Hi Catilina,
You will need to post a larger image for us to assess it reliably
is this a compact (reduced quality) digital proof by any chance?
If you don't like what you see; complain to the photographer. He owes you images that you like.
If this is a proof; they are usually deliberately "compromised" so that you can't copy them and get a good print. I suspect that is where Ian's comment is coming from. I have not seen deliberately soft images as proofs, usually they are obliterated by watermarks.
I might suggest that the fact that it's burry is only one of the problems with the image...
the crop/pose leaves something to be desired as well as the background color matches the blouse.
I guess so, but I have the printed image, I can post it tomorrow.
Catalina
Right off-hand and viewing from the small image, I don't really like your hands in the image which seem to look large, out of proportion and very bright. I am also not keen on cropping out a portion of your right hand.
I would make a calculated guess that this was shot with a focal length shorter than I usually use for my head and shoulder portraits. I like to use at least 150+ mm for full frame and at least 100+ mm for my 1.6x format cameras. I may be wrong about the focal length since it is difficult to get a good handle on this size image...
However, a LOT of photographers shoot with shorter lenses for one reason or another...
Spot on Richard.
Maybe better if both hands weren't included. Especially that wristwatch.
The hair/necklace(?) across her chest looks just right to add framing to her face.
( sorry can't see it well. )
The intent of the photog to get that diagonal-lean to her right is ok.
It makes her hair flow downwards framing her face.
Her forehead/chin out front.
Hairlight is fine.
Last edited by nimitzbenedicto; 4th August 2013 at 11:06 PM.