[rodi]

2>1

the angle on 1 is just too predictable. you nailed it with #2 though. love the light depth that you captured.

watch your white balance on those champagne shots.

#6 you've cut off her pinky fingers and included too little/too much of her arms on the sides of the frame.

the others are very nice, i just can't stand portrait orientation shots. maybe i'm just too programed to seeing things in 16:9 aspect. when you shoot portrait mode, you lose so much of the scene. i.e.: #3: how far do the bubbles go? #5: who is she reacting to? look at what else could have been included with a different frame orientation. #4A: the bottom part of the frame is useless and doesn't add anything to the shot.
These are just opinions, of course - ha, i'm starting a coup to eradicate vertical/portrait-oriented photos. it has better use for graphic design and posters and such.


i'd still hire you for second shooting, though. ;]




with the added images and number changes:
3>2

the angle on 1 is just too predictable. you nailed it with #3 though. love the light depth that you captured.

watch your white balance on those champagne shots.

#11 you've cut off her pinky fingers and included too little/too much of her arms on the sides of the frame.

#5 is spot on.
#12 is a great catch, perfect tones, too.

the others are very nice, i just can't stand portrait orientation shots. maybe i'm just too programed to seeing things in 16:9 aspect. when you shoot portrait mode, you lose so much of the scene. i.e.: #8: how far do the bubbles go? #10: who is she reacting to? look at what else could have been included with a different frame orientation. #9A: the bottom part of the frame is useless and doesn't add anything to the shot.
These are just opinions, of course - ha, i'm starting a coup to eradicate vertical/portrait-oriented photos. it has better use for graphic design and posters and such.


i'd still hire you for second shooting, though. ;]