[Soadiassy]

So I've had lots of ample time on my hands and playing PS3 can only occupy so much of it, so I was thinking about doing some work on my website.

Give any sort of critique you deem necessary, but try to be constructive. Feel free to talk about my shots too, regarding to order / if it should be in the gallery or what not.

Thanks, and don't be too harsh.

[JohnMitchel]

you've got some lovely work right there...
the portraits are really nice and professionally done imo, liked them all.

the landscapes are interesting, but the first shots of the beach at the beginning gave me a feeling of repetitiveness(omg it's a word). other than that it's well done.

I also love the layout of your website, user friendly and flowing.

nice work, and thanks for sharing![thumbup]

[RemiVedia]

Knocked off one of the beach shots, now there is only 2. Which I have to agree with you on that one.

Keep the comments coming.

[saruxanset]

I'll give your portfolio a quick look through, but it's going to be straight to the point... lol

People:

1. Stray hairs on the left piss me off
2. Would have been really good on white seamless instead of a gray background.
3. Pose isn't very flattering, looks like she's sticking out her lower jaw.
4. You clipped the blacks, no detail in the chair, ect.
5. Little clipped on her hat, and could use some skin smoothing if you want to make it great.
6. LOL, needs more contrast, it's too dull and grey, also the position of the arm across the stomach makes the girl on the right look heavier than I'm sure she is from a different angle.
7. Meh, it's just two girls kissing (wow, I am being blunt! [rofl]) Work on the B&W conversion and it would be wolds better IMO.
8. Pose for the girl on the right is bleh, on the left is good though. One on the right looks timid and scared, not what this image needs.
9. Great one.
10. I thought my monitor stand broke for a second there... Not a fan of ricer angles in pics... lol Looks like a nice shot horizontal though.

Looked though the places ones, but landscape/still life never really interestedd me, so eh? lol

On the things:

1. Needs more DOF, the spoon pisses me off.
2. The yellow/green seems a bit too saturated on the little leaves, other than that, the right side is so hot that my eyes get drawn twoard it, away from the flower.
3. Perfectly fine product shot. Did you do something to the front glass though in post?
4. Nice job controlling reflections on the bottle!

I might not be the best in the world, but at least I know what I like, and that's my rundown of your port, quick and dirty. Overall pretty good, but I like to knitpick (you won't get better if everyone keeps telling you, "Oh, they're so good, perfect!" ect...)

EDIT: Also, the background image on the main page of the site is cool and all, but the bottom half of the picture is mud, distracting and not really flattering toward the design.

[werkeeque]

Nothing?

[FelixQY]

All great comments, I don't really intend to re-shoot all that work, as, well its just too much work. My main concern was just the stuff regarding the actual site. Or maybe a few minor things that I might have other shots from a similar session.

2) I prefer the grey to a solid white, the little spot on the background to me gives a little more depth to just pure white.

3) This is actually one of my favorite of her poses. Slight tilt of the neck, all angular and lots of triangles.

4 / 5) Were defiantly clipped in blacks, pretty sure they were all clipped during shooting. Might be able to pull them back a bit in RAW.

Regarding the 'Kiss' pictures, I'll play with the B&W Conversations a bit, maybe lighten it up a bit more.

[Lerpenoaneway]

Black and white is pretty simple really, to have a good B&W image, you need to have a pure black, and a pure white... If you're got pure black on one end, and pure white on the other, you have every shade of gray between them, and as much tonal range as you can possibly have.

The conversion you have now is sort of dark gray to gray to light gray to almost white.

[esanamaserrn]

Yah, it wasn't a straight conversion. It was BW with a slight tone to it, JPG doesn't really display it all that well. Much better in print.

[singleGirl]

Well, if it doesn't display well digitally, don't choose it for your portfolio...

[itititit]

Everywhere I'm going showing my portfolio is a physical well... portfolio.

But I guess its not a bad idea to try to filter out some things that don't show well in low quality files.

[jabader]

Don't take it as I was just ripping on your shots though man, they're some good shots, and you know that, so I was just focusing on some of the places I thought could use some improvement.

[vansVoish]

JDM has given a pretty good critique of the portfolio that I can't particularly argue with. In terms of the site however the one thing that irritates me and I know will work to your detriment is the 'People, Places, Things' layout. The terms are too vague and whilst it seems like a good means of organising your images concisely it makes the site come across as amateurish.

A better means of organising the images is in individual assignments/projects and then having a separate section where images which were shot without relevence to a particular body of work; there you could quite happily have 'people, places and things' subsections.