viewer's left, then then eye doesn't want to be distracted with the open space behind her. She is just about dead center in the frame at present.