Marissa

[klpurkett]

Lovely captures Kristy, your sister is a very pretty young girl, well done you!

Thanks David!

[D L]

I get what John (from NZ) is saying about using light to help shape the face in the most flattering way and it's probably a valid point.
However, I don't think you should let that advice detract from the pictures you've posted.
None of your pictures exhibit flat lighting (and I know that isn't what John was saying). There is some fall-off of light from one side of the face to the other, helping give depth and dimension.

I probably prefer the ones where she is narrow lit (3&5) as opposed to broad lit (4).

The B&W has more falloff and conveys a different mood, which is great, but from the looks you weren't aiming for that with most of these shots. (I love this shot too, by the way)

I've tried more "contrasty" setups on my Mrs, who has a rounder face-shape and she always prefers the more soft wrapping light like you have in most of these. I probably just need to find the right setup, but for now, it's soft and wrapping.

The shot you've added later is my least favourite, as the white top is in danger of becoming the subject, and I'm not a fan of the arm shadow on the face either.

I like the expressions in 1,3, 5 and 6.

Most importantly, what did your sister think and which was her favourite?

As for re-touching, what software do you use? I found a decent youtube video from Chelsea Northrup on eye re-touching in Lightroom the other day. Even though I don't use Lightroom, I found it helpful. She has other re-touching videos too.

I think you've successfully captured inner and outer beauty with this series.

[jcuknz]

[QUOTE=klpurkett;512175]

Possibly not anything you can do about it but I suspect the reason that #6 appeals, not to me because of its harsh lighting, that is for a man, but it answers my concern with the rest. She has a large round face and you have done nothing to make it smaller in the first five. By positioning your light with the camera flash to give a soft balance to light just part /side of the face, else the fall of her hair to do the same .... as but not so extreme as in #6.
I hope she is willing to give you another session to try these ideas


Thanks for the feedback, John. Do you think this composition is better? I am not crazy about the shadows on her face in this shot, but perhaps it addresses the issue you brought up... Thanks for taking the time to comment! Much appreciated!

I am not crazy about the shadows either but my first reaction is to point out that using a short lens for shots like this is a NO NO as iy makes her face so small in comparison to the huge arms. But I see from EXIF you used a 135 which is supposed to be a 'long portrait' focal length. So I am baffled as to what the answer is. Perhaps it is not a traditional portrait pose and one ignores the 'rules' except I do not think the large area of arms is particularly flattering to Marissa.
Another comment that she is too close to the background which would be better softer and the damaged paint hidden would stop them distracting from her.
Whatever I played with it and cropping to try and reduce the amount of arm v. face I also did the 90% horizontal trick darkened the arm slightly and lightened the face andsharpened the eyes .... hope you do not object, nor Marissa ...



I did an experiment with image one and reduced her face to 90% horizontally and to me it immediately improved the shot. With layers I was able to alternate between them ... I felt it quite educational to me who has done virtually no portraiture.

[Manfred M]

Kristy - as this is really your first foray into portraiture, I think you have done extraordinarily well. Add to this that these are outdoor natural light. I've had a quick look at the metadata from these shots as well; I assume that the clock in your camera is correct? Let me start with a few "global" comments, before I get into some of the specifics in individual shots that you might want to watch out for next time.

1. I think you used an extremely appropriate focal length throughout the series. You shot between (all FF equivalents) of 85mm - 300mm focal lengths. These are "in the range" for this type of work and give very pleasing image without the distortion issues often seen from working with short focal lengths.

2. White balance - if you look at the images, you can see a definite shift in colour temperature towards the warmer tones as the shoot went on. The earlier shots have cooler tones than the later ones. Auto white balance is not your friend here; again shots of a gray card would let you bring all the shots to the same base (assuming you are shooting RAW) and makes it easier to colour match your images. Some of the earliest shots seem to have taken place before "magic hour"). Sunset for Spokane WA was at 7:46PM on the day of the shoot.

3. Aperture at f/8 in all of your shots. This is the FF equivalent of f/11, which is fine for studio shots, I personally would have shot with a larger aperture. In a studio, with a neutral backdrop, one is not as worried about the background sharpness. In this type of shooting, getting a softer, out of focus background is more important. With your lens, I probably would have shot wide open (f/4 - f/5.6) and used a single focus point autofocus (focus on the nearest eye and recompose the frame after focus) to get you a bit shallower DoF.

4. Sharpening - all of the shots look a touch soft. A bit of localized sharpening (especially on facial feautures; eyes, eye brows and lashes and lips) and then a general output sharpening would give the shots a bit more "pop". One certainly has to be careful and not go overboard and make the image too sharp.

Some niggly detais to keep in mind next time you do this...

1. Comments on the short / broad lighting - This is really something that is easier to set up for in the studio or if you have someone working a reflector. Your sister's face shape is round, so conventional wisdom would be to shoot her from the shadow side to narrow out the appearance of the face; this is known as short lighting. Broad lighting is when you shoot from the side of the face where the lighting is falling. You have a mix of both types of lighting, but your best example of a short lighting shot is #6 (with a bit of help from your sister's hair). Look at how much slimmer her face looks in that shot.

2. Dominant eye - virtually everyone has one eye that is larger than the other. In your sister's case, this is the left eye (camera right). By having the dominant (larger) eye away from the camera, you will reduce this effect. Have a look at image #3; it is most noticable in this shot.

3. Positioning of the eyes - most (but not all) photographers prefer that the subject is looking so that the eyes are positioned so that there is a more or less equal amount of white visible on either side of the iris. The "downside" is that this means the subject isn't looking directly at the camera. Look at images 1 & 2 versus 3, 4 & 5.

Thoughts on individual images:

#1 - Nice lighting and nice composition. I like the way that the flowers on the lower right nicely balance out your sister's head on the right. If it were my image, I might clean up some of the dead grass at the top and right of the image.

#2 - Another nice shot - Too bad about the stray hair at the camera right eye. Had she swept that away just before your shot, that would have been better. Also, having her earring show a little on camera right would have added a bit of balance to the shot.

The soft out of focus background works really well, and I like the way her one shoulder drops.

I'd say this is probably my favourite of the group.

#3 - This is probably the one shot that works the least for me. I see what you are trying to do, but things are conspiring against you.

First of all the background is too sharp and is drawing too much of our attention away from the subject. The hair swirling around is a nice idea, but I think you needed a fan to lift it higher; I don't love what it is doing for you. It would have also helped if the shoulder were lower; it almost looks like she's got it out pushing the viewer away.

#4 - This is another one that doesn't work that well for me. The bales of hay are too much in focus and distracts from your subject. I also find the rope, especially where it seems to grow out of her head, to be a bit distracting.

#5 This is another nice shot; also in my favourite list. What I don't really like on this one is the window on the left and the dark shadow of the door above your sister's head. Both are minor issues, but both take away from the overall image a bit.

#6. - A really nice dynamic image. I really ike this one as well; the high lighting ratio gives you a moody view and shooting from above works really well. I'm not sure that all that hay on the right side of the image adds anything to the shot, you might want to look at a different crop. I also find the shadow her hand casts on her arm a bit distracting

#6 - I will agree with what the others have said about this one. I like John's crop better than the original and personally might have taken a touch more off the top.


Regardless of the comments I made; this is a very strong start for a first foray into portraiture. Your sister should be very pleased with these images!

[klpurkett]

Thanks for the feedback, David. I suppose one great thing I'm learning here is how to see the way light can shape the face. When I was taking the pictures, my main focus was on avoiding harsh shadows, getting a decent background, and capturing an authentic expression. So, I wasn't even aware of which features were being enhanced or exaggerated. Hmmm, something to work on seeing in the future! #6 was a fun shot, but one I knew wouldn't be "her senior picture," so I didn't try to get very many like it.

You're right about the light top in the last image being distracting. That was a wardrobe choice on her end that I wasn't super excited about, but we gave it a try anyway. (Another note to self: limit outfits to 2 when doing evening portraits outside!)

She seemed pleased with the pictures, and her top favorite is actually #5. I think the reason she loves that one is that it includes several of the things she loves in life: sunflowers, swinging, and being barefoot... Plus, her expression is relaxed, and she doesn't feel like it draws attention to her wandering eye (which she is pretty self conscious about). Lesson learned here, too, because didn't notice it at all until PP. There were a couple other good shots that were "frustrating" to her because she felt her eye was obvious. I could have minimized this by being aware of which direction I had her look and which side I was on. But, this has been a great learning experience!

I will check out that video on eye retouching. Thanks! I use Photoshop Elements 9 (I know, old, but still way more options than I know how to use). I just got a "for dummies" book on this version for 15 cents on Amazon (apparently a library discard). Looking forward to learning more from that soon.

Thanks again for taking the time to comment!

I get what John (from NZ) is saying about using light to help shape the face in the most flattering way and it's probably a valid point.
However, I don't think you should let that advice detract from the pictures you've posted.
None of your pictures exhibit flat lighting (and I know that isn't what John was saying). There is some fall-off of light from one side of the face to the other, helping give depth and dimension.

I probably prefer the ones where she is narrow lit (3&5) as opposed to broad lit (4).

The B&W has more falloff and conveys a different mood, which is great, but from the looks you weren't aiming for that with most of these shots. (I love this shot too, by the way)

I've tried more "contrasty" setups on my Mrs, who has a rounder face-shape and she always prefers the more soft wrapping light like you have in most of these. I probably just need to find the right setup, but for now, it's soft and wrapping.

The shot you've added later is my least favourite, as the white top is in danger of becoming the subject, and I'm not a fan of the arm shadow on the face either.

I like the expressions in 1,3, 5 and 6.

Most importantly, what did your sister think and which was her favourite?

As for re-touching, what software do you use? I found a decent youtube video from Chelsea Northrup on eye re-touching in Lightroom the other day. Even though I don't use Lightroom, I found it helpful. She has other re-touching videos too.

I think you've successfully captured inner and outer beauty with this series.

[klpurkett]

Manfred, thanks for such a thorough response! You've given me a lot to chew on! I'm glad you brought up the time: I just looked at my camera and realized I never changed it at daylight savings time. My clock was an hour behind. I did choose to start the shoot at 6:30 to give us some extra time before sunset so we weren't as rushed; we stayed mostly in the shade for at least the first half.

I am quite embarrassed to admit that the sheet of white cardstock I took along (fully intending to use for wb settings) ended up being set down and totally forgotten after the first set. When I first uploaded and looked at my images I realized what a grave error that had been! (I looked for a gray card here in town, but was told I'd have to order one.) Yep, lesson learned, big time. I'll order one soon... Does $30 sound about reasonable?

F/8. Again, I was a bit disappointed when it was all said and done, because as you pointed out, my backgrounds are definitely too sharp in a lot of the images. Seems like in my attempt to "keep the technicalities simple" I lost out on some things, like out-of-focus backdrops.

I'll keep working on my sharpening skills. Lots to learn, and it looks like I have a lot of images to practice on now!

Super helpful explanation on the short/broad lighting... That totally makes sense now. Thanks! Noticing details like dominant eye and eye positioning... Yep, I have a lot to learn here! (Wow. I'm realizing that photographers have a lot more to think about than I ever was aware of!)

Thanks for the detailed review on each image. You make a lot of excellent points, and have helped me see things I had failed to notice. Thanks for the encouraging words, too. They go a long way!

[Manfred M]

I am quite embarrassed to admit that the sheet of white cardstock I took along (fully intending to use for wb settings) ended up being set down and totally forgotten after the first set. When I first uploaded and looked at my images I realized what a grave error that had been! (I looked for a gray card here in town, but was told I'd have to order one.) Yep, lesson learned, big time. I'll order one soon... Does $30 sound about reasonable?

I use one of these:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...G7_Pocket.html

It lives in my camera bag and is small enough not to get in the way. I have several other targets I use as well, but these are larger and more special purpose. This make was recommended to me by other members of this site. It works, which is what I want.

[klpurkett]

I use one of these:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...G7_Pocket.html

It lives in my camera bag and is small enough not to get in the way. I have several other targets I use as well, but these are larger and more special purpose. This make was recommended to me by other members of this site. It works, which is what I want.

I've got to get one of these! Thanks for sharing!

[Manfred M]

I've got to get one of these! Thanks for sharing!

I also use one of these for critical studio work:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._Passport.html


I use one of these when I am doing a jpeg custom white balance or shooting video; times where a much larger target is required.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search...rch=yes&sts=pi

[klpurkett]

[QUOTE=jcuknz;512369]

I am not crazy about the shadows either but my first reaction is to point out that using a short lens for shots like this is a NO NO as iy makes her face so small in comparison to the huge arms. But I see from EXIF you used a 135 which is supposed to be a 'long portrait' focal length. So I am baffled as to what the answer is. Perhaps it is not a traditional portrait pose and one ignores the 'rules' except I do not think the large area of arms is particularly flattering to Marissa.
Another comment that she is too close to the background which would be better softer and the damaged paint hidden would stop them distracting from her.
Whatever I played with it and cropping to try and reduce the amount of arm v. face I also did the 90% horizontal trick darkened the arm slightly and lightened the face andsharpened the eyes .... hope you do not object, nor Marissa ...



I did an experiment with image one and reduced her face to 90% horizontally and to me it immediately improved the shot. With layers I was able to alternate between them ... I felt it quite educational to me who has done virtually no portraiture.

I like your edit here! Thanks for taking the time to work with this image... It's helpful to see through someone else's eyes sometimes!

[klpurkett]

Ok, so I looked back through the "keepers" file from Monday's shoot looking for images that were short-lit. Would this image be an example of short lighting? It looks to me like her face appears slimmer in this one. Now that I'm noticing which eye is closest to the camera, I see that her left (larger) eye looks even larger at this angle, so that would be something I'll keep in mind next time I get to work with her. Anyway, I'm mostly wondering if this has a more flattering angle and lighting? Thanks!
Kristy

[Manfred M]

Ok, so I looked back through the "keepers" file from Monday's shoot looking for images that were short-lit. Would this image be an example of short lighting? It looks to me like her face appears slimmer in this one. Now that I'm noticing which eye is closest to the camera, I see that her left (larger) eye looks even larger at this angle, so that would be something I'll keep in mind next time I get to work with her. Anyway, I'm mostly wondering if this has a more flattering angle and lighting? Thanks!
Kristy

Kristy - that would be a yes to both of your questions.

This is short lighting because the side of the face your camera is pointed at is in shadow. Look at how the shadow sculpts your sister's cheek and chin. As a high level "rule"*, most people tend to look better in short lighting as it tends to slim the face. People with long, narrow faces are the ones where broad lighting works better.

As for the eye, again you are reading this correctly. The eye that is closest to the camera will look larger, so if it is the dominant eye, this results in the other eye looking even smaller.

In my view, I find that your sister would benefit from being shot with short lighting. It does slim and sculpt her face.


*Note: As with all photographic rules, there are times they should be broken, for instance if the person was disfigured on the right side, you might shoot with the dominant eye towards the camera to hide the disfiguration.

[klpurkett]

Kristy - that would be a yes to both of your questions.

This is short lighting because the side of the face your camera is pointed at is in shadow. Look at how the shadow sculpts your sister's cheek and chin. As a high level "rule"*, most people tend to look better in short lighting as it tends to slim the face. People with long, narrow faces are the ones where broad lighting works better.

As for the eye, again you are reading this correctly. The eye that is closest to the camera will look larger, so if it is the dominant eye, this results in the other eye looking even smaller.

In my view, I find that your sister would benefit from being shot with short lighting. It does slim and sculpt her face.


*Note: As with all photographic rules, there are times they should be broken, for instance if the person was disfigured on the right side, you might shoot with the dominant eye towards the camera to hide the disfiguration.

Thanks for confirming my thoughts here, Manfred. I think I'm starting to get it. I'll be referring back to this thread prior to my next portrait opportunity (whenever that may be), as a refresher on the things I want to focus on improving. Thanks again!