Critique Feedback for a portrait novice

Tom Pinchenzo

Tom Pinchenzo

Messages
1,024
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi All,

I've not done much portrait photography (usually landscapes) so I thought I'd post my attempts here for some feedback - here are my thoughts: I like the background/setting and the side lighting works quite well. The shadowy side of her face might be a bit dark. Also warming and softening in post could have been subtler? Any thing else I should consider?

Cheers,
Tom

Woodland Frieda 2 by Tom Pinches, on Flickr
 
Hi Tom,

Sorry I am not an expert but my thoughts are

There is too much going on in the photo, you either want a portrait or s landscape.

I cannot see your camera settings on Flickr so not sure if the shutter was slow or the light was dim or due to some other issues the photos is not sharp where it need to be.

Thank you
 
I was going for the ‘environmental portrait’. It was fairly dark and I didn’t want to go higher than ISO 800 as my d3300 gets pretty grainy. I guess grain is better than motion blur!
 
TOM's shot x by mrcrow_uk, on Flickr

your title mentions woods but your shot seems to be mainly about them with the little Frieda being ....bottom of the shot!!
i am not that good at portraiture but have a lot of experience in sorting out my own unsatisfactory shots
i would say if you learn a bit of photoshopping you can get rid of unwanted mistakes or lack of proper lighting
i mark a portrait is good if it emits persona which relys on eye contact..eye to camera lens..and you know and love your child...this shows since you have chosen a shot with which that comes over....
as you can see i have disregarded the woods and chosen the child and as suggested...viewpoint is critical as well so you could have gotten a bit lower and make the woods really in the background...behind the little girl
hope that helps...and i cant show many portraits from this end....its not really my forte...
cheers
geof
 
Good advice in the thread esp regaring the space at the top of the photo. My main thought would be to get right down to the level of your subject and get some eye contact.
 
Tom Pinchenzo said:
I was going for the ‘environmental portrait’. It was fairly dark and I didn’t want to go higher than ISO 800 as my d3300 gets pretty grainy. I guess grain is better than motion blur!
Click to expand...

no worries...sometimes we dont always appreciate the photographer has a different agenda from our narrow view
cheers
geof
keeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep shooooooooooooooooting!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
juggler said:
Not bad...

1. Try getting down to the level of your subject
2. It's ok to have one side of the face in shadow, but if the cheek is lit then the eye should be too.
Click to expand...

Would some fill flash have helped to get better lighting on the face or just utilize the natural light better?
 
Tom Pinchenzo said:
Would some fill flash have helped to get better lighting on the face or just utilize the natural light better?
Click to expand...

With pure fill flash the basic lighting pattern would be the same, i.e. the eye darker than the cheek. I'd suggest using natural light better. It may be as simple as taking more shots and binning those where the angle of the face doesn't produce a nice light pattern.

You could go the full OCF route if you were keen. I imagine doing that on location with a baby would be hard work!
 
juggler said:
You could go the full OCF route if you were keen. I imagine doing that on location with a baby would be hard work!
Click to expand...
Yep - it was hard enough as it was! She’s just learnt to crawl so she never stays still... I think if I turned her so the light was hitting 45 rather than 90 degrees there would have been less contrast.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top