The problem you have is that the sun, even though behind thin cloud, is so bright compared the everything else. If you exposed for the sun, everything else would be so far underexposed as to block up the shadows and rob you of any detail.

Better to think about excluding the sun from the frame altogether when it's high in the sky. Only within a few minutes of sunrise and sunset is it within the dynamic range of the camera. Cloud cover will take the brightness down but not enough when it's like this.

Nick

Not sure about the white spots? If this is effectively a still-life, you need to make sure the subjects are perfect specimens, if that involves wiping the fruit clean before shooting.
I would also have removed the front stem too.

Really though, it is just a front lit picture using built in flash. Why not try lighting from the side? Maybe use a torch instead of your flash? As it is, there is no modelling, no texture and no shadows...it might as well be a cardboard cut-out. There is no depth information, and that only comes with moving the light source. Time to get more creative, rather than just letting the camera make all the decisions for you.

Nick

A pleasant image, split into 3 horizontal bands. Unfortunately, you don't get much impression of the edge in front of you, and the rock in the foreground doesn't blend with the other bands to hold the composition together. The morning sun could have been emphasised moreby under exposing a little, though I'm sure this can be tweaked in PS. I see you used 50 mm, but I think 28mm and getting closer would have helped increase the drama and impression of space in the picture. Conversely, you could have gone longer and made the rock look more part of the overall scene by compressing the perspective. For me, this falls a bit between two stools.
The light is good though.

There is a picture here though, and I think I would also have explored that jutting flat rock in the background, as it seems to be hanging over the edge.

Nick

There's no need for off-camera flash here.
Exposure is good for both parts, foreground and background. You could have moved back and used a longer focal length to narrow the angle of view, the zoom in the flash would have compensated for the longer distance. That would have enabled you to exclude the pier.

With flash, you don't need a fast shutter speed - the short duration of the flash will freeze the motion.

One more thing, I would have liked to see the arms outstretched....the jump and timing is good, but it doesn't say "exuberance" to me, and that's what I feel it needs.

Nick

The WB looks fine...it is a warm summer evening sun on healthy young skin, its lovely light. The shooting is ok and Megan looks more comfortable posing, it just needs a little better direction. A few things with each shot..

V1..nice light, but maybe better to turn her slightly more toward it, so her face is more evenly lit. I don't like the shoreline running through her head, just water would be better and a wider aperture (giving faster shutter speed too, say f/2.8 and 1/200) which would also have blurred the water more. Eye contact would be more arresting.

V2...similar comments again, re the direction. The background is less intrusive and more contextual, and doesn't run through her ears, though a wider aperture again would be better, for me.

The main issue though, is Megan's stance. It looks uncomfortable - her left side is rigid and her right is loose. For a 3/4 stance, it is better to have her weight on the back foot (her right) which would avoid the unnatural curve of the leg and stop her looking like she's leaning back. It puts the feet closer together in shot and makes a more natural pose. Also, it might be better for her to have her right hand on her hip and have her left hand down the front of her thigh which avoids bunched fingers and is more flattering to a lady's figure.

Exposure, focussing and processing are fine.

Nick

Just a suggestion, but light it with a battery rather than the mains. You can tape the wires to the contacts on the bulb, then you can vary the brightness of the bulb by varying the battery power combination. It is a simple wiring exercise and if you have access to a rheostat (variable resistor) so much the better.
Then you can poke wires through a card and have the same set up as here, with the bulb much less bright than usual.

Nick

I don't think there is too much you can do, maybe select the mountains and selectively darken or adjust curves to bring them out a little.

This is an example of aerial perspective, where the haze in the atmosphere causes progressive lightening and contrast loss the further away from the camera you get. Typically evident with mountains, but also with buildings and trees, the best way to help overcome this is to use a UV filter on the lens when taking, which cuts through the haze. It doesn't eliminate it, but it does reduce it.
It is also one of the visual cues we use to establish depth in the landscape, along with shadow/highlights, apparent size of objects and other methods.

Nick

Its is usually the HDR processing that makes it so flat by compressing the tonal range too much. You get texture and 3D information by having shadows, if you tone map the shadows out, you lose visual information.
That's what has happened here - the stonework looks like blocks of colour with little modelling. The mod helps a little, but id be interested to compare it to the original.

Nick

Looks like a pretty good shot to me - you've achieved what you set out to. Minor tweaks for individual models ( like the hair here), but the eyes engage very well.
One minor thing, the hair light won't do much if you don't include it in shot! A reflector would indeed do well held just out of shot below, and reduce the need for too many lights. Less is often more and it's easy to over complicate lighting. After a point, they start to duplicate effect and add light where you don't want it, so control becomes more difficult.

Maybe time to file the notes and try another set up, perhaps?

Nick

I think it's a pretty credible portrait. Males can usually stand harsher, more directional light, but this might just need a little lightening.
With males, you can have the key light toward the front and the fill light the same side, for a darker masculine image, or you can move the fill to the opposite side (as here) for a higher key, less stark image.

The main points....
You have a white shirt and a white background, both have texture and aren't blown out, so you can lighten the image without losing detail.
You have plenty of detail in your face, with no bright hotspots, and it shows your features with no ugly shadows.
The crop in v1 is fine! V2 can work as well

I think it's as good as many that shoot portraits professionally can achieve (look online..!).

You don't need to look so apprehensive. Lean slightly toward the camera and pull your shoulders back slightly. As you extend your neck, you will lose the lines...but that's nitpicking.

For a female, you can bring the main light further to the front for more flattering light - even above the camera - keeping the fill to one side and maybe a light on the hair from above and behind (rim lighting separates the hair from the background).

Most importantly, make notes so you can reproduce set ups that work.

Nick

Lovely image of the sky, and that's about it, I'm afraid. It needs a subject. Alternatively, you could shoot wider or make a panoramic of the sky. There's so much here that is just out of frame - I want to see more of the clouds, left, and a big sweep of sky can look stunning in this light.
I would aim higher too, as the land only serves to anchor this shot but contributes nothing pictorially, so doesn't need to intrude so far into he image.

Nick

It is quite well captured, but for me, there are a couple of things.
The dark intrusions at the sides of the frame, as mentioned above, can be cloned out.
The whole image appears dull. It looks like the light is poor, and you've had to push it to get the image, which in places is a bit dark. This is good for retaining detail in the white feathers, but some careful selective dodging and burning can bring the faces of the cygnets out more. Unfortunately, they are also sitting in a rather colourless spot.
Looking at the ground, it looks like the plane of focus is slightly ahead of the nearest chick, and so you have got nothing of any of them really sharp. With no exif to go on, it's hard to say anything about your settings, but a smaller aperture would have got all the birds in focus, yet kept the background blurred as you are quite close to them.
A tiny bit of fill-flash would have pepped this image up, and given their eyes some much-needed sparkle - (probably around 2 stops under if you can adjust it, so the flash doesn't dominate the exposure).

Nick

Sharpening won't make it more red. Maybe you needtomovethe candle further round to the front to get a bit more definition in the face, use a slower shutter speed (to give more exposure) ans use the white balance adjustment to lessen the redness. A warm candlelit glow is nice, this is just overpowering.
If you move right away from the background, you will have no shadow at all, just blackness all around,apart from the lit part of the face. I would suggest lifting the candle a couple of inches, on books perhaps, and move away from the background by varying amounts, shooting to see the effects.
Experiment and make notes as you go is the best way to find out how to light unconventionally.

Nick

I would prefer to see a more diagonal composition. As for the selective colour, I'm not sure it works with such a dark colour though it is competently done. IMHO selective colour works best with a small bright detail in the picture, which maybe you wouldn't see if all in black and white. Where the coloured part is the main subject, I feel it loses some impact. This would work better if the colour was red or yellow, but this coloured flower should stand out well against green leaves.
Also, it looks a little odd that only one head is coloured when you have others in the frame.

Nick

I think you need to move the key light still closer. You can also add a reflector below and left of shot which will bounce light back into the shadows. I take it as you are using a large softbox that you want smooth shadowless lighting.
I'm not bothered by the composition, it looks ok to me, and if you want a slightly darker background you can just move further away from it. For me, this is much better than your last upload, more adjustment and you are well on your way to fine tuning this set up.
If you think the sitter is a little bored, you need to engage more. Use a tripod to frame up (a little looser to give you options) and do t look through the camera - talk to the model and watch them, trip the shutter when you see the expression. It is easier to direct someone like this too as they see your face not hidden by the camera.

Nick

The image is well shot and well processed, and yes, the highlight could be brought down, but they aren't too bad as is. I would prefer a different top to this black one, as it isn't in keeping with the rest of the clothing - maybe something grungy like a rock band/tour t-shirt perhaps.
Willie, looking at her eyes carefully, I think she was looking at the camera, but has a slight squint in her right eye. You can get round this by shooting at an angle or getting her to turn her head 45 deg and just look at the camera without directly facing it. If you shot at a slight angle, rather than straight front-on, it should also reduce the hotspots on the wall.

Nick

You are using the soft box too far away. It is acting like a small light source rather than a large one, hence the uneven light on her face. Also, the second light is causing a rim effect as it is too bright relative to the main light. I think you need to move the main light closer and slightly higher, which will give you a smaller aperture that you need and make the light more even, and move the second light further away to lessen its strength (it needs to be at least one stop less bright than the key light). If you can set this up again, you can check for hair and other details too, though Willie's mod has addressed this along with the placement in the frame.
If you can, before a shoot, check the strength of each light individually and ensure the key light is the one the others are referenced to. You can also check light on the background and adjust your position relative to it for different brightnesses and effects (you can make even a white background appear black with creative light placement).
You might also want to lift the second light and use it more as a hairlight than it is now, unless you like the "standing next to a small window" effect. The main thing though, is get the big soft box closer - above the camera if need be.

Nick

Hi Billy.
I feel V2 is over the top by some way. As Willie says, less is usually more. Also, you've cropped to give more sky, which is rather uninteresting.
I bet you wish you could have got higher to see more of the building over the wall, which is where the main interest is! Though it's good that you are still out there looking and shooting, you have to think about the end result - what are you shooting and how do you want it to look, plus try to leave as little work to do to post processing, unless you intend to do specific processing.
I think a tighter crop like Kate's helps minimise the dull sky's impact.

Nick

Unfortunately, there are several things to address with this image. Firstly, it isnt sharp, possibly due to using a slow shutter speed. You used ISO 80 and 1/20 sec, whereas you could have upped the ISO to say, 400 and then had a shutter speed of around 1/125 sec. As it is, it is also overexposed by a stop or two, so the whites have blown completely. Combined with the unsharpness and poor black and white conversion, it has robbed the image completely of any character Jazz has.
Pushing the ISO up to 400 and using a shutter speed such as 1/250 or 1/500 would be better, and the fast shutter speed would have frozen any movement in the dog anyway.
I appreciate you are using a bridge camera, but it is advanced enough to be able to control all the different factors.

Nick

I agree entirely with Sue: the dynamic range of your device seems limited. There are plain white areas, but there are no full blacks, so maybe it is a touch overexposed. Compositionally, it is just a snapshot (your words), looking up and not really doing justice to the majesty of Wren's architechture. It is not critically sharp and looks like it might have been taken on a phone camera.

You give no indication of what you were trying to achieve, nor if you think you achieved it, so as it stands, it is JUST a snapshot.

PS: If you don't want to accept critique, then best not to post the picture in the "Critique forum"?
Just because you don't agree, does not give you the right to abuse someone who is trying to help you.

Nick