Pride And Joy

[kdoc856]

This forum has always been gracious in indulging a proud grandfather as he foists his kids on you, so I'm relying on your continuing kindness and tolerance, even as I steadfastly refuse to promise no further incursions on your patience.

A recent hike, and a magical day. My photographic ambition was to catch some backlit portraits with all its exposure challenges in a fairly dark woods. I'd be grateful for your opinions and suggestions.

1. 1/350 @F2.8 ISO 800 70mm




2. 1/500 @F2.8 ISO 400 90mm

[John 2]

I could mention some minor (very minor) technical points but ambition achieved Kevin and what's more, the second image is an absolute cracker.

[kdoc856]

Thank you, John. Even those minor points will be appreciated. I had a couple of considerations I've debated, and I'm anxious to see how others might perceived them. I don't seem to have the gift of objectivity when viewing my own work.

[mknittle]

Both good but the second one is gorgeous. The only thing on the first one is the sun is a little bright on the little girl's hair. Other than that it is real nice. looks like a nice day in the woods.

[DEAN01]

Kevin, Your ambition is fullfilled! The slightly off balance look makes number two great.

[Polar01]

You done good my friend, really love the second one, specially the light on the books.

Cheers: Allan

[Shadowman]

Nice captures.

[kdoc856]

Thanks, all for viewing and commenting.

Mark: I'll have a play at reducing the hair highlights a bit more. I've gone back and forth: wanted it to look slightly surreal but not garish, and may well have overshot a bit. Thanks for the suggestion.

[Rob Ekins]

Very nice indeed.

I have hundreds of useless frames on my hard drive from attempting this same type of shot with my youngest, so I know how hard they are to shoot in the wild

Well done.

[William W]

. . . My photographic ambition was to catch some backlit portraits with all its exposure challenges in a fairly dark woods. I'd be grateful for your opinions and suggestions.

The second one is very good, possibly near excellent.

TECHNICAL:

But her face appears to be a tad soft on my Studio Monitor – I am not sure though. You might like to check the Full Resolution File.

If it is a little soft, my guess is that you nailed Auto Focus around her chest area (those leaves at her R. Knee are very sharp) – but her head is leaning forward and beyond that Plane of Sharp Focus.

If she is about 4’ ~ 4’6” tall and that is a Full Frame (i.e. no cropping) then you only have about 8” DoF at F/2.8 – and most of that is BEHIND the Plane of Sharp Focus and not in front. So for Kids who are moving toward the camera, the head is often leaning toward front anyway whether teetering on a log or not: so it is usually better to have a bit of wiggle room with the Aperture.

Noted that you were using the camera in Aperture Priority Mode – you’ll still get an adequate Shallow DoF for a Full Length shot of a Child aged 5 to 10 using F/4 and you are in safer territory for nailing the face, razor sharp.

Anyway have a look as see if my suspicion is correct, it is very close but hard to tell on the small resolution file.

It occurs to me that you metered the that lighting situation perfectly, Bravo.

+++

ARTISTIC:

On the Post production – I would run her through the Digital Darkroom and burn-in that area of light above her head, also just add a touch more depth of colour to her cheeks.

I’d sharpen her face: if she is slightly out of focus, then localized sharpening can often fudge an awful lot.

Here is a quick 3 minute redo showing the above suggetsions – the original is on the left. View it large to see the nuances.



WW

[John 2]

Thank you, John. Even those minor points will be appreciated. I had a couple of considerations I've debated, and I'm anxious to see how others might perceived them. I don't seem to have the gift of objectivity when viewing my own work.

Kevin, the fact that overnight (for me) this has received 10 replies also speaks for the impact these have had. The minor crits were to do with toning down some of the peripheral highlights that Bill has now covered and which IMHO can be applied to both images and perhaps the partial loss of the arm in the first image. But that's all photog speak. I would be super proud of these for the family album.

[William W]

. . . overnight . . . this has received 10 replies also speaks for the impact these have had . . . I would be super proud of these for the family album.

In a nutshell.

WW

[kdoc856]

Robbie and John: Thanks very much. We were walking down a fairly narrow trail and these were shots in motion without posing, and I have a bunch of them with limbs creeping out of frame- I was too close but couldn't do much about it without losing the spontaneity. I had a few more mm on my zoom (using a 70-200) and just didn't think to give myself more margins.
ARRRGGGHH.

Bill: That was brilliant! Thanks for your help. I wanted to use F4, but we were in and out of some dark patches and with all the motion of my daughter walking and granddaughter flopping around, I was perhaps overly afraid of motion blur. I'll certainly put your suggestions regarding processing into play.

[KimC]

Kevin, beautiful daughter and granddaughter. Love the second image especially - wonderful capture.

Bill, I really like what you did to her cheeks. Would you mind sharing what technique you used?

.... also just add a touch more depth of colour to her cheeks. WW

[William W]

. . . I wanted to use F4, but we were in and out of some dark patches and with all the motion of my daughter walking and granddaughter flopping around, I was perhaps overly afraid of motion blur. . .

OK I understand all that.

Consider that your prep could have been different: your concern is motion blur, and you really wanted to use f/4 and the conditions were in and out of dark places - then to satisfy those three criteria you need to select the ISO for the darkest place to allow F/4 and also a suitable shutter speed.

The Sony will eat ISO 800, so you should have at least been there, perhaps even ISO1600 as a safety net.

It's like you the Physician packing his Trauma Kit for the hike - you'd pack what you need for the worst case, not just a Band-Aid.

WW

[William W]

. . . We were walking down a fairly narrow trail and these were shots in motion without posing, and I have a bunch of them with limbs creeping out of frame- I was too close but couldn't do much about it without losing the spontaneity. I had a few more mm on my zoom (using a 70-200) and just didn't think to give myself more margins. . . . . .

One general procedure for shooting Portraiture quickly and on the hop: Shoot wide crop tight in post.

That's one reason why (there are other reasons) you'll see seriously skilled exponents of this Genre of the Craft usually always using a Standard Zoom Lens (not a Telephoto Zoom Lens).

Using a Telephoto Zoom Lens (ref 70 to 200 on a 135 Format Camera) to FRAME a Full Length Shot on the hop (even of a small person): consider the distance that the Photographer has to move around as s/he covers the Arc of the Coverage Circle - it is ridiculously large and often too far a distance to cover quickly enough to get to into the best shooting position.

In that shooting scenario my 24 to 70 or my 24 to 105 would have been my best friend.

WW

[William W]

I really like what you did to her cheeks. Would you mind sharing what technique you used?

Sure . . . I need to get back to the office as I did it on my Studio Monitor, it will still have the settings so I can give you those details too. Later

WW

[rubyb]

.

Consider that your prep could have been different...

The Sony will eat ISO 800, so you should have at least been there, perhaps even ISO1600 as a safety net.

You are absolutely right. I got the Sony FF in part because it has such good low light performance, and I can easily do an ISO of 1600 with negligible noise. So in this instance, I ignored all that, gave in to my age-old aversion to noise/high ISO and compromised the darn shot. Just stupid. Another lesson reinforced the hard way.

Thanks, Bill.

[William W]

. . . gave in to my age-old aversion to noise/high ISO and compromised the darn shot. Just stupid. Another lesson reinforced the hard way. . .

Well it's good to get annoyed at oneself every now and again: I really do get that.

But hey Doc, it's not "stupid" - just a mistake.

Think of how you'd prep your trauma kit: if you are shooting on the hop and want to avoid a fluster - get your technical prep ready for the worst case - if you see a shot that has good light AND you have the TIME to adjust, then that's good - if you don't have the time to adjust, then it is very likely that you'll make a good fist of the shot at the higher ISO and no one will be any the wiser.

BTW You're most welcome to the advice. Doesn't get much better than making great pictures of one's Family. Cute kids. The woman in the first shot has established great connectivity with the camera's lens (ergo the Viewer). You nailed a large chunk of her personality. It is obvious that you have very good RAPPORT with her. That first picture is a portrait of the Woman, not the Child: the Child is a prop (a very nice prop), to the Woman's Portrait.

WW

PS - thanks for confirming that you understood: "consider [when using a Telephoto Zoom] the distance that the Photographer has to move around as s/he covers the Arc of the Coverage Circle"

[William W]

I really like what you did to her cheeks. Would you mind sharing what technique you used?

I used Photoshop.

The main element is localized BURNING on the cheeks (and mouth): Midtones @ 10% @ Hardness 3% (Note that is quite a MINOR/SUBTLE adjustment) (one pass on the mouth/lips and two passes on the cheeks)

Also (and I've done this to a couple of your images) I DODGED the whites of her eyes: Midtones @ 18% @ Hardness 1% (two passes)

I also adjusted the MID TONE CONTRAST in the SHADOW HIGHLIGHT menu (from memory it was about +9) The reason for that is give a bit more kick to the SOFT FRONT light.

Then the LOCALIZED SHARPENING on the face just makes her 'pop' a bit more.

I think that's it. What I have learned is, the main trick is to make any DODGING and BURNING and/or SHADOW and HIGHLIGHT adjustments in really small increments and if more is required then do a small increment again.

WW