hockey_013_img_9857.jpg
by bobonacus

Comment:
I think this is a good example of needing to get low, like I suggested in the thread, its also one I might not have taken being that there really isnt action, and the main subject is not really visible from the front. Although you do have some background seperation which helps, exif shows F7.1 F4 would have been plenty and got rid of some of that background. Colors and contrast are OK, but appear to have a bit too smooth skin, meaning backoff the filter, I usually take the defaults on NN and back it off to 6 or less, on low ISO shots.

IMG_7043-720.jpg
by BarbB

Comment:
Pretty model with a nice touch to use a pet as a prop. Cute feline as well. Watch that paw, though, its beginning to reveal things she might not want revealed.

IMG_6604-720.jpg
by BarbB

Comment:
Awesome enviromental portrait. I'm not an angled photo guy. But this really works for me.

IMG_6477-720.jpg
by BarbB

Comment:
Great job of framing the face, but I really wish the focus had been on the man, perhaps even stop down to F22 and get it all in focus.

IMG_5772-720.jpg
by BarbB

Comment:
I like this, it almost looks like there is a bit of a colorcast on it. Just a touch off on color on the skin. in places, not sure if its WB from the lighting. I like the pose, and even the movement in the foot.

Chey
by karmat

Comment:
I have to agree with bvy, the processing is a bit much, she looks way too smooth, and the eyes are a bit dark and lifeless, almost zombie like. Wonderful model, very cute, I like the composition and the choice of backgrounds. Back the processing off a bit, and lighten the eyes and you have a winner.

Larry
by karmat

Comment:
Has a dreamy feel to it. I really like the angle, the DOF and the character.

Makena's Baby
by DrPhoto

Comment:
Greetings from the critique club.

What can I say, you placed fifth on your first entry. Very well done.

There are a few suggestions I could make to the entry. I like the 45 degree side lighting to your subject and the choice of background. I would have however used a bit of fill light or a reflector on camera left to slightly open up those shadows a bit. I also might have shot this from just a bit lower perspective, you might have been able to get a bit of a catch light in the eye a bit better and not been peering down so much on your subject. Overall I dont think you can complain and have done well for your first entry.

Nut House Overexposed!
by michelaudette

Comment:
Greetings from the critique club.

First you did meet the challenge, def overexposed, now the question is, does it enhance your photo? That I'm not so sure it does. The overexposure is actually distracting and doesnt enhance the photo. I think the subject is a bit crowded as it is and a bit busy. I'm not sure but it might also be a bit oversharpened.

Now how to make this a better entry? Honestly I have sat and thought about how I could make this subject more interesting and over exposed at the same time, and I cant honestly come up with an idea. Good luck in future challenges.

I swear I didn't eat anything!
by Thomas

Comment:
Greetings from the critique club.

First let me say I think you met the challenge, def a doll or puppet, although could be mistaken for a toy instead. Either way I like your subject, very creative lighting, nothing standard about side lighting, maybe just a touch softer would have helped, not sure of your diffuser but maybe try to soften it or make it appear larger then it is.

I like the background, but I wish you had maybe used a bit of a reflector on camera right so you can fill in the shadows just a touch and give a bit of detail to the left side of subject.
Overall I think you did well. And scored just about where I would have put it.