phantom of the light wrote:
I would appreciate some feedback

Hi there. Alright so I see you have creative ideas but the issue is the execution. A lot of these are not in focus and when they are in focus either EVERYTHING is in focus which takes away form you being able to achieve a more cinematic look to you work. That or the background is in focus but not the subject. I would start by getting a handle on the focusing issue. After you tackle that I would work on your editing/retouching skills because that would elevate your work a bit. Lastly, pay attention to what you have models wear. It's fine to use bright colors, but for example, the picture of the girl wearing the super bright, purple flannel shirt by the trees, that shirt is yelling so much that the picture is not even about her. Hope this helps.

Jorge Kreimer wrote:
Go ahead, Yajhil Thanks!


and even retouchers are welcome!

Probably the only place they are welcome on MM

Oh you lol. I honestly went in expecting to say the same stuff I always say to you, but color me surprised! Just to refresh your memory, I said that I really liked the craziness of all the nudes with the wild poses and super bright exposure but that I wanted to see more because it was all too similar. Well I see that's changed!

Let's start with all the clothed ones. Your posing is never an issue, it's excellent. I would prefer to not see so many shadows because they can become distracting. That or lighten them up so they aren't so harsh? Maybe you want super dark shadows, I don't really know. My preference would be to make them less prominent so the pictures are more about the models.

By the way, I do like the idea of people wearing fancy clothes but still being explicit in some way. It's like a fun f u to society and what behavior is deemed appropriate. I would get a huge kick out of you creating scenes, like someone at a dinner party or getting into a car with no top on or something out there. Might as well take it up a notch lol.

The nudity I already talked about. Some of the outdoor clothed stuff could be better lit, and I noticed a few, older, out of focus moments but that doesn't seem to be an issue for you now. I feel like you take your skill set seriously and seem to be working on improving as any good photographer should.

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
Count me in . . . Thank you !

KM

Ok so let's start with the erotica. You clearly understand lighting and posing. You also take pride in what you do. Your stuff looks clean AF. Like super clean. I think my feedback would be that the sets are getting repetitive and you already perfected that look of nude women in front of metallic surfaces looking excited. There's gotta be a way to change it up a bit. Maybe add a bed? Find an indoor location that looks like a dungeon but like a real location? I dunno, it's too much of the same for me. I love the images when you went outside of the box like in your icon, or the girl wrapped in green plastic wrap, or the girl inside the cage. Those somehow seem more erotic and creative to me. It seems like your older work was more creative and the newer work isn't. It's all still great. Just my personal preference and opinion. Even the girl hanging from the ceiling in a real setting, that's just super cool and different.

The Yosemite stuff I think is very nice but I would maybe add more contrast to make things pop more. Specially the whites because some of the images come across as gray and a tiny bit flat when I can see they are not at all.  It sometimes makes the humans fade into the image, which is fine if that's what you want, but I feel like it would be good if they stood out more.

Varton wrote:
Count me in as well. Thank you.

FASHION
Ok so first I would say that more attention needs to be paid to backgrounds. Sometimes they are too busy, sometimes they are too in focus, sometimes they don't match with the outfit the model is wearing so they look out of place. The focus should really be more on the model, I would pay a lot more attention to that.

Also, the poses seem a tad childish. Picture kids wearing the same outfits and making the same expressions. Those pictures would be fun and cutesy because the kids are playing dress up. But here, it looks like adults playing dress up in clothes that don't really capture who they are.

PIN UP
Same issue with the women not looking like they really wear any of this stuff or would really pose like this naturally. It's like women pretending to be little girls, sorry that sounds bad, and pin up should be more about coming across as the woman next door, not the little girl. There's like no sex appeal, for me anyway. I think it's an issue with the posing and instructions. I would look even more at pin ups and think a bit harder about what actually makes them sexy.

Another issue that makes these not as authentic is the retouching, post work. I can sometimes see where you cut them out very clearly. Pin ups have more of an old timey look to them, these seem sharp and like pieces of things were cut and thrown into things. Don't get me wrong, I can see that you are very creative, that you plan things out, that you have big ideas, that you put a lot of work into what you do. I just feel that you can get better work by adjusting a few things.

PORTRAITURE
I don't love these. The first, the flash is very obvious, the rest look like they were cut out of bigger pictures to fit into being a portrait. More needs to go into your composition and again, the retouching.

UNASSIGNED
Same issues as before, composition, retouching, outfit choices, backgrounds

BW
Same issues but the outfits seem ok

I hope this helps. Sorry if I seem harsh. I hope you understand where I am coming from with my feedback.

Shadow Dancer wrote:
Please and thank you!

Ok so first, what camera are you using? I am noticing noise in images that don't need to be noisy. The stage stuff I understand but the image of the girl with the pink/red hat or the girl with the statues shouldn't be. A lot of your images are actually noisy which makes me wonder if you always shoot under very dark conditions or your settings aren't what they should be. It makes your images look dated. If you told me these were taken in the late 90's or early 2000's I would be like ok I get it. Is this on purpose? If it is, then disregard what I just said lol.

I do like that there is a sense of fun to your images. Love the splash picture. How serious are you about photography though? Because from these it seems that sometimes you wanna be taken seriously and sometimes you just wanna do whatever. It comes across as the portfolio of someone that is in college still learning and growing and deciding how serious they want to be in the field. Hope this helps.

YAJHILPHOTO wrote:
Ok so first, what camera are you using? I am noticing grain in images that don't need to be grainy. The stage stuff I understand but the image of the girl with the pink/red hat or the girl with the statues shouldn't be grainy. A lot of your images are actually grainy which makes me wonder if you always shoot under very dark conditions or your settings aren't what they should be. It makes your images look dated. If you told me these were taken in the late 90's or early 2000's I would be like ok I get it. Is this on purpose? If it is, then disregard what I just said lol.

I do like that there is a sense of fun to your images. Love the splash picture. How serious are you though about photography though? Because from these it seems that sometimes you wanna be taken seriously and sometimes you just wanna do whatever. It comes across as the portfolio of someone that is in college still learning and growing and deciding how serious they want to be in the field. Hope this helps.

First, thank you for saying what you really think and feel, we don't always get real critique here and it is valuable.

I've always had poor vision - very nearsighted. In a way my photography represents the fact that I see things differently than those with sharp vision. I was born an multi-media artist with diverse interests, photography is one of them.

The posted photos span decades 1986 to August 2019. All of the black and white images are film, the 2 nudes in front of the manniquin storefront is a double exposure that was staged in downtown Fresno - hit and Run!!!
10 of the images were shot with film cameras. The color images are both 35mm and medium format, slide and negative film depending. Tools for expression, they do different things.
There was a time when I wanted to explore film grain - in particular black and white because it was easy to develop and to create new "terrible" ways to get more grain. The girl with the statues was shot with Agfachrome 1000 on 35mm. I underexposed and had the film "pushed" to increase the grain. You might like it better if you could see a print, the internet suggests the effect pretty well though. So yes, a style I was exploring. 3 of the 10 film images were grain experiements.

The girl with the red hat and gloves was taken with an older Sony "prosumer" camera - good lens but even ISO 200 started getting noise. There were 3 "home depot lights" bounced off of white foam core, not enough light to put the ISO down to 100. That is noise, not grain and I would have preferred it wasn't there but I like the image. The grotesquely noisy nude was a very early Photoshop experiment from about 1992. Due to unfortunate circumstances it is the only image left from a shoot with a friend, it reminds me of her. 

I did take 60 units of photography in college. Commercial, archetectural, portraiture, experimental, I got all A's except for 1 B in PhotoJournalism. I stuck around as a lab assistant and moved into Photoshop on version 1.07. I lab assisted those clasess for a few years as well. I also printed Type R from transparencies in all formats, custom B+W prints, ran 1 hour photo labs, etc. So I do have a solid background in the topic.

I like fun. A friend once said "people will applaud out of politeness but if you can make them laugh, you got 'em." So true.
I also ran tons of film for law enforcement and medial. You name it, I've seen it. That changed the way I look at images forever. It influenced a rather dark sense of humor too.

We are all different, I find myself playing music, writing songs, collaborating creatively in that realm. I LOVE that, did before I got into photography and at this point I mostly photograph items I want to sell. The commercial class helped for that.

I love the raw spontaneity. I play rock, country, blues, "jazzy" (not fluent with jazz and respect it too much to pretend!), reggae, funk, metal, punk, folk styles on guitar, bass, slide, banjo and so forth.

It seems to be inherent in my character to want to explore different ways of creating. It's a hobby, not something I am using as an income stream other than the sales pix. I appreciate your critique! Cheers, SD

Shadow Dancer wrote:
I've always had poor vision - very nearsighted. In a way my photography represents the fact that I see things differently than those with sharp vision. I was born an multi-media artist with diverse interests, photography is one of them.

The posted photos span decades 1986 to August 2019. All of the black and white images are film, the 2 nudes in front of the manniquin storefront is a double exposure that was staged in downtown Fresno - hit and Run!!!
10 of the images were shot with film cameras. The color images are both 35mm and medium format, slide and negative film depending. Tools for expression, they do different things.
There was a time when I wanted to explore film grain - in particular black and white because it was easy to develop and to create new "terrible" ways to get more grain. The girl with the statues was shot with Agfachrome 1000 on 35mm. I underexposed and had the film "pushed" to increase the grain. You might like it better if you could see a print, the internet suggests the effect pretty well though. So yes, a style I was exploring. 3 of the 10 film images were grain experiements.

The girl with the red hat and gloves was taken with an older Sony "prosumer" camera - good lens but even ISO 200 started getting noise. There were 3 "home depot lights" bounced off of white foam core, not enough light to put the ISO down to 100. That is noise, not grain and I would have preferred it wasn't there but I like the image. The grotesquely noisy nude was a very early Photoshop experiment from about 1992. Due to unfortunate circumstances it is the only image left from a shoot with a friend, it reminds me of her. 

I did take 60 units of photography in college. Commercial, archetectural, portraiture, experimental, I got all A's except for 1 B in PhotoJournalism. I stuck around as a lab assistant and moved into Photoshop on version 1.07. I lab assisted those clasess for a few years as well. I also printed Type R from transparencies in all formats, custom B+W prints, ran 1 hour photo labs, etc. So I do have a solid background in the topic.

I like fun. A friend once said "people will applaud out of politeness but if you can make them laugh, you got 'em." So true.
I also ran tons of film for law enforcement and medial. You name it, I've seen it. That changed the way I look at images forever. It influenced a rather dark sense of humor too.

We are all different, I find myself playing music, writing songs, collaborating creatively in that realm. I LOVE that, did before I got into photography and at this point I mostly photograph items I want to sell. The commercial class helped for that.

I love the raw spontaneity. I play rock, country, blues, "jazzy" (not fluent with jazz and respect it too much to pretend!), reggae, funk, metal, punk, folk styles on guitar, bass, slide, banjo and so forth.

It seems to be inherent in my character to want to explore different ways of creating. It's a hobby, not something I am using as an income stream other than the sales pix. I appreciate your critique! Cheers, SD

Thanks for sharing! Edited my feedback to say noise lol.

Jerry Nemeth wrote:
I welcome your opinion.

Hi there. Ok so your choice of models is great and the locations are great. Compositions tend to be good. My issue is that you seem to miss focus often, almost like the camera is back focusing a bit. Second, some of your use of flash is very obvious, like I can immediately see it specially in the outdoor shots. Third, as stated the models are great. However, their poses and facial expressions are not usually fully there. I feel like if you manage to pull more out of them the shots would be much better. Lastly, some of the backgrounds shouldn't be so in focus because they really distract from the models. I see the potential, you have access to all the right elements, I just feel like you need to refine things more and keep pushing yourself. Oh and retouching, it's fine and clean but the pictures would pop more with more contrast and a little extra polish. I see all the elements right there, easily accessible for you.

YAJHILPHOTO wrote:

Oh you lol. I honestly went in expecting to say the same stuff I always say to you, but color me surprised! Just to refresh your memory, I said that I really liked the craziness of all the nudes with the wild poses and super bright exposure but that I wanted to see more because it was all too similar. Well I see that's changed!

Let's start with all the clothed ones. Your posing is never an issue, it's excellent. I would prefer to not see so many shadows because they can become distracting. That or lighten them up so they aren't so harsh? Maybe you want super dark shadows, I don't really know. My preference would be to make them less prominent so the pictures are more about the models.

By the way, I do like the idea of people wearing fancy clothes but still being explicit in some way. It's like a fun f u to society and what behavior is deemed appropriate. I would get a huge kick out of you creating scenes, like someone at a dinner party or getting into a car with no top on or something out there. Might as well take it up a notch lol.

The nudity I already talked about. Some of the outdoor clothed stuff could be better lit, and I noticed a few, older, out of focus moments but that doesn't seem to be an issue for you now. I feel like you take your skill set seriously and seem to be working on improving as any good photographer should.

Hi Yajhil,
I like my shadows. To me, they are a second character in the frame. I technically define style in lighting as: Where you put your shadows.

I glad you like my semi-clothed. I've actually been doing that for years. I guess I didn't post much here.

I should probably edit my port down. It is excessive, but I'm too sentimental to delete. Hence earlier, less polished work.

And lastly, yes. there is a progression. There were stylistic changes in 2012, in 2014, 2015, and 2017, all because of technical improvements. My taste in framing has also changed quite a bit.

Thanks and stay safe!

LONDON Photo Art wrote:
You have photos a bit better than mine, so I don't expect any praise, but I would be happy for the cc if you still have time to give some.

However, I'm actually only particularly happy with some of my images... I need to go in and cull out a bunch. Could I get feedback specifically on this subset? (Instagram included because I don't keep my port here too up-to-date.)

https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/46063435
https://www.instagram.com/p/B7SB2pIJMiw/
https://www.instagram.com/p/B7AMQw9pGxp/
https://www.instagram.com/p/B5l6DCEpM_d/
https://www.instagram.com/p/B2iW2sDpjW2/
https://www.instagram.com/p/Bzwgbq8pDLz/
https://www.instagram.com/p/BwfXBXJn-dy/
https://www.instagram.com/p/BthS6ZYnC1k/

Thanks in advance.

My photos are aiming for an artistic look. There is zero photoshop in most, which I feel is currently my biggest shortcoming.

Hi there. Alright.

THE NEWEST WORK PORT (ON MM)
So you understand lighting and you for sure have an eye for photography. You are talented in my opinion. For these, I would say that you should watch a few things. First, some of the feet on the standing shots are very close to the bottom of the frame. Give yourself a little more room when shooting those. Also, the shot of the model on the beach, Irena, her face is totally not there so it takes me out of the shot. The one of Amanda on the wood floor is great but her expression is just ok. I'm not saying that all shots must have models looking at the camera, just that the way she is looking down doesn't work for me and having her look at the camera in that instance would've been more impact-full (in my opinion). The one in the "fog" is amazing. Honestly, you have a good eye for locations and you come across as creative. I would say just make sure to always get what you need from models. Also, maybe work on composition more. You don't always have to show full body, and when you crop, watch where you do it. For example, the pictures of Angelica are nice but that is a ton of space around her which makes her seem not as important unnecessarily. I tend to not shoot too many full body shots though, this could be because of my personal preference, but I find full body shots often boring. There has to be something really cool going on for me to do it. I feel like if those had been shot closer and more personal, she would've popped a lot more. Lastly, some of these are a tiny bit out of focus. Just something to keep in mind.

INSTAGRAM WORK
https://www.instagram.com/p/B7SB2pIJMiw/ - Quality is amazing but notice the awkwardness in some of her facial expressions and poses. Something that would help greatly, at least here, would be to tell the model to part her lips just little bit. There is a lot of tension in the mouth area. That's why the 3rd picture looks better when it comes to her face. The last image the pose is a bit weird and her face with her eyes closed like that make it look like an outtake and like she wasn't ready for the shot.

https://www.instagram.com/p/B7AMQw9pGxp/ - Really nice and full body here looks great because the background is interesting but doesn't upstage the model. Is the first one slightly not in focus or is that Instagram making the image lose quality?

https://www.instagram.com/p/B5l6DCEpM_d/ - Great but his face is not there. His expression is calm but I feel like this action shot calls for more than that.

https://www.instagram.com/p/Bzwgbq8pDLz/ - Very interesting visually. Like the black and white. Maybe slightly not in focus or is this instagram again?

I already gave feedback on the fog and it's still awesome.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BthS6ZYnC1k/ - Could've worked but the shirt spreading down so much makes the image look messy. Maybe tying the shirt back or clamping it would've made this better when it comes to the visual lines.

So basically, in summary, it mostly comes down to the expressions you are getting from models, little tiny details, maybe focus, messing around a little more with composition specially taking closer shots, and I think that's it. Your stuff is very polished for minimal Photoshop so I wouldn't worry about that too much. I'm usually the person yelling at people to use anything to polish their work a little more but no, I don't see anything wrong with the amount of work you put into things (at least that I can tell from the small images). Keep up the great work! You for sure are a professional but we can all learn and grow. Hope this extremely long rant helps.

Jorge Kreimer wrote:
Hi Yajhil,
I like my shadows. To me, they are a second character in the frame. I technically define style in lighting as: Where you put your shadows.

I glad you like my semi-clothed. I've actually been doing that for years. I guess I didn't post much here.

I should probably edit my port down. It is excessive, but I'm too sentimental to delete. Hence earlier, less polished work.

And lastly, yes. there is a progression. There were stylistic changes in 2012, in 2014, 2015, and 2017, all because of technical improvements. My taste in framing has also changed quite a bit.

Thanks and stay safe!

Yeah for sure. It's all about what you like in the end. I haven't really been on as much in the past few years since this place turned a tad too toxic for me. I haven't seen much of anyone's work for awhile. I'm glad to see you living your best life!  Stay safe!

LONDON Photo Art wrote:
Thank you for the feedback.

I actually do highly value good facial expressions from models, and find that when I'm working with less-experienced models, it doesn't seem to be something I can teach.

My problem is that the models who are really good at facial expressions tend to charge $100/hr or more. I do shoot with those on occasion, but not often.

Got any tips on how to find models who can give good expressions, without breaking the bank?

So far all photos in my port/instagram I have either paid the model, or shot TFP, in order to a) Practice more and increase my skill, and b) Develop my port. (In other words, I don't have a paying client.) So it's expensive, and I find myself trying to find models who shoot trade when I can. But often this means less experience. I'm decent at helping less experienced models pose, but not much good at helping them with their facial expressions. (And yes, I do ask them to breathe through their mouth. ;-)

Do you shoot with agency models, doing tests? I've attempted that and seemed to have initial interest, but then never any follow-up. I'm not sure if my instagram scares them away (too many scantily-clad women?) or what. But I feel like if I could start working with high-level agencies, it would change my game.

And yes -- I've actually struggled with camera focus for years. I've tried calibrating my lenses, even taking them to the repair shop.... trying 'back button focus' versus continuous vs. non-continuous... tried the 'more accurate' focus points in the middle vs. the outer edges.... nothing seems to help. If I use my Nikkor 85mm 1.4f, I can fire 3 shots in a row -- all exactly the same -- and maybe 1 of the 3 will be focus, the other 2 will miss. It's incredibly frustrating. I've wondered if switching to mirrorless --- with eye AF  -- might help.

Ok so I lived in Los Angeles from 2011 till 2014. Super hated it BUT I extremely miss being there only because of all the options I used to get for TF shoots. I tried going the modeling agency route once while there and that was sort of a mess because the agency, even though they stated they liked my work, they were on power trip and started telling me exactly how they like their pictures shot. I tried for like 2 shoots and then I realized it was too limiting. It could only be a clean background, preferably a wall, preferably white or a calm color, minimal makeup, clothes like this. No thanks.

I was only successful when I decided to try out Central Casting which is for actors. If you go into my port, 99% of them are actors and about 80% came from Central Casting for a TF shoot. When I would create a casting call, each time I would get about 100 submissions and about 8 would be perfect for what I needed. Some people that submitted had submitted before, but the options were often fresh. I would say I was a casting director as my title, because they didn't have photographer as an option at the time, BUT I would list that I was the photographer, that I was doing a TF shoot to keep my portfolio fresh, I would explain what a TF shoot is, and then I would say for your time you will get 2 headshots of your choice and about 4 modeling images of my choice retouched and ready to use via dropbox. Actors love headshots, so if you offer them some of those, and modeling images they can use for their instagram or whatever, they are in. In my entire life I have never had to pay anyone. This isn't a brag, It's me saying that they see the value in my work and I see the value in photographing them. And from looking at your work, people will jump at the chance. I had TWO models drive to Laguna Beach, on the same day for back to back tf shoots, from Los Angeles and you know how much people complain about travelling anywhere past 15 minutes there lol. There is a certain amount of dedication level there for sure.

So now this goes into the issue of working with people that might have no experience modeling. I found that about 70% of them did have some idea of what to do in front of the camera, enough for me to guide them somewhere easily. One of them was the best model I have ever had because I said NOTHING to her the entire time. It was insane. The rest were a struggle BUT I got very good at directing them to the point where I no longer have issues with anyone (knock on wood). So here is what I do, If the person is not good with facial expressions at all, and I mean AT ALL no matter what I ask them to express, I will say something like, "the facial expression is not there yet, come look so you can see what's happening". I will the show them on camera a couple of shots and they always understand what I mean. Not once has a person been like "no I look awesome".

After that I will give them a few to see if they adjust, and if they don't, I will start directing every single thing. I will say ok chin down, and if they don't listen I will continue to say chin down in a nice way till they do. Then tilt your head this way, usually I will do it myself with my head. If they look uncomfortable at this point I will say ok don't tense up and often I will do or say something stupid to make them see that if I'm ok with looking stupid, which they are often afraid they do since they can't see themselves, it's ok for them to look stupid too.

If they also can't pose I will guide them in the same way. Sometimes I run out of ideas, and they can't think of anything either, so I will say ok let's google some poses together and then we do and that gives them more confidence because they can quickly see what I want them to do. Then we can take that pose as it is or adjust it. I know it sounds like a lot but once you do it, it actually becomes one of the fun parts of shooting because the shoot becomes super collaborative and easy once they see that I am trying my hardest to give them good images.

As far as focus goes, I had issues with focus for years. I used to own the Canon 70D, a super defective one, and for years I tried to get Canon to replace it. Took 3 years. But during that time that's the camera I was using in Los Angeles. Out of about 200 shots, 150+ would be out of focus whenever I did anything hand held. So to calm that down, I started using a tripod for everything and then I got like 30 more in focus than usual which is still terrible lol.  It was a freaking mess. I went from shooting film and easily and accurately focusing manually with no issues to all digital and having so many problems. I then started using a Canon 6D which is what I use now. It didn't have the issues of the other one but I noticed that if I went under 1/300 shutter I didn't have much luck with focus. So I again turned to my tripod. Once I did that, out of 200 shots maybe 10 would be out of focus. It was a huge difference.

By the way, I also tried using an Imagine Stabilizing lens while hand holding and that didn't seem to make things that much better. My next goal, because I do want to get back to hand holding, is to get the new Canon Camera that is going to hopefully come out in July or August because it has in body IS and then I want to match it with IS lenses to see how I fair with that. It's been a struggle for me too. It took me years to find something that yielded better results but tripods are constraining. Also, you can't go around LA using a tripod everywhere because you can get in trouble without a permit. I got away with it because I mainly shot in DTLA in the arts district and nobody was checking crap there. I mean I did about 2 different shoots with girls in bikinis on the sidewalk and like 4 different shoots with guys in their underwear there too and no one bothered me. There are ways to be sneaky if need be to keep the cost of the shoot almost at 0.

And yeah, I have also spent a ton of time micro-adjusting and I rarely saw a difference that made me go WOW. It never really took care of the issue. I have 20/13 vision which is better than 20/20 and the amount of people that tried to chalk up my issue on my eye-sight is crazy. That or maybe I'm too shaky, don't have the hand holding technique right even though I studied photo in HS and College and have been doing this for ages. It's so easy to blame people and make them feel insane when often these camera manufacturers do have issues with things and don't acknowledge that they do.  So for now, tripods are my friends. I hope getting the mirror-less camera I'm planning on will make a difference. I hope this was somewhat informative.

Garry k wrote:
Please

Have a look at my IG ( which is linked to in my bio ) as it contains newer werk

Thanks

Hi Garry k. So I have seen your work on here throughout the years and even gave you feedback before. I have to say that I do see some of the same focusing issues still surfacing. It's been a long time of me and everyone on here pointing this out. I wish you would tackle that or at least not use pictures if they are out of focus because it takes you down a notch on how people view your skill set.

Also, while I do see that you finally decided to start using some photoshop, the photoshop I see is not as well-executed as it could be, or so minimal the image still looks raw in a way that it still needs work.

You have good models, good poses, the outfits are nice, compositions are decent with the exception of maybe a few odd crops here and there, lighting is fine, and facial expressions on the models seem fine too for the most part. My issue is that you seem to have gotten a tad stuck at the same place for awhile now. A lot of these pictures that you say are new I have been seeing you post and repost for I wanna say longer than 5 years. I want the best for you, and for everyone on here unless you are a monster then screw you lol, but there comes a time when you have to sit yourself down and be honest with yourself.

If you DO think you have an issue with focus, do you want to fix it? If so, what steps have you taken to address it and what steps have you not? Also, do you want to continue to not retouch your images to their full potential or is it a matter of not having the energy to do so? Perhaps it's more of a lack of confidence to try to learn? You don't have to answer these questions for me, you should answer these for you. In my opinion, again this is just my opinion, you could be a much better photographer if you followed through with this stuff. I hope this helps in some way.

Garry k wrote:
Thank You for taking the time Sir - and your feedback for London was helpful to me as well

I have friends in Irvine and have thought that Laguna might be a place I would like to settle at for a bit - to do some photography ...So I  am wondering why You have hated it so ( besides it being somewhat overpriced - but I am hearing that it is cheaper than LA now )

I acknowledge that i have had some focusing or sharpness issues with some of my work . And that is probably due to the fact that I have stayed using my Rebel and 17 to 85 lens over the years . I am a Canon Lover and have thought of upgrading - so it is discouraging for me to hear that even the better Canons have issues in this area . Lately i have started to think about taking a jump to Sony

As I am a non commercial ( hobbyist ) photographer - my thing is to shoot ( mainly ) agency calibre Models in my style . Sometimes this can be done directly with the Model ( without the Agency involved ) but sometimes not . In the past 6 months or so ( pre virus ) I have had to deal with 3 Agencies in my area in order to shoot with Models I sought to work with )  2 of the Agencies were lower tier and immediately gave me the green light upon review my IG . however 1 of the Agencies ( probably the top Agency in my City ) told me that my work was fine but they  would have to review the work of my MUA . Hairstylist and Wardrobe Stylist before giving me the ok to shoot with their Model ....( so the fact that i generally use a certain makeup counter at a local dept store for my shoots . have the model take care of their own hair . and style my shoots own shoots in conjunction with the Model - did not cut it with them ) Focusing ( with respect to my newer work ) did not appear to be an issue in their eyes

Could it be that some PHotographers are too focused on focusing ?

I have thought MANY times about switching away from Canon. I tried a few Nikon cameras but I wasn't wowed honestly. And Sony I haven't really tried much. In general I have spent more than a hundred plus hours watching videos about different cameras and how they stack up against each other and most of them came to the conclusion, that while some focus better than others, there's not a vast difference between the newer models. Meaning, with one I might get 50 more shots in focus than with the other, which isn't blowing my mind and quality-wise they are usually on par. I personally want to take the step of getting the Canon R5 because of the video capabilities, the new lenses and lens format, the in body IS, and just because I feel that this will be the right one for me to upgrade to. The price tag is a bit yikes but I want to feel like I am investing more in myself. Who knows though, it might not be all that either. Let's see what happens as tech advances.

And I never lived in Laguna. I lived in Koreatown in Los Angeles but I once rented a car for fun and decided I wanted to do a shoot in Laguna Beach. My point was that it was very easy for me to get people to do the long drive because actors really want the pictures unlike in other places where they are like "I want FREE pictures AND I want you to pay me AND I want you to retouch 20 plus images that all look the exact same! Do it or I walk!". That's not the attitude I dealt with really.

As for why I hated living there here are my thoughts. Los Angeles is a place that people move to because they want to be seen as someone else. They want to create this other person. They want to be adored and seen. And a lot of people that are like that will do almost anything to get there. So while I lived there and did photoshoots and worked a little as a songwriter, people would try to sleep with me or be fake friends with me because in their mind I had some kind of power that could get them closer to their goals. The thing is that I'm not like that, I'm very professional so I knew not to fall for certain things. As a result, after my years there I left with no friends and I never had any real friends there either. And I think this is more about the people that move to Los Angeles, not so much towards the people that are from there.

Another thing is that the weather never changes. Most of the time it was too hot for me, the sun was always beaming and burning my skin, it rained 3 times during the 3 or 3 and a half years I was there. It got cool for like a week once a year. I'm a person that once in while wants hard rain hitting my window and wants some seasonal changes for visual stimulation and change of scenery. It was all the same all the time and I couldn't stand it. I'm sure that maybe if I had pushed myself to dive deeper into the LA lifestyle I could've masked my dislike of it through creativity for a few more years but I would've ended up leaving eventually anyway. I only miss the ease of which I could find models to work with. That's it. I was so unhappy there I started experiencing shakes and I had to have a scan to check for MS. It turned out to be stress that apparently I was suppressing super hard. Took me moving back to realize what the issue was. Laguna was very pretty by the way, I can see the appeal, but there's only so much to do there. It depends on your personality type and what you enjoy. Just because I had my reactions because things didn't suit me doesn't mean you will feel the same.

As for focusing, when I was studying it was a big deal to focus correctly, on the correct eye, on the correct thing to draw your eye to it. It was drilled into us. And me having such good vision, and having been taught that way, it's hard for me to give a pass on poor focus because I see it as a distraction and as a negative. However, do you know how many times I have gone out to a store and seen an ad that is out of focus or retouched terribly? A ton. And it pisses me off because in my mind I have been trying so hard to be a good photographer then there are people out here making a ton of money, not following any rules, and getting away with it because they know someone, they can sell themselves or maybe they are being hired by people that don't know anything about photography or don't really care. So when I give feedback on these things, it's based on what I learned and because I still see what I learned as being helpful. Because, let's say you have to take a macro shot of fabric so that people see the details or the pattern or whatever, which one is going to give them that information best? An out of focus imagine or a sharp one? Now let's talk about people. If eye connection is important, do you think an out of focus picture of an eye will demand attention the same way as an out of focus one? There are reasons why out of focus things sometimes work better than in focus, like if you want to convey motion. But if one picture is sharp of a woman standing there selling the dress she is wearing and the next one of that same woman is out of focus yet she is doing the same exact thing, is that a lack of being able to focus OR is it an artistic choice?  I think most people would be able to say the photographer just missed focus and that would be seen as an error. Now how important that is boils down to how important you think it is and how important the client thinks it is.

Lastly, modeling agencies. That again comes to personal taste. I have had a few agencies reach out to me, asking if I want to shoot some of their models, then I look at their models and I am not interested at all. I mean like zero percent. And not only that, but in my eyes some of the portfolios they put together for their models are only doing a disservice to them. On the other hand, I'm sure some will look at my work and think it's terrible. We all have opinions and preferences. In the end what really matters most is how you value yourself, how you view your work and if your work is taking you were you want to go.

Damn it, one more thing. Out of all my TF shoots, I think only one had a makeup and hair person involved. A lot of hair and makeup people, when I started anyway, wanted to get paid for TF shoots and I didn't have the money so I stopped looking. I then realized how easy it was to tell models to do their own hair and makeup and to come to the shoot with things to do touch ups if need be. Most women know how to do their hair and makeup and those that don't just show up with minimal makeup, or go get it done for free at counters or ask for help from their friends. Only once did I have a person show up with the worst makeup job I have ever seen in my life, and that was a paying client. She must have had like 3 different skin tones going on. It was a disaster to fix but I got it done and she was extremely happy in the end. In general, for TF shoots, I always recommend minimal makeup unless I have something extreme in mind. That's worked for me to save money and it also saves the models money. Working with minimal makeup in photoshop is very easy. If anything hair is the annoying part but tell them to bring a brush and just double check every like 5 minutes to make sure the hair isn't doing something wild. With guys I just tell them no makeup and the hair is pretty much a non-issue.

God I have been writing so much hahahaha. Sorry I think this quarantine is really bringing out the chatty in me. I hope this helps.

Wandering Eyebubble wrote:
Why not?

MM port represents shoots in chronological order up to a year ago (avatar excepted).

Hi there! Ok so first thing I noticed is that your models seem to trust you. That alone is a huge plus because being naked with a stranger is not the easiest of things. Focus seems to be good for most of the shots even in low light situations with a few exceptions that I'm sure you can see yourself. I would say my biggest issue is with the ideas and execution. For example, you have a few naked women at a library/study/whatever it is. Having access to a room like that is HUGE and not an easy find! However, in my opinion you are not doing much with it. You seem to be confused about what it is that you are going for. Why is there a nude woman standing next to books? Is her outfit really selling this idea that she is a sexy librarian? Also, why are some of these women sitting or standing there nude, with their hands chained, with nothing else going on?

For me, if you want to do bondage kind of stuff then REALLY go for it. If you want something more Playboy oriented at the library then do that! If you want to send a statement about how women are viewed as sex slaves, put more artistic flair into it. My issue right now is that in all your work, it seems to me like you haven't made up your mind about how to execute what you are trying to say. It's missing a stronger voice and a stronger eye. That would be what I would recommend you focus on the most right now. Hope this helps!

YAJHILPHOTO wrote:
and I noticed a few, older, out of focus moments but that doesn't seem to be an issue for you now.

Sharpness is a bourgeois concept.

YAJHILPHOTO wrote:
I have thought MANY times about switching away from Canon. I tried a few Nikon cameras but I wasn't wowed honestly. And Sony I haven't really tried much. In general I have spent more than a hundred plus hours watching videos about different cameras and how they stack up against each other and most of them came to the conclusion, that while some focus better than others, there's not a vast difference between the newer models. Meaning, with one I might get 50 more shots in focus than with the other, which isn't blowing my mind and quality-wise they are usually on par. I personally want to take the step of getting the Canon R5 because of the video capabilities, the new lenses and lens format, the in body IS, and just because I feel that this will be the right one for me to upgrade to. The price tag is a bit yikes but I want to feel like I am investing more in myself. Who knows though, it might not be all that either. Let's see what happens as tech advances.

And I never lived in Laguna. I lived in Koreatown in Los Angeles but I once rented a car for fun and decided I wanted to do a shoot in Laguna Beach. My point was that it was very easy for me to get people to do the long drive because actors really want the pictures unlike in other places where they are like "I want FREE pictures AND I want you to pay me AND I want you to retouch 20 plus images that all look the exact same! Do it or I walk!". That's not the attitude I dealt with really.

As for why I hated living there here are my thoughts. Los Angeles is a place that people move to because they want to be seen as someone else. They want to create this other person. They want to be adored and seen. And a lot of people that are like that will do almost anything to get there. So while I lived there and did photoshoots and worked a little as a songwriter, people would try to sleep with me or be fake friends with me because in their mind I had some kind of power that could get them closer to their goals. The thing is that I'm not like that, I'm very professional so I knew not to fall for certain things. As a result, after my years there I left with no friends and I never had any real friends there either. And I think this is more about the people that move to Los Angeles, not so much towards the people that are from there.

Another thing is that the weather never changes. Most of the time it was too hot for me, the sun was always beaming and burning my skin, it rained 3 times during the 3 or 3 and a half years I was there. It got cool for like a week once a year. I'm a person that once in while wants hard rain hitting my window and wants some seasonal changes for visual stimulation and change of scenery. It was all the same all the time and I couldn't stand it. I'm sure that maybe if I had pushed myself to dive deeper into the LA lifestyle I could've masked my dislike of it through creativity for a few more years but I would've ended up leaving eventually anyway. I only miss the ease of which I could find models to work with. That's it. I was so unhappy there I started experiencing shakes and I had to have a scan to check for MS. It turned out to be stress that apparently I was suppressing super hard. Took me moving back to realize what the issue was. Laguna was very pretty by the way, I can see the appeal, but there's only so much to do there. It depends on your personality type and what you enjoy. Just because I had my reactions because things didn't suit me doesn't mean you will feel the same.

As for focusing, when I was studying it was a big deal to focus correctly, on the correct eye, on the correct thing to draw your eye to it. It was drilled into us. And me having such good vision, and having been taught that way, it's hard for me to give a pass on poor focus because I see it as a distraction and as a negative. However, do you know how many times I have gone out to a store and seen an ad that is out of focus or retouched terribly? A ton. And it pisses me off because in my mind I have been trying so hard to be a good photographer then there are people out here making a ton of money, not following any rules, and getting away with it because they know someone, they can sell themselves or maybe they are being hired by people that don't know anything about photography or don't really care. So when I give feedback on these things, it's based on what I learned and because I still see what I learned as being helpful. Because, let's say you have to take a macro shot of fabric so that people see the details or the pattern or whatever, which one is going to give them that information best? An out of focus imagine or a sharp one? Now let's talk about people. If eye connection is important, do you think an out of focus picture of an eye will demand attention the same way as an out of focus one? There are reasons why out of focus things sometimes work better than in focus, like if you want to convey motion. But if one picture is sharp of a woman standing there selling the dress she is wearing and the next one of that same woman is out of focus yet she is doing the same exact thing, is that a lack of being able to focus OR is it an artistic choice?  I think most people would be able to say the photographer just missed focus and that would be seen as an error. Now how important that is boils down to how important you think it is and how important the client thinks it is.

Lastly, modeling agencies. That again comes to personal taste. I have had a few agencies reach out to me, asking if I want to shoot some of their models, then I look at their models and I am not interested at all. I mean like zero percent. And not only that, but in my eyes some of the portfolios they put together for their models are only doing a disservice to them. On the other hand, I'm sure some will look at my work and think it's terrible. We all have opinions and preferences. In the end what really matters most is how you value yourself, how you view your work and if your work is taking you were you want to go.

Damn it, one more thing. Out of all my TF shoots, I think only one had a makeup and hair person involved. A lot of hair and makeup people, when I started anyway, wanted to get paid for TF shoots and I didn't have the money so I stopped looking. I then realized how easy it was to tell models to do their own hair and makeup and to come to the shoot with things to do touch ups if need be. Most women know how to do their hair and makeup and those that don't just show up with minimal makeup, or go get it done for free at counters or ask for help from their friends. Only once did I have a person show up with the worst makeup job I have ever seen in my life, and that was a paying client. She must have had like 3 different skin tones going on. It was a disaster to fix but I got it done and she was extremely happy in the end. In general, for TF shoots, I always recommend minimal makeup unless I have something extreme in mind. That's worked for me to save money and it also saves the models money. Working with minimal makeup in photoshop is very easy. If anything hair is the annoying part but tell them to bring a brush and just double check every like 5 minutes to make sure the hair isn't doing something wild. With guys I just tell them no makeup and the hair is pretty much a non-issue.

God I have been writing so much hahahaha. Sorry I think this quarantine is really bringing out the chatty in me. I hope this helps.

Thank You for taking the time to write such a substantive response

Yes I wonder how I would fare both socially and economically if i were to relocate there or even take an extended visit there ( LA ) While i am pretty secure here - Not certain if i would be there

I am drawn to the warmth - but like yourself i cant stand too much heat

I feel though that at this point in my photography - the biggest thing that i could gain from is learning to be a better natural light photographer .... And there is so much more Great Natural Light in Southern California than where i presently live

YAJHILPHOTO wrote:

Hi there. Ok so your choice of models is great and the locations are great. Compositions tend to be good. My issue is that you seem to miss focus often, almost like the camera is back focusing a bit. Second, some of your use of flash is very obvious, like I can immediately see it specially in the outdoor shots. Third, as stated the models are great. However, their poses and facial expressions are not usually fully there. I feel like if you manage to pull more out of them the shots would be much better. Lastly, some of the backgrounds shouldn't be so in focus because they really distract from the models. I see the potential, you have access to all the right elements, I just feel like you need to refine things more and keep pushing yourself. Oh and retouching, it's fine and clean but the pictures would pop more with more contrast and a little extra polish. I see all the elements right there, easily accessible for you.

Thanks for your critique!
The reason I use diffused flash is because for most of the images I am shooting in the Arizona desert in strong sun which has strong shadows without flash.

Jorge Kreimer wrote:
Sharpness is a bourgeois concept.

Well that's true about most things made by humans lol. We made all the rules and then we break them and fight over them if we don't like them. It goes on and on. Like, is sharp focus really that important during this time we are living in? Not at all. But still, I prefer things be in focus unless there is a reason I can understand for it not to be. Same can be applied to relationships, some people like blondes more, their same sex more, all sexes equally, whatever. Who is to say you HAVE to like this or that or believe in this religion or that one or live your life this way or that way? In reality there are no set in stone rules, but we all choose what we want to subscribe to based on our experiences and maybe the way we were built. So again, is focus THAT serious? No. Do I like it when I think it's needed? Hell yeah! Sh*t is hot hahaha.

Garry k wrote:
Thank You for taking the time to write such a substantive response

Yes I wonder how I would fare both socially and economically if i were to relocate there or even take an extended visit there ( LA ) While i am pretty secure here - it is uncertain if i would be there

I am drawn to the warmth - but like yourself i cant stand too much heat

I feel though that at this point in my photography - the biggest thing that i could gain from is learning to be a better natural light photographer .... And there is so much more Great Natural Light in Southern California than where i presently live

Yeah when I made the move I had visited LA once before, I drove around and took in the views, and I was like wow this is soooo different from the east coast. I thought it was for me. But at the time I didn't know myself well enough to know what I know now. But that's how we learn and grow. Think it over and if you wanna take the chance then go for it. Maybe you will love it! Many people do.

Jerry Nemeth wrote:
Thanks for your critique!
The reason I use diffused flash is because for most of the images I am shooting in the Arizona desert in strong sun which has strong shadows without flash.

Can you shoot more before sunrise or before sunset? Is that a possibility?

As for my issue with the flash use, let me give examples

https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/39714468

Was flash needed here? It feels like maybe you could've upped the ISO to like 400 or 800 and then shot at around F5.6 at whatever shutter speed worked as long as it was fast enough. I feel like the flash, and the outline shadow she is getting from it, weren't needed here.

Same here

https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/33153590

I can see there was a lot of light around her already. Do you have a large reflector you could use instead?

And then this

https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/37877930

Could you have bounced the light off the wall or the ceiling? Same goes for the nude of her. It really depends on the equipment you owned at the time. I can only judge based on what I see.

Same thing here

https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/38119171

Bouncing the flash more could've given this a different vibe UNLESS this and the previous one are just behind the scenes shots, but I dunno if they are.

YAJHILPHOTO wrote:
Why is there a nude woman standing next to books? Is her outfit really selling this idea that she is a sexy librarian?

I know, that one is a curious image. I shoot TF and so I try to mix it up, a few of my ideas, a few of the model's. In that case my stuff wasn't working at all, and while I wasn't thrilled about hers I tried to keep an open mind. In the end I think hers worked much better than the darker concept I had in mind:

https://www.reimeika.ca/page/portfolio? … pg&all

(I also loved her refreshingly pragmatic reasoning: "subscribers on OnlyFans really like this stuff!")

Also, why are some of these women sitting or standing there nude, with their hands chained, with nothing else going on?

I think because less is more. Also, I have zero budget

For me, if you want to do bondage kind of stuff then REALLY go for it. If you want something more Playboy oriented at the library then do that! If you want to send a statement about how women are viewed as sex slaves, put more artistic flair into it. My issue right now is that in all your work, it seems to me like you haven't made up your mind about how to execute what you are trying to say. It's missing a stronger voice and a stronger eye. That would be what I would recommend you focus on the most right now. Hope this helps!

Sometimes I'm pretty sure of what I want to say, other times not so much, but it's not my intention to spell it out either way. Saying "you need a stronger voice/eye" is just a platitude, it's really not saying anything at all. So I'm curious, what do you think is REALLY going for bondage kind of stuff?

YAJHILPHOTO wrote:
Well that's true about most things made by humans lol. We made all the rules and then we break them and fight over them if we don't like them. It goes on and on. Like, is sharp focus really that important during this time we are living in? Not at all. But still, I prefer things be in focus unless there is a reason I can understand for it not to be. Same can be applied to relationships, some people like blondes more, their same sex more, all sexes equally, whatever. Who is to say you HAVE to like this or that or believe in this religion or that one or live your life this way or that way? In reality there are no set in stone rules, but we all choose what we want to subscribe to based on our experiences and maybe the way we were built. So again, is focus THAT serious? No. Do I like it when I think it's needed? Hell yeah! Sh*t is hot hahaha.

I prefer my photography to be made according to Marxist dialectics, and ignore bourgeois constructs.