CC welcome

[Toothtek]

[Shadowman]

First off I want to say she looks familiar, did you post an image of her before? Secondly, you've given her a star quality capture with the windblown effect and the intense glare. Only critique would be the severe crop of the fingers and above her head, the top portion could be fixed in post-processing by extending the canvas but you may not be an advocate of Photoshop editing so only a suggestion. For the hands there's not much you can do expect a reshoot unless you have other images in the stream with full capture that can be substituted. Nice catch lights in the eyes.

[Shadowman]

I thought I recognized her. Critique Please.....

[Geoff F]

I agree about her fingers; also, there is a small slightly over exposed area on her forehead. Otherwise, this looks fine to me.

[pschlute]

I like it, very powerful image. Care to share the lighting details ?

Only comment I would make is have you thought about 'shopping the catchlights in her right eye? They show two light sources compared to the left eye and I find it a little distracting.

[billtils]

Agree with the above comments - great shot, but would benefit from a little editing (the catchlights ...).

As a matter of personal taste, perhaps consider that the hands/chair top should either be cropped out or, as the others suggest, redone to have the whole (R) hand in it.

[rpcrowe]

Re: the hands... I think that this is one reason (besides the extra cost) that consumer cameras have less than a 100% viewfinder. You can always crop or clone out details that you don't want intruding in the frame but, it is pretty nearly impossible to add stuff that you have missed.

I noticed that I needed to be a lot more careful with framing when I started using my first camera with a 100% viewfinder. I would occasionally cut off the bottoms of the paws in my dog portraits. A 95% or so viewfinder will allow a bit of sloppy composition to be saved. One hundred percent view will not! I have not noticed any difference one way or another with the 98% viewfinder of my 6D Mkii. I think that 98% is so close to 100% that there is virtually no great real life difference.

I try to look around the entire edges of any image I am shooting to avoid intrusions like tree limbs and parts of people and to try to avoid cutting off parts of the image that are important...

[Shadowman]

Re: the hands... I think that this is one reason (besides the extra cost) that consumer cameras have less than a 100% viewfinder. You can always crop or clone out details that you don't want intruding in the frame but, it is pretty nearly impossible to add stuff that you have missed.

I noticed that I needed to be a lot more careful with framing when I started using my first camera with a 100% viewfinder. I would occasionally cut off the bottoms of the paws in my dog portraits. A 95% or so viewfinder will allow a bit of sloppy composition to be saved. One hundred percent view will not! I have not noticed any difference one way or another with the 98% viewfinder of my 6D Mkii. I think that 98% is so close to 100% that there is virtually no great real life difference.

I try to look around the entire edges of any image I am shooting to avoid intrusions like tree limbs and parts of people and to try to avoid cutting off parts of the image that are important...

Richard,

My mirrorless camera allows me to use different aspect ratios, I like to use the 16:9, the good thing is it only truly affects the jpeg, the RAW file maintains all data. It sort of allows me to cheat a bit if I don't capture it all in-camera the data is still there to utilize.