E-Session ....first time sharing anything

[ns134]

Hey guys,
This is my first time I'm sharing my work ever on the forums.
I did an E-session over the weekend and would like your feedback!!
This is only my second e-session, but I know I've grown since my first one.

[reader0428]

To me, e-sessions are all about emotion. I'm not feeling much emotion from most of these shots - in fact in several of them, they look kind of pissed. :) #6 is the only one where she looks remotely happy. (and not that you have to have big cheesy grins all the time either, but at least some emotion telling you they're in love...). I think most of these would have benefitted from a more shallow depth of field as well. #3 is probably my favorite in terms of composition - there are no distracting elements to take away from the couple. Just my $.02...

[spluloacle]

I was about to ask did they smile at ALL? LOL. I agree with Amanda. But I am not a pro.

[ChristopherCoy]

Why does she have to wear traditional garb, but he doesn't?

[ns134]

Thanks guys!!

Amanda, it was kinda hard to get true emotion out of them. There were times where I had to force them to come closer to each other. I guess I was so happy that I got them to get close, that I didn't bother to get them to smile when I took their picture. They are newly weds....very much in love...but publicly showing affection is not their thing.

Chris, it's actually pretty common to see the lady in traditional garb while the guy isn't. As for why they chose that to be the case for their session, I'm not really sure. lol

[ronocnikral]

that bridge is one of the better less known places for engagement pictures in houston. I feel, however, that you did a poor job with the location. highway signs in the background. parked cars in the background. it's hard to focus on the subjects. probably your best use of the location is #3 (although I don't care for the tilt) and #4. probably your worst use of the location is the last one, as I have to search for them. Here is an image we did at that same location. I'm not saying we're all that or that this image would win an award, but we clearly show what the session is about and where they are.

you also need to use flash, as their eye sockets are dark and/or they have horrible shadows on the rest of them.

working on lighting, making them smile (it's your job to bring the emotion out) and managing your background better are all things you could improve on imo.

[ns134]

Originally Posted by ronocnikral

that bridge is one of the better less known places for engagement pictures in houston. I feel, however, that you did a poor job with the location. highway signs in the background. parked cars in the background. it's hard to focus on the subjects. probably your best use of the location is #3 (although I don't care for the tilt) and #4. probably your worst use of the location is the last one, as I have to search for them. Here is an image we did at that same location. I'm not saying we're all that or that this image would win an award, but we clearly show what the session is about and where they are.

you also need to use flash, as their eye sockets are dark and/or they have horrible shadows on the rest of them.

working on lighting, making them smile (it's your job to bring the emotion out) and managing your background better are all things you could improve on imo.

Thank you for that feedback!

[lyncca]

Yes, you definitely need to use a flash or reflector and watch that sun flare. In these pictures it isn't flattering where it falls. Also, watch sun dappling (part sun, part shady spots on your subjects).

[ns134]

Question for either Lyncca or Conor....

I have a 430 exii which I obviously didn't use.

I see what you guys are saying for the shadows under the eyes...

In pic #2 for example....how would I place the flash (off camera of course) to get proper results?

[lyncca]

Actually you don't HAVE to go off camera if you are just wanting to add fill. I try to use an assistant for couples pictures because I want directional lighting, but if it is just to add a little light under their eyes, it isn't a big deal to use it on camera IMO. If I'm chasing kids around, I sure as heck am not going to mess with off camera lighting. ;)

[ns134]

Originally Posted by lyncca

Actually you don't HAVE to go off camera if you are just wanting to add fill. I try to use an assistant for couples pictures because I want directional lighting, but if it is just to add a little light under their eyes, it isn't a big deal to use it on camera IMO. If I'm chasing kids around, I sure as heck am not going to mess with off camera lighting. ;)

If i went with the flash (on or off camera), do you suggest using a small softbox to diffuse the light?

[lyncca]

BTW, I wrote a short article that covers this. In this case I was using off camera lighting, but you can see the difference the flash made.

Lighting & Exposure are More Important than Photoshop :) | Lyncca Harvey Photography

[lyncca]

Originally Posted by ns134

If i went with the flash (on or off camera), do you suggest using a small softbox to diffuse the light?

I usually bounce if I can or just use the straight flash if I absolutely have to, but yes a small softbox would certainly help. I'm going to get one too actually.

[ns134]

Originally Posted by lyncca

I usually bounce if I can or just use the straight flash if I absolutely have to, but yes a small softbox would certainly help. I'm going to get one too actually.

i absolutely hate using straight flash because of the harshness....unless i have been doing it wrong. But I will be buying a small softbox.

[lyncca]

Yea, it is pretty sucky. I will use the built-in flash bounce card most times if I can't bounce.

Also, for fill, you can turn down the flash. You don't need a lot of power for that.