High School Senior Portrait. CC Appreciated.

[STiZzle2010]

First time I was asked to take a senior portrait. This young lady was in a crunch and needed a photo immediately otherwise she would not be in her yearbook. I'm always looking to improve my portraiture and would appreciate any feedback.

f/2.5, 1/200th, ISO 125, flash fired.
Taken with a Nikon D5500, Nikkor 50mm 1.8G lens, and edited in Lightroom.
Facebook -0015 by Hebee's Visions, on Flickr

[Manfred M]

Josh - a few thoughts jump out at me, looking at this image.

First of all, as it is going into a yearbook, I would expect the final image will be fairly small. Seniors tend to not get full-page spreads unless things have changed significantly over the past few years. That tends to hide a lot of sins. I expect that the yearbook editors are likely to crop the image.

Overall the shot is quite nice. The light is diffuse which means no harsh shadows. The background is nicely out of focus and the fall leaves really work quite well. The catch lights in the eyes are good and give the image that bit of "sparkle". The points I am going to make are quite niggly, but are things to consider as you take your images to the next level.

Let me run down one what catches my eye:

1. Focal length of the lens is definitely at the short end of where I would take this shot. A 50mm lens on a DX camera is 75mm full-frame equivalent and it does accentuate the parts of the body that are more forward; hips, hands and knees. Being outdoors I would be shooting at the 150 - 200mm range to reduce these issues. On your D5500, this means using a focal length of 100 - 135mm range.

2. Your model is more on the full-figured line, so posing her so that you are not shooting straight on will help slim her. Again the leg, face and hand (fingers) jump out at me a bit. Getting her to turn her head would help slim the face. One thing to watch for is the dominant eye. Very few people have eyes that are the same size and in a straight on shot, it is easy to see that her right (camera left) eye is dominant. If you turn your model or change your shooting position so that the dominant eye is to the back, this will be less noticeable. Just make sure that the when you turn the head your model's nose does not cut the cheek line, as this usually ends up not looking that great.

3. I don't love the grey sky and light spots in the background (top and top right of the image). Easy enough to crop out. I would also look at removing (clone / heal) some of the out of focus light gray areas as they distract as well.

4. I'd be tempted in up the contrast a touch. The overall image (due to the lighting conditions) is a touch softer than I like. I'd also sharpen a tiny bit more too.

Regardless, I'm sure your model is quite pleased with the work you have done.

[STiZzle2010]

Thank you, this is very helpful! Unfortunately the gray skies were due to a raining day. The rain stopped about an hour before the shoot but the gray skies lingered. While this helped with lighting, it did not give me the results I would have preferred. I struggle with posing and I know that this is something that I need to work on. Your advice and suggestions will absolutely help next time around.

Do you think a crop like this works better?

22490135681_883e0a52fe_o by Hebee's Visions, on Flickr

[Shadowman]

I found this detailed list informative, represents only one school though. I like your capture, I'm not sure such a lively background would work so well if other portraits are more formal.

http://www.davisonschools.org/HighSc...subpage=735991

[Manfred M]

Do you think a crop like this works better?

No, not really as your crop line runs right through here knee. Crops across joints should be done above the joint. The image tends to look strange if you cut on or just below it. I might go more along the lines of this, but I don't love the resulting composition.

[STiZzle2010]

I found this detailed list informative, represents only one school though. I like your capture, I'm not sure such a lively background would work so well if other portraits are more formal.

http://www.davisonschools.org/HighSc...subpage=735991

I asked her if her school had any requirements or restrictions with the images and she said that there were none. She picked everything from location to the type of shots she wanted. Honestly I was surprised as she had me taking full body portraits as well as landscape shots! Either way I provided her with what she wanted and in the end, I hope the school allows her to use one of the images.

No, not really as your crop line runs right through here knee. Crops across joints should be done above the joint. The image tends to look strange if you cut on or just below it. I might go more along the lines of this, but I don't love the resulting composition.

Yes I'm not a fan of the composition this way either. Well next time I can do better to get it right in camera.

Regarding the focal length, I know that this is not the ideal lens for portraits. I would love a 70-200mm 2.8 but I do not have the funds right now. I have been thinking of getting a Sigma 50-150mm 2.8 which would be the ideal focal length for my crop sensor but I'm still researching.

[KimC]

Josh, I was put in a similar situation recently. I also live in the Northeast and me senior's only school requirements were - 3.5 by 5 inches and 300 DPI.

[William W]

. . . the gray skies were due to a raining day. The rain stopped about an hour before the shoot but the gray skies lingered. While this helped with lighting, it did not give me the results I would have preferred.

That’s because it appears that you didn’t take control of the lighting.

You had a Flash (I assume Hot-shoe attached Flash) and you pulled the shot at f/2.5 @ 1/200th@ ISO 125 in Manual Camera Mode and the background trees are seemingly perfectly exposed (and as such lessen the punch of the shallow DoF that you set about to create, by using F/2.5).

On the other hand you could have (as one example) chosen to pull the shot at around: F/4 @ 1/200th @ ISO 100 which would have rendered the Background trees in rich, deep Autumnal colours and allowed about a 1⅔Stop differential of the Main Subject Exposure (using Flash as Key) to the Background Exposure (by Ambient Light), thus exacerbating the “POP” of the Subject from the Background Platter.

At SD = 10ft and F/2.5 you have about 9" DoF - at F/4 it will be close to double that - so there's not a counter-argument (apropos Shallow DoF) for NOT using F/4. Also you probably still would have had an effective Flash Working Distance at F/4 even if your Flash is a low powered unit.

But if you were using the In Camera Flash (pop up flash) then at F/4 @ ISO100 and at 9~10ft, you might be struggling.

*

A 50mm lens on a DX camera is 75mm full-frame equivalent and it does accentuate the parts of the body that are more forward; hips, hands and knees. Being outdoors I would be shooting at the 150 - 200mm range to reduce these issues. On your D5500, this means using a focal length of 100 - 135mm range.

and

. . . Regarding the focal length, I know that this is not the ideal lens for portraits. I would love a 70-200mm 2.8 but I do not have the funds right now. I have been thinking of getting a Sigma 50-150mm 2.8 which would be the ideal focal length for my crop sensor but I'm still researching.

If the image is a Full Frame Crop of your original file, then the SD (Subject Distance) was about 9~10 ft.

To be clear I am not arguing with Manfred’s message to you, I know what he means and I know he knows what I am about to write - but I consider this is a very important fact.

***

I think this is a very important concept for you to not confuse.

The act of you using a 50 mm lens did NOT cause “accentuate the parts of the body that are more forward; hips, hands and knees”.

It is the Subject Distance which makes the PERSPECTIVE of the shot.

It is the Subject Distance that you chose to use (and NOT the lens) which accentuates those elements of the image.

IF you were to step back the same distance again (another 10 ft) and make the same shot, and then crop it in Post Production you would have considerably reduced the accentuation of those parts of the Subject’s body which are placed forward in the frame: essentially you would have the same PERSPECTIVE as if you stepped back and used a 100mm lens.

However - note that stepping back to SD = 20ft you might not have had enough Flash Power for that Shooting Distance - so the above is a general comment about how you might consider to use you 50mm lens better in similar circumstances and it is not necessarily specific advice, for this particular shooting scenario.

WW

[STiZzle2010]

Wow this is quite a bit of information and I appreciate your response. I see what you mean in regards to controlling the ambient light better. I'm using a Neewer VK750 II and I'm still very new to flash photography. I'm trying to use it as much as possible that way I can gain experience.

DOF calculations confuse me. For one, I have absolutely no clue how from looking at a picture, you were able to determine how far I was from the subject. On top of that, you knew exactly what f-stop I should have used. I would love to learn this and if anyone has any links that they can share which will educate me, I would greatly appreciate it! I am still very much a beginner as I've only been shooting since spring of this year.

[William W]

I'm using a Neewer VK750 II and I'm still very new to flash photography. I'm trying to use it as much as possible that way I can gain experience.

Thanks for the information on the Flash that you used. Using it will give you a lot of experience: and you will learn. That's a good attitude.

***

DOF calculations confuse me. For one, I have absolutely no clue how from looking at a picture, you were able to determine how far I was from the subject.

I didn't calculate. I knew. I have made a lot of Portraits. If that is the full frame of your image and woman appears to be about 5'6"~5'8" and you told me that you used a 50mm lens on an APS-C Camera . . . then you were at about 9~10 ft from her.

*

DoF, especially for Portraiture is ding-bat simple.

When I started out I used similar to the cheat sheet below. Now I just know it by rote and for four (4) different camera formats. Below is an updated version of one of my original cheat sheet for a 135 Format Camera (AKA 'Full Frame').

You can make your own for you Nikon APS-C if you want to: all you need to do is download a DoF Calculator to get a few markers - 'f-calc' is a pretty easy tool to understand and use.

Here is one of my Cheat Sheets for making Portraits using a 'Full Frame' Camera:



***

On top of that, you knew exactly what f-stop I should have used. I would love to learn this and if anyone has any links that they can share which will educate me, I would greatly appreciate it! I am still very much a beginner as I've only been shooting since spring of this year.

The suggestion of what Aperture to use was also based upon experience.

The sky was overcast.

You probably were guided by your camera's TTL Meter and set the Manual Exposure with the indicator in the middle (to make a "Correct Exposure") - but that "Correct Exposure" is only what the Camera thinks is "correct".

All I did was use my experience and tell the camera: "Hey camera, you are very clever telling me the correct exposure for the background trees, but I am in control here, not you: I want to use my Flash as the Key Light on the woman and I want her to stand out against the Background trees, so if you tell me the correct exposure for the background trees is F/2.5 @ 1/200th s @ ISO 125 - I will take that information and I UNDEREXPOSE the background a little bit and I will use your automatic functions to assist me expose the flash correctly . . . which brings us to FEC (Flash Exposure Compensation).

Probably I would have dialed in about -1/2 FEC.

WW

Image © AJ Group Pty Ltd Aust 1996~2015, WMW 1965~1996

[STiZzle2010]

Thank you for the breakdown which makes a whole lot more sense now. I can't wait until I'm this experienced and seasoned lol.

You are 100% right about the in camera meter. I completely forget about underexposing the background because of the flash. I've been strictly shooting with natural light for so long that it is an adjustment doing things a bit differently. I appreciate you help!