"School of Portraiture" - Lesson 08 - Taking it to the next level ("The Reunion")

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashtyn Renee

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8074/8...5945cae9_z.jpg
IMG_3781 by Ashtyn Simpson, on Flickr

I tend to think it's an okay portrait... the background is a little distracting, and I'm not sure if I should have cropped it closer than I did, and there is also hair across her face, which I didn't remove. Just wondering if you have any other thoughts?

---

Nice picture of an attractive subject Ashtyn,

I am distracted by wondering what that is in the background though - a timber yard?

I'd crop from the right hand side so we don't see the (right hand) edge of the centre block.

Cheers,

Hi Ashtyn,

Nice shot. Perhaps cropping close around the face will focus all attention to her.

Btw, Happy New Year!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashtyn Renee

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8074/8...5945cae9_z.jpg
IMG_3781 by Ashtyn Simpson, on Flickr

I tend to think it's an okay portrait... the background is a little distracting, and I'm not sure if I should have cropped it closer than I did, and there is also hair across her face, which I didn't remove. Just wondering if you have any other thoughts?

---

Hi Ashtyn,

Looks good to me - the only suggestion I'd make is "use tools to imply targeted lighting". The lady is the star of the show - and everything else needs to take "back stage" lighting wise, and yet as it stands, the background competes successfully for the eyes attention.

I've given it a Photoshop 30-second makeover (TM!) to illustrate what I mean (probably a little too aggressively, but you'll see what I mean).

http://i45.tinypic.com/2ih2vt4.jpg

I would like some feedback on the following shot. This image was taken last weekend and was taken during my first session in my new home photography studio. I am new to this kind of photography but was happy with the shot of my Son, as seen below. Maybe I have over exposed in Lightroom, the top part of the photo, but I quite like it.

I am still learning and have read lots on this site about studio lighting and so on.

Only purchased a complete starter strobe lighting kit nd using my old Canon EOS 400D with its standard 18 - 55 mm lens.

http://i48.tinypic.com/292s5mo.jpg

I like the photo. My one inexpert thought is that your son's knee at the bottom of the picture is slightly distracting.

Hi

I am new to this forum and have only just discovered this great portraiture course. I have read through all the lessons and learned so much; it's amazing how Colin and others are willing to give up so much time to help beginners in portraiture like me.

I have been a keen amateur for many years, but have only in the last few months gravitated towards portraits. I might have posted some of my efforts here for criticism, but I have been taking what I am told are "environmental" portraits (as a professional environmental scientist, I find this terminology a bit odd, but there you are), whereas Colin made it clear at the start that he is not concentrating on this subgroup.

Which leaves me with a question, for Colin and other experienced portrait photographers if they are still watching this thread, but for anyone else's views as well. How do you capture the character and personality of the subject in a portrait photo that contains so little context, and that is often highly polished and corrected in PP? In asking this question I do not mean to imply that you cannot show the essence of a person in a studio portrait, or head/three-quarter shot, but I would like advice on how to do it. The expression can show basics, such as a friendly personality, or the mood at that instant, but does it/can it show more? Of course, it's often easier to judge personality from a photo if viewers knows the subject, but how do you get it across to strangers?

One reason I went for environmental portraiture was that I felt it would be easier to show personality. I also had the opportunity to photograph all the members of a choir I sing with, and wanted to differentiate them all by personality and interests. It's a work in progress that you can see here:
http://www.paulashleyphotography.co....ion/the-choir/

All advice welcome (and criticism of my work)!

Paul

I guess that's what happens when you come late to a party - everyone's gone home :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LocalHero1953

I guess that's what happens when you come late to a party - everyone's gone home :(

---

Hello Paul and welcome to Cambridge, hehe, I gess you are already there or is it here?:D. If you would like to show us one picture it would be easier to comment on what you call "environmental". In photography someone said: when you cannot remove anything else that can distract from your subject then you have your picture. The tutorial on portraiture is very well done and explains it better than my limited English permits.
IMO, you have to make a clear choice on what you want to show to the viewer. Or else make a "collage" of multiples facettes of a personality. I think it is what Picasso was trying to accomplish in his painting. Or are you making a documentory on the occupations of these people. Then show them in action, at work, interaction with their environment. Does that makes any sence to you?
On the other hand, when you know someone well, surely one aspect of their personality will shine forth for you.

Thanks, Louise.

For the benefit of others: I am reporting my question as a new thread on the People and Pets section.

Paul
Cambridge, UK !

dear Collin,

it took me quite long time to find a model who willing to participate. going through some "no" from teenagers, but at last i managed to find these cute kids. i'm a learning newbie so i did everything much like you said. i got shade with sun close by, but no nice background. i also rotated my camera a bit, but seemingly it's not enough to get the effect (i think maybe it's because it was a tree, not a brick or something else with horizontal/vertical pattern).

i use 5 in 1 reflector and got my friend to hold it. at first i thought the white reflects light in a very soft way and almost unseen, but then i realized - at post processing - it did made her face brighter. this is the area where i mostly not satisfied with. in my opinion, instead of the subject would "pop", i think it made them slightly overexposed (correct me if i'm wrong). maybe i failed to make a good lighting effect using the reflector. maybe the position of the reflector isn't quite right. maybe i didnt correctly expose. maybe i'm using a not quite good glass. i dont know. i'm clueless here...

so with regards to that underestimated effect of the white reflector, i made some adjustment in ACR. nothing but minimum adjustment for exposure, blacks, and brightness sliders. i did that just to get a pleasing look of their skin tone. #2 was quite overexposed. i also pushed the sharpness sliders in ACR (amount, radius, and detail) to maximum.

anyway, here's the result...

#1 nikon D90, 105mm, f5.6, 1/125 sec, ISO-160
-misel-
http://i50.tinypic.com/20702zd.jpg

#2 nikon D90, 105mm, f5.6, 1/60 sec, ISO-160
-re-
http://i46.tinypic.com/2znpqtu.jpg

i'd love to hear your critics and valuable input...

and thank you so much for being so kind and generous... :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by didit

dear Collin,

it took me quite long time to find a model who willing to participate. going through some "no" from teenagers, but at last i managed to find these cute kids. i'm a learning newbie so i did everything much like you said. i got shade with sun close by, but no nice background. i also rotated my camera a bit, but seemingly it's not enough to get the effect (i think maybe it's because it was a tree, not a brick or something else with horizontal/vertical pattern).

i use 5 in 1 reflector and got my friend to hold it. at first i thought the white reflects light in a very soft way and almost unseen, but then i realized - at post processing - it did made her face brighter. this is the area where i mostly not satisfied with. in my opinion, instead of the subject would "pop", i think it made them slightly overexposed (correct me if i'm wrong). maybe i failed to make a good lighting effect using the reflector. maybe the position of the reflector isn't quite right. maybe i didnt correctly expose. maybe i'm using a not quite good glass. i dont know. i'm clueless here...

so with regards to that underestimated effect of the white reflector, i made some adjustment in ACR. nothing but minimum adjustment for exposure, blacks, and brightness sliders. i did that just to get a pleasing look of their skin tone. #2 was quite overexposed. i also pushed the sharpness sliders in ACR (amount, radius, and detail) to maximum.

anyway, here's the result...

#1 nikon D90, 105mm, f5.6, 1/125 sec, ISO-160
-misel-
http://i50.tinypic.com/20702zd.jpg

#2 nikon D90, 105mm, f5.6, 1/60 sec, ISO-160
-re-
http://i46.tinypic.com/2znpqtu.jpg

i'd love to hear your critics and valuable input...

and thank you so much for being so kind and generous... :)

---

Great effort,

Just looking at them quickly for now (I really should be somewhere else), with the first, I'd suggest trying to get a better background - and even consider shooting it in a horizontal format. The background needs to be part of the image - not just an "incidental part of it.

Here's one I shot of a young lady in front of a tree as a comparison:

http://i45.tinypic.com/otgp5w.jpg

With the 2nd shot - looks basically OK, except perhaps a little under-exposed and I think you may have applied some kind of processing to the skin - it's looking a bit over-sharpened to my eye.

What do you think of the shots?

couldn't agree with you more. background is where i got stuck for now. i neither found a good one nor possess some equips which can totally nuke it with very shallow dof. maybe i'll try to avoid getting her too close to the background next time.

yep, i pushed the sharpening sliders in ACR to maximum. i shouldn't have done that. it was OE so i tried to adjust some basic sliders. yet, it turned out to be underexposed. here's the original shot...

http://i47.tinypic.com/1zo9bua.jpg

by the way, your shot is really something. i'm so shy... :o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by didit

couldn't agree with you more. background is where i got stuck for now. i neither found a good one nor possess some equips which can totally nuke it with very shallow dof. maybe i'll try to avoid getting her too close to the background next time.

yep, i pushed the sharpening sliders in ACR to maximum. i shouldn't have done that. it was OE so i tried to adjust some basic sliders. yet, it turned out to be underexposed. here's the original shot...

http://i47.tinypic.com/1zo9bua.jpg

by the way, your shot is really something. i'm so shy... :o

---

OK - so ...

... If you want out of focus backgrounds, the easiest way is to increase the distance between the subject and the background (don't be afraid to be BOLD with that distance) -- no need for expensive lenses. This background is out of focus and it was shot at F11 ...

http://www.pbase.com/cjsouthern/imag...7/original.jpg

With regards to the 2nd shot - generally - I think a down low - shooting up the nose look is harder to pull off than with a shot where you get a couple of feet above the subject and shoot down at her with her looking up, eg ...

http://i45.tinypic.com/34ydym1.jpg

Here's a quick retouch for you where I've cropped the image to emphasise the young land more - burned areas to pull the focus of attention to her - and added a little sharpening.

http://i45.tinypic.com/rhtzex.jpg

ok Colin, i got your point...

the background needs to be part of the image
increase the distance between subject and background
avoid shooting up the nose

btw, i'm just curious (not to say stupid). with the little sharpening you did before, was it achieved by blurring the area around her face?

thanks for quick retouch and also big thanks for everything. i already learned a lot from you... :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by didit

btw, i'm just curious (not to say stupid). with the little sharpening you did before, was it achieved by blurring the area around her face?

---

No - blurring is the opposite to sharpening.

In this case I did apply a blur to the background just to de-emphasise it a little more, but sharpening is a whole new lesson. Normally you need 3 passes to sharpen (minimum), but the first 2 need to be done with a full-resolution image which I didn't have access to - so in this case I just applied slightly more aggressive sharpening after I down-sampled the image.

Finally I got a patient charming little lad next door to pose for some takes. Under a morning sky (around 7 a.m.)
ISO 100 -f2.8, Aperture priority -Lumix FZ200. PP using Lightroom & Photoshop.
Trying to apply your portraiture lessons on framing and cropping and experimenting on different color tones
http://i48.tinypic.com/w2j8g0.jpg

http://i47.tinypic.com/1z4gzkg.jpg

http://i49.tinypic.com/2dvkjzb.jpg

C&C appreciated, especially background, subject relation
Note: Image sharpness deteriorates upon uploading via TinyPic.
Cannot upload the original size. Advise on size & resolution for uploading. Thank you.

Hi Justin,

The things that first caught me eye were ...

- The logo is distracting.

- The eyes are too low in the frame (they really need to be in the top 1/3)

- They're looking quite dark

- They're looking quite soft.

TinyPic won't have any effect on sharpness unless it has to down-sample the image, which means it was probably too big to start with.

Are you working from a calibrated and profiled monitor?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin Southern

Hi Justin,

The things that first caught me eye were ...

- The logo is distracting.

- The eyes are too low in the frame (they really need to be in the top 1/3)

- They're looking quite dark

- They're looking quite soft.

TinyPic won't have any effect on sharpness unless it has to down-sample the image, which means it was probably too big to start with.

Are you working from a calibrated and profiled monitor?

---

Thanks Colin for the c&c. I checked the uncropped shots and mostly the eyes fell below the top 1/3.
Softness could be the camera's auto focusing mode.
I need to find time again with my model.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lumicks

Thanks Colin for the c&c. I checked the uncropped shots and mostly the eyes fell below the top 1/3.
Softness could be the camera's auto focusing mode.
I need to find time again with my model.

---

No worries.

My apologies that it's a bit on the short side, but to be "brutal", I think it would be most beneficial just to fine-tune some of the foundations a little first.

With regards to the positioning of the eyes, if it's not something you can yet 100% right in camera (and I sure as heck can't) then shoot a little wider and crop afterwards. Also, don't assume that because it's a portrait that it has to be shot in a portrait orientation.

With regards to the softness, it could be a number of things including your post-processing. You'll need to have the camera set to a single AF point, and that point will need to be on an eye when you focus.

Are you working from a calibrated and profiled monitor?