Some portraits for critique

I rearranged the furniture a bit, and got Jayne to sit at the scary end of the K10D for a while. I finally persuaded her to let me post some of them, so I'd welcome any critique.

The light is daylight, and the photos are unedited, apart from a bit of cropping, and a trace of levels and USM at times. I probably ought to adjust the white balance a bit, but I'll get around to that in due course.

This one was an experiment. I can't make up my mind whether I like it or not. There's a touch of soft focus at the edges, but the high key effect comes just from overexposing.

I'm not one for portraits myself, but number 3 in first post initially looks great, but is there some movement?

something not quite right.

Number 2 and your second post get my vote Chris.

Possibly. It was 1/30s at F5.6. The camera was on the tripod, obviously, and I was firing the shots with the remote.

The 3rd shot is unsharpened though, and does look softer than the other two, which have a little USM applied.


Can you be a little more specific?

If anyone liked the 2nd, is this any better? It's not the same shot (it's actually the previous one, but a slightly different angle). No sharpening, though I have fixed the white balance.

Did the models eyes move? face is sharp, eyes look blurred.... I think.

On closer examination, there seems to be a general softness, but it is the eyes that the main problem is (for me anyway).

What do you think now? The first one is as before, and the second one is the same shot, with the white balance fixed, slightly different levels, a little USM and a little attention to the eyes (too much?).

funny but I think, that a little softness (no matter how it is induced) goes a long way towards reducing unwanted blemmishes.
Overexposure does the samething.
posing the model to hide flaws..(ie straight on to hide a nose, 2/3 uneven eyes or scars, and profile to hide half the face, profile with hair hanging down to hide most or all of the face, tilts and angles for double chins etc).

I think you're using old, perhaps forgotton, hollywood era, pre-photoshop in camera image touch ups!

I think the worst thing to happen to portrait photographers, was competition judges some time ago came up with "standards".
Basic portrait 101, 3lights, 2 umbrellas, 1/2 to three stops difference between highlight and shadow, 5 or so basic poses......

All of a sudden some big retail chain comes along and says "hey the equipment is expensive, but any minimum wage earning kid can push the button...

Now the equipment isn't all that expensive either....

So what to do?

I'm trying to sell the photoshoot itself as a great experience.
I try to create images that the client will love.
I need to build a relationship with them and learn what appeals to them individually.
So no matter what criticisms you get on your work, remember You need to be your own worst critic on your technique, and she'll be your worst critic on the final print. You only have to make ONE person happy...her.

I think the biggest problem here is the lighting, which is very flat and dull. You need some gentle "modelling" of the features and more vitality in the colour. Would this grace the pages of a glossy magazine as it stands?

Perhaps think about a little more drama in the lighting set up. A large window is a good source of natural light, or a single softbox perhaps if you want to use studio flash.

The other thing to think about are the eyes. The eyes catch our attention and should generally be sharp.

Have a look at lots of images on EPZ and see the good portraits there for ideas.

You've made a good start but ut does need refining and I hope these comments will help you.

Ok, thanks John. Could you elaborate a little on exactly what you mean with some of the specifics?

- what exactly is meant by "modelling"?
- "vitality" in the colour? Do you mean adjustments in the saturation, a background that contrasts more with both skin and hair, or what?

As it happens, I was using a large window as sole source of light to the left side as you look at the photo, together with a large piece of white card on the other side to reduce the shadows that were cast to the right as you look at it. It does make for more uniform (is that what you mean by "flat"?) lighting, but the results seemed better than without the card.

I take the point about eye sharpness. And I wasn't hoping for a Vogue cover just yet either...

The best way to do this would be for you to take some shots with someone who does lots of portraits. Practical experience is best. Next best will be the mass of books on portraiture that show examples, some even illustrated with the lighting set ups as well.

Modelling is giving shape to an object by controlling the light and shadows to give the desired shape. By filling the shadows completely with your reflector you have eliminated them and ended up with flat, even light. Try moving the reflector further away to allow some shadow without it becoming too harsh.

As regards the colour I'll try to link in an image of my own here to show what I mean, or at least what I like:







This has much richer colours and is lit by a single main light as I recall. Pentax k10D with 16-45mm lens. Does that help to explain what I mean?

Well Chris, personally I prefer your images to John's - a very natural and flattering light. Lucky you too, having an attractive, and willing, model on hand, I hope, for your sake, she's willing to pose for you again, even if the results don't get posted here (hope I don't sound too lecherous ).

My favourite composition was the 5th image (the one in reply to Brian's comments). Nice and tight on the face, just needs the eyes to be sharper. I can't tell if Jayne moved a bit or if the focusing is off. Also, perhaps it could be a little brighter with slightly increased contrast? That might be this monitor though...

Keep at it - remember the Vogue covers would be highly photoshopped to get 'perfect' skin, eyes etc, but your pics are good as far as I'm concerned.

Dan

I have to say that JR's portrait is technically excellent, but perhaps therein is the reason why Daniel prefers Chris's efforts - they appear more natural and less posed. JR's does scream "STUDIO".

Nonetheless, I think JR's points are all valid. The secret Chris needs to learn is to capture the vitality of John's picture whilst retaining the simplicity of his.

A little theory and a bit more practice is required, methinks.

Keep 'em coming, Chris. There's lots of potential in your pictures. And the model is a sweetie. (As is John's.)

G

George has the point exactly.

You have to get the technical aspects right to be able to express the emotional content in the way you see it.

Practice is the key.