Golden autumnal portraits

[ionian]

Three portraits taken with natural light, around two hours before the sun set. All GX7 with the Sigma 60mm at f2.8. Although all are of my daughter this time, I'm looking to refine these processing looks into something I can repeat for other shoots, light dependent of course. Comments welcome.

[Geoff F]

For me, Simon, you have a background problem with the first image. The light seems a fraction on the 'flat' side with her face but the background is distractingly bright. Obviously a difficult scene to shoot in a different way. I think I would at least tone down/clone out those two bright background streaks.

The second image works well although I would clone out that distant bit of branch which appears to be coming from the top of her head. A very minor point but I think it would make quite a bit of difference.

The third one is OK. Well maybe I would clone out that dark object coming in from the left side just above eye level.

[Shadowman]

More charmers, you can always utilize a backdrop using the patterned background and use flash to simulate the lighting.

[ionian]

Thanks Geoff. I'm really happy with the pics - that doesn't mean I don't appreciate the comments, quite the opposite - but it is interesting to learn how you see them.

The bright background in the first locates the shot in a vibrant autumnal scene for me; I have concerns with the colour palette of her clothes against the leaves, but that's a taste thing. Do you think a shallower depth of field would have improved the distraction, or is it purely a balance issue between subject and ambience for you? I thought the soft gradient on her cheek was subtle but did enough to add shape to her face, so it's interesting you find it flat.

The second - yes, agree about the tree, I've cloned it out in the edit below.

Third one, again, locates the scene for me but then I was there and I know she was on a climbing frame. Maybe composing wider would have added better context, that's certainly something to think about.

I'm not trying to sound defensive here - but I am interested in your reading, as it is quite different to mine!

And thanks John - yes, it would be much easier in the studio!

Edited number two below.

[IzzieK]

She is gorgeous as usual...my favourite is the third one...very innocent looking and I like the framing and that backlighting on her hair.

[rpcrowe]

Lovely portraits of a beautiful young lady. My only concern was the very bright trunks of a pair of trees at image left of #1.

[bnnrcn]

Very nice set, you daughter is adorable

[Geoff F]

I'm happy enough with the background colour in the first image, Simon, its just those two bright vertical streaks on the left which I find distracting.

[ionian]

I've edited out the white streaks - they were silver birch tree trunks. Thoughts?

[rpcrowe]

I did an edit very much like this before I mentioned it, to ensure that removing the trunks would be possible. I did it with the clone tool...
I do like this version better because it gives more attention to your daughters face...

[Geoff F]

Yes, that is exactly what I was thinking about, Simon.

[RBSinTo]

Simon,
Cloning out the streaks has eliminated distracting elements in picture 1.
I think picture 2 suffers from too much background and foreground that adds nothing to the shot and de-emphasizes the subject. Some serious cropping would make her stand out more, as well as making her "bigger" which would give her face more detail, and in my opinion improve the composition.
Image 3 seems a tad washed out, but that may simply be in comparison to the light in 1.
I agree that the rung on the left should be cloned out as it is distracting and adds nothing to the story.
Robert

[zen]

Simon,

With the removal of the branch in the rear, Number 2 is perfect. Don't change a thing!

In no. 1, having seen both the original and the edited version, I'm not so sure about removing the tree trunks completely. This is a forest after all, and you might be able to tone them down a bit to be less intrusive. But in a shot like this, don't we expect to see a tree or two?

Thanks for sharing,

zen

[ionian]

Thanks Zen - I agree with you about #2 (sorry Robert), the background provides framing and the foreground shows the shadow which mirrors the negative space of the trees behind. I guess what I am saying is I like it like this, and it was done on purpose

I have indeed lowered contrast in #3 to give a dusky autumnal feel. I do this in quite a lot of people images by scrunching up the histogram, and I like the look but I know it won't be to everyone's taste.

[Dave Humphries]

Hmmm, that's quite a subtle change to #2, I find it difficult to decide without being able to flick between them in Lytebox. My only thought on #2 was the amount of negative space on the RHS, but it kinda has to be there for the overall composition.

On #1, if I may skip back, I did find the bright trunks competed with your daughter, but I thought same as Zen; in as much as I'd suggest leaving the most left hand trunk in the shot, it's not as bright, but I feel the composition needs something to 'balance' it and that works quite well. I also wondered whether this might have been a good time to break out the gold reflector, they get so little use normally, but it might have suited this scene.

On #3, I was intrigued by the rail, but I guessed 'bridge' rather than climbing frame. I'm not sure it is worth worrying about though.

On the whole, I like that they are all shot from her level or below.

[William W]

I've edited out the white streaks - they were silver birch tree trunks. Thoughts?

Considering the effort already applied - I would remove the horizontal small branch that is cutting the top of her head.

WW

[William W]

. . .The second - yes, agree about the tree, I've cloned it out in the edit below.
Edited number two below.

Again considering the effort already expended . . .

I'd also knock out that OoF horizontal line of shadow, which is exiting her head to camera left.

WW

[madcrow]

Nice images. That's a beautiful little girl you have.