My $0.02...Here is one.. Fuji X100S.. is the skin tone like it should be? Critique.. I need to know what I did wrong or right..
Skin tone is almost impossible to say what is correct unless you know the subject, for me though you have broken one of the unspoken rules of shooting people, never crop at the wrist or ankleMy $0.02...
Details. There's a LOT of detail in the shot, both in her skin and in the background, and I think both distract from what would otherwise be an effective portrait. In the case of details on her, I don't think it's a big deal, just comes across as a little more "texture-y" than would be ideal, I guess. But the background, with the shelving and backwards letters visible, is busy. So in that case, I would probably have mandated something like f2.8, maybe even down to 2, so that it would all blur out better, leaving us with a nice crisp subject.
I would also probably have played with white balance in post, to see what it would look like warmed up a bit. Sometimes skin tones come out nicer to my eye that way. Sometimes not. I sorta don't know yet at this stage of learning until I try it out on each shot, can't really eyeball it and say ahead of time "oh this should be warmed up."
Dammit Bob! Now I'm aware of yet ANOTHER rule that I didn't have a clue was a rule and I'm gonna do my best to ignore it, but I know over time it's gonna seep into my consciousness and I'm gonna have to THINK about it. I've never thought about this and looking through just a very small cross-section of my street work and I've lopped off scores of feet and not a few hands as well.Skin tone is almost impossible to say what is correct unless you know the subject, for me though you have broken one of the unspoken rules of shooting people, never crop at the wrist or ankle
Yeah, one of my better recent street shots is two headless sets of hands gesturing. Fortunately, their feet also survived the framing...I'm forever lopping off heads. I'm guessing there's a rule about that too!