Shit photo I took

>>2945256
Find a new teacher

>>2945265
Look up Bill Foley
Is he just that disinterested in his students?
He seems to hate his job.

>>2945256

i like it a fucking lot.

light in her face is pretty dramatic, also, lots of character, is she an actress? colors are a bit shit. show more.

File: IMG_3065.jpg (1MB, 4272x2848px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4272x2848px

>>2945268
It's just my 40 year old mom.
With her favorite chicken.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XSi
Camera Software	Windows Photo Editor 10.0.10011.16384
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:27 02:13:43
Exposure Time	1/160 sec
F-Number	f/9.0
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/9.1
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	25.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4272
Image Height	2848
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2945256
Nice cock

get closer to the subject. the field angles will still show, but you get more for your sensor size. dumbass.

>>2945273
Sorry desu, first time ever taking photos seriously. Thanks for the advice.

>>2945269
i-is she single?

>>2945281
Sorry anon, she is not. Dad is 60 and CEO of a company. Give props to the old man.

>>2945282
Props given, anon.
It's ok, I'm only 23.

Usually I'd be a jerk because you didn't bother to resize, but I have photoshop open so I'll fucking do it for you. What an asshole you are.

Now that I can safely alt tab back and forth between photoshop and my browser, I'll lay into you.

The composition is incredibly boring and not suited to the 3:2 ratio you've chosen. There's a bit too much negative space all around. I feel that even with a center focused comp it's still a bit too much. Personally, I'd have chosen a 1:1 ratio for this type of shot.
If it was me, I'd have elevated myself up and shot from above to get rid of the negative space above the subject, or shot from below depending on if you wanted the subject to appear bigger or smaller. Personally, I find portraits taken from eye level to be kind of samey if there's nothing really absolutely special about them.
Moving on to the lighting, yes, her face is very shadowed. Natural light is meme tier, at least without something like a reflector. Chances are that you own a flash. I'd have used it for fill, which would also leave the sky behind not looking 20 shades of white.

Now technical settings. I'm guessing your teacher taught you to shoot in manual and explained aperture and shutter speed.
You shot at 44mm on a crop camera, presumably without a flash due to the shadowing. You shot it at 1/60. There is a bit of motion blur caused by this. When calculating your shutter speed multiply your current APS-C/Crop focal length by 1.6x on Canon, this should be your minimal focal length you're aiming for without additional lighting involved.
You're shooting at ISO 200, but to hit that 1/70 or above shutter speed your ISO should really be a bit higher. I'd probably have bumped it up to ISO 400 or 640/800. I'm aware this limitation is heavily gear based for you. The added benefit of bumping ISO is that in natural light you should be able to overexpose the subject a little more, helping the shadows.

(cont).

>>2945285
Why couldn't my fucking teacher explain this to me? Instead of spending 2 weeks talking about "Intent" Thanks anon I rather have the truth than bullshit. I just want to get better.

File: kids2.png (5MB, 3242x2158px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 3242x2158px

Not sure what you're editing on, but get a 4k monitor. the pic looked sharp on my phone, but blowing it up, i can see only her neck seems sharp; so you focused on her neck. woops? if your cam has continuous high mode, you can shoot the 6 or 7 continuous pics while you dial your focus ring and hope you had enough light to shoot in 1/500 or above to minimize blur. noob shitposter here btw.

also, that much white sky mightve been ok in a b&w, see if you can filter it in paint or w/e you're using

File: ssss.jpg (284KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

284KB, 1500x1000px

would do this desu lad

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:12 13:10:58
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1500
Image Height	1000

File: pls-no-process.jpg (667KB, 999x1000px) Image search: [Google]

667KB, 999x1000px

>>2945285
So what could you do to retry this?
Reframe your shot and use a different focal length. Perhaps try 55mm which will be a bit more of a flat FOV. Try and fill the frame with the portrait if it's 3:2 or find a way to make the surroundings more interesting. Pay attention to exposure and shutter speed. You want to keep your eye on equivalent SS to remove motion blur and you want your subject to be well lit. I'd suggest using a flash, even the one you have on your camera. This will allow you to use a higher shutter speed or aperture to expose the background properly and fill the subject with light close to you. I'd also recommend shooting RAW over JPG and learning to post process a little focusing on colour correction/white balance. Just don't go crazy with the sliders.
This is how I'd personally frame this.

I'd also recommend asking your teacher to give you a little more information between shutter speed and focal length. Someone should have told you already about reciprocal focal length, especially if they're teaching you to shoot in manual. Don't be angry that you haven't been told, it's something that just doesn't get mentioned a lot.

>>2945265
>>2945267
>>2945289

As for your teacher, Don't find a new teacher. Photography teachers suck, they suck for a reason. CC is harsh, but it's meant to motivate you. He seems to be a pretty decent photographer and chances are he's wanting to teach you how to tell a story with your images. That intent goes a long way in photojournalism.

Disinterest can stem from many things. When you've seen a lot of photos it's possible to get tired of giving criticism and it's much harder to give honest feedback nowadays because everyone wants to be handled with kid gloves. Ask questions when they say something is wrong or they don't like the framing. Ask what they would have done in the situation, learn from their experience.
If you learn to suck it up, take criticism and interact your learning experience will be 200 times better

>>2945285
>Natural light is meme tier

kys

>>2945298
Ty this looks really interesting, only downside is, if the picture is not bright as the sun it doesn't show up on the shit projector which literally has the sun shining on it, and he just asks why he can't see anything over and over. Then says "Next"

>>2945301
Ahhhh I see!
I will try asking my teacher more questions and I know I go over board with the sliders. My generation is pretty shit tier when it comes to quality photos imo. I am not mad at him at all. I just feel bad when he is constantly presented with terrible photos. I understand why he is harsh. I think I have gotten a decent amount better.

>>2945302
Only if I can drown in your overblown highlights and underexposed shadows.
Balancing natural light with artificial light is a pretty great skill to have in photography, it's a basic skill. Nothing beats a nice slow sync/second curtain flash for a nice night portrait desu. You can't always control what's in the path of the sun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CeUfrwQSR0 Here's a pretty cringey but important video for you anon, maybe you too can learn to use the power of the sun :^)

File: ms udderly.png (608KB, 699x439px) Image search: [Google]

608KB, 699x439px

>>2945256

I swear for a second I thought your mom was Ms Udderly. I apologize, man.

>>2945308
It looks like a Weaver took your photo.

>>2945319
Reference the only actually autistic person to take his class. GG m8 GG

>>2945317
I forgive you

>>2945289
>Why couldn't my fucking teacher explain this to me? Instead of spending 2 weeks talking about "Intent"
You really don't want 2 weeks of "this is how you turn on your camera and this is what aperture means" do you? Those are the worst kind of photo course.

>>2945329
I mean, it's an intro level course. I don't know fuck about cameras but what I have learned on my own.

>taking pics of your mom with a cock
Lewd

>>2945329
>tfw my first class in college started with a 30 minute presentation on what the aperture and shutter speed are
>all done on a whiteboard with marker because lel no projectors in my day
>given a digipleb camera to shoot on
>left utterly bamboozled
>would have preferred 2-3 classes based around aperture/shutter speed one at a time to teach us how to manual modo
>Instead it was go out and use aperture priority!
My teacher was fucking horrible though, who the fuck decides to explain apertures relation to depth of field and shutter speed's relation to motion in a single lesson without any examples then tries to teach you that if you open up a stop of light on your aperture you drop a stop on the shutter.

I'd have preferred to be taught on film given the chance and for at least 4 photos to be shown to explain it.

>>2945330
>but what I have learned on my own.
Well you can learn everything about cameras on your own, it's really not difficult.

>>2945338
Which is why I am here. I don't like being a pleb. I just started taking this course seriously.

File: IMG_2810.jpg (835KB, 1366x911px) Image search: [Google]

835KB, 1366x911px

Check out 'days of heaven', 'tess', and ''to the wonder' for some color grading ideas

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XSi
Camera Software	Snapseed 2.10.133234704
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:27 02:06:56
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/5.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/5.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	44.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1366
Image Height	911
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2945342
You just ate up all the contrast
Why man

>>2945386
Maybe he was going for a sort of Grant Wood aesthetic.

Your mom is FOINE anon.
Your teacher has a good website and is well esteemed, he's a good photographer but it seems like he's not enthusiastic about teaching or critiquing.
I think you should've brought a reflector to fill in the harsh shadows on your model, also your lowish shutter speed allowed for some motion blur on the chicken head.
Compositionaly speaking, it's a nice shot
>>2945342
This shit is disgusting, don't ever do this, don't ever do anything like this, don't let your friends do this, don't like photos on Instagram that do this, don't condone this, don't do this ever.

>>2945256

thats an A grade mom, OP.

>>2945476
>>2945479
Thanks, sister was/is kinda still a professional model. I got good genetics. I never get on /P/ but the community is pretty decent. I might start posting on here more often.

>>2945486
Show a pic of your sister then.

File: 1476286242009fixed.jpg (3MB, 4272x2848px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4272x2848px

>>2945256
I feel a cinematic approach works well with this composition.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XSi
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4272
Image Height	2848
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:16 11:38:14
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/5.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/5.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	44.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4272
Image Height	2848
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2947572
100% terrible

>>2947572

That's fucking disgusting...

>>2947572
What the fuck did you even do to it?

File: image transformation strategy.png (15KB, 242x396px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 242x396px

>>2947648
Lots of color correction.

File: Rockwell seal of approval.png (55KB, 207x207px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 207x207px

>>2947572

>>2947665

No, you just fucked it with beginner level fuckery. You don't even know how to mask.

She's too big and close in the frame for my taste, so the shot feels way too framed and not natural at all. I like the idea, it's a funny/werid little snap, but the execution could've been better.

Highlights are blown but I never really cared about that stuff unless it directly hurts the image.

File: 1476286242009b.jpg (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

>>2945256

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XSi
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:16 22:01:44
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/5.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/5.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	44.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1920
Image Height	1080
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2945342
I like the touchup annon. Gives it an old timey feel. He chicken also helps

>>2947761
that one looks great

Looks like a still from an avante-garde comedy, which I would like to watch.

As a shot on its own, I don't think it says very much.

>>2947761
Just fuck my shit up

File: 1471863961594.jpg (16KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 600x600px

>>2947572

16:9 makes it look kinda Wes Andersonish actually.

>>2945386
calibrate your monitor anon

>>2947761
I might want to use this for an album cover somewhere down the line, specifically this edit. I don't just want to steal it so if you or the OP wants to give me their email or whatever...

>>2945269
>>2945282
your mom is a total qt, would bang/10

also nice photo

>>2945256
other than subject being right in the middle i like it a lot

>>2945256
well anon, who is this semen demon ? Can we have more ?

>>2945256
She looks good, and I'd love to have her with extra dumplins, assuming your mom can cook. I like the shot, too. Exposure's a little distracting, but it's close to some of those farm shots from the 30's, except there's too much of a crop to be from then.

>>2948291
As the anon who made this edit (though I have no way to prove it), you have my permission.

>>2948831
I take that as an OK

>>2945256
>>2945269
she's so beautiful :')

>>2945256
Part of being a photographer is molding your subject into a good story.

The model comes of as a guilty chicken fucker instead of a nice farm wife that loves animals.

"Hey mom hold a chicken in a field" "uhh ok hun" Thats all I see here.

But your teacher is right to encourage you. You found a cool location and placed your subject in the right place you just failed everywhere else.

>>2949613
>this guy doesn't understand that simplicity and incidental photos can be charming
Sounds like you take what you yourself learned in school too much to heart

>>2950231
There is nothing incidental or charming about asking mommy to hold a chicken Ina field. Incidental would imply that it was not a set up photo. Which it is.


And I never went to school. I'm blue collar.