a few samples from recent portrait shoots

dean messenger

dean messenger

Messages
1,669
Name
Dean
Edit My Images
No
these were shoots that were done free of charge to try and build up my portrait portfolio.
just a couple of examples here

11255597114_f7b36f63ce_z.jpg


12795052735_2c5c89e016_z.jpg


12795036065_24a0e9f30d_z.jpg
 
On the trawl through for posts without a reply!

For me:

No.1 - too blown out for me; not enough detail where it is needed (other than the chin where the pose is not flattering). Not a fan of the pose either.
No.2 - for me the dress is the main focus of the image and the little girl is fading into insignificance.
No.3 - Colour popping aside, again the boy seems of secondary importance in the image - the side of his head to camera is blown and we're left with a eyelash and and ear.

Sorry to say, none of them really work for me.
 
What David said really. I also think #2 &#3 are struggling really badly with wrap from the background and this further spoils them
 
All a bit too bright for me as they stand. looking at my laptop from an angle and darkening them I would then say that also in No2 and No3 the subject needs to be a touch brighter in relation to the back ground or of course the background darker :) as at the moment the most eye catching thing about all the pics is the bright background.
No1, the idea is fine but not quite working, something a bit awkward about her upper lip in relation to her nose, and her chin looks uncomfortable. If you are shooting digital this is one time when you might shoot loads of variants then pick the one that really ' zings' .
The added colour is a real marmite thing, love it or hate it, I am not a fan others are, so it is maybe a technique that is used very sparingly? dunno.
 
in fairness to the above images. number 1 is my stepdaughter and she pulled the Duck face pose between normal shots as it were and its what i call her typical Teenage attitude.
With Number 3 i really shouldnt list it as Portrait as i was asked to shoot it like that with the emphasis on the shirt. All 3 are high key so yes they arent to everyones taste and im still in the learning process when it comes to shooting portaits having done cityscapes and landscapes for numerous years the whole portrait thing is new to me and im having to rely on shooting with a pair of speedlites a cheap muslin backdrop and i have 2 shoot through umbrellas and a single rectangle 5 in 1 reflector thing so each shoot its a case of leraning what setup works best.
appreciate all the comments though many thanks
 
Fair enough, so...

No1 as a fun shot is fine, I was crit-ing it as a prospective studio style portrait, same goes for No 3 as a product shot, no problem.
tho' I would still suggest you turn the back light down a bit to favour the subject more.
Also darkening No2 mutes the dress in contrast to her face on my screen allowing her face to become more of the subject.
hope this is useful
 
I understand other people's crit on these, but I really like them. Yes, there are blown highlights and lots of loss of detail, but that's fine if it's what you were aiming for.

The first one works best for me - a really spiky, energetic image.

I agree that for 2 and 3 a slightly darker background would put more emphasis on the subjects.

Thanks for sharing.
 
I like them all, and don't find the dress in number 2 distracting at all it's a lovely shot.

I tend to always blow highlights when editing high key shot's, but that's my taste and they are mostly photo's for me.
 
The only blown highlight in a hey key shot with an artificial background like these should be the background due to a very strong lightsource hitting it. The subject should be properly exposed, with perhaps a 1/2 stop bias on over exposure for effect. However, completely destroying detail isn't a good idea, as thats what makes images interesting to start with. Shadows especially are important in portraiture as they give much needed depth to a flat canvas.

The second image is the strongest out of the lot, but I'd much prefer to see a colour version of the image (original pref) to see how much contrast you have to play with.
 
here is the original image of number 2. with zero PP. just converted from raw to Jpeg. as you can see a little soft and flat, especially around the eyes, then the adjusted version in colour sharpened up, the eyes brightened etc.

13137319734_3e621e73ea_c.jpg



12795477444_fdd5000299_c.jpg
 
if thats the original version without PP why is there so much sloppy PS brushwork?
 
the last two images have clearly been PP'd the brush work is evident around her head- so to say zero PP is a tad misleading

Les :)
 
i can assure you that is the original RAW file. opened in cs6 then saved as Jpeg.. NOTHING has been touched on it. i think your mistaking brushwork for the girls very fine hair.
in fact i uploaded that image only last night direct from the SD card.
so if you would care to point out exactly where the alleged brushwork is id love to know because the only way that could happen is if if the flickr brush fairies got it after it had been uploaded.
 
Last edited:
View attachment 7670

The areas circled are the bits that look like have had some brush work - or rather, missed brush work... the one on the far right specifically as you can see what looks like a brush has cut in.
 
dean messenger said:
i can assure you that is the original RAW file. opened in cs6 then saved as Jpeg.. NOTHING has been touched on it. i think your mistaking brushwork for the girls very fine hair.
in fact i uploaded that image only last night direct from the SD card.
so if you would care to point out exactly where the alleged brushwork is id love to know because the only way that could happen is if if the flickr brush fairies got it after it had been uploaded.
Click to expand...


mmmm no its not. Sorry but as Bethy points out. Just to make it even clearer for you. Contrast slider right up/Brightness right down

3436-1394786394-84da5a2f4142d190ba8d9a9c310e4207.jpg
 
i honestly have no clue what your seeing there even circled. zoom in on the area of hair you have higlighted to the right and you will see it is strands of fine blonde hairs. as for the shoulder you have circled. the top is a brushed finish velvety type material.
and to show that i have uploaded the Original Idenitical RAW file to my drop box here to view.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/uwpcdta6yr0m1ny/IMG_5893.CR2
 
so how is that possible from the original? i cant see photoshop doing this automatically even when it opens the raw in ACR.
and i dont open the images in LR or have any predefined settings that adjust the image so it makes zero sense
 
Last edited:
dean messenger said:
i honestly have no clue what your seeing there even circled. zoom in on the area of hair you have higlighted to the right and you will see it is strands of fine blonde hairs. as for the shoulder you have circled. the top is a brushed finish velvety type material.
Click to expand...

Honestly?. The answer you're looking for is simply, 'Sorry chaps, I made a mistake and uploaded the wrong file. '

dean messenger said:
so how is that possible from the original?
Click to expand...

dunno, its not the original as claimed?
 
Last edited:
im sorry but it IS the original and i resent the accustaions that it isnt. i have provided the exact file taken from SD card in RAW and simply saved as Jpeg. and have also uploaded the RAW file.
im more than happy to own up to any post processing that has been done. otherwise why would i even bother uploading to versions of the image that are clearly different . also looking again you seem to be examining the bottom image of the two which i clearly state is the Post processed one. AND NOT the original.
 
Dean they really are talking about the top one : a quick manipulation in Faststone:effects:sketch shows the 'bites' out of the image clearly, lots of painting been done already.
Maybe somehow a first quick edit got re-saved over your original file, although I can't see how that works with the RAW processors I know about.
Its a mystery, let's solve it :D
And, for me, that's the best photo because its nice and funny, made me smile.
 
ive looked at the raw file again. and the highlighted areas dont show. however when it opens in ACR. it seems the adjustment slider setting is doing something automatically to the image. thats the only explanation i can see. which is rather frustrating to say the least as its certainly Nothing im doing myself the raw file and the "untocuhed" jpeg are both one and the same. the only difference being the jpeg has been opened in CS6 ( which opens all my raw files instantly into ACR, then saved as jpeg format.
again i remain adamant that i have dont no PP myself and need to look into ACR more to see if it is retaining previous slider settings and putting them onto the image. If thats the case then i will have to look at a way around stopping this or changing workflow so RAW images only directly ins CS6 rather than into RAW first.
its certainly not something i was even aware of happening here.
 
Think I know what you've done if using CS6, you've uploaded the raw file from your drive, the raw files recognise the editing from previous saved edits (I forget the file name which it takes this data from, .psd or something), that's my guess.....or you're lying :ROFLMAO:
 
dean messenger said:
im sorry but it IS the original and i resent the accustaions that it isnt. i have provided the exact file taken from SD card in RAW and simply saved as Jpeg. and have also uploaded the RAW file.
im more than happy to own up to any post processing that has been done. otherwise why would i even bother uploading to versions of the image that are clearly different . also looking again you seem to be examining the bottom image of the two which i clearly state is the Post processed one. AND NOT the original.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry I can see PP evidence on BOTH of the images you posted, that said, there seems to be NONE on the drop box (RAW) image - very strange that they appear to have been PP'd - I have no idea personally how that could have happens, I hope someone on here can help solve the mystery

Les :thinking:
 
I do not care for portraits in flat lighting that show no form or texture.
 
dean messenger said:
ive looked at the raw file again. and the highlighted areas dont show. however when it opens in ACR. it seems the adjustment slider setting is doing something automatically to the image. thats the only explanation i can see. .
Click to expand...
The alterations we can see are not "adjustment slider" stuff, they are likely clone brush or lightening brush applications, could ACR be pulling in your adjustments from a related programme, applying them and saving to the Jpeg?
 
Lighting lighting ... Details

Fix your lighting/exposure ... Watch for details (not even one strand of renegade hair should cross the forehead if not needed ... js)


…........…....................................
Fellow of some photo club;Probably an exhibitor as well;Collected some stars & never gonna reach the galaxy-damn you inflation;
If I pressed an eject button on your photo in a comp, don't hate me. You can judge me but I'm still gonna eject you anyway :p
 
dean messenger said:
i can assure you that is the original RAW file. opened in cs6 then saved as Jpeg.. NOTHING has been touched on it. i think your mistaking brushwork for the girls very fine hair.
in fact i uploaded that image only last night direct from the SD card.
so if you would care to point out exactly where the alleged brushwork is id love to know because the only way that could happen is if if the flickr brush fairies got it after it had been uploaded.
Click to expand...

I don't understand how anyone with any photographic knowledge can look at that image and confuse it with 'straight out of camera' but for the guy who took it? Seriously.

They all follow the modern pattern of sloppy photography drowned in sloppy overcooked PP. What happened to lighting and composition?
 
Vince1551 said:
Lighting lighting ... Details

Fix your lighting/exposure ... Watch for details (not even one strand of renegade hair should cross the forehead if not needed ... js)


…........…....................................
Fellow of some photo club;Probably an exhibitor as well;Collected some stars & never gonna reach the galaxy-damn you inflation;
If I pressed an eject button on your photo in a comp, don't hate me. You can judge me but I'm still gonna eject you anyway :p
Click to expand...

i totally disagree with that statement. why shouldnt strands of hair cross the face. these arent airbrushed shots for some magazine for people living in a fake airbrushed world where every woman is a size 8 with perfect complexion and figure. These are family photos of kids taken in there home. kids that are running around and fidgeting, being impatient messing there hair up. Theres no makeup artist and sytlist on hand to mold every single strand into place and ensure the person loos as far removed from the natural truth as possible.
People are flawed, they have imperfections, they have blemishes and spots and warts and freckles.
would you remove those too?
would you remove every stray twig from a branch in a landscape shot that is sticking out in the wrong direction?
I dont and i wont. i'll leave that for those who want to shoot plastic images for the likes of vogue.
and i think its been proved that the raw file in dropbox and the image converted in Photoshop to jpeg is clearly being adjusted by photoshop through some predfined settings and not by my own hand as it were and i need to go through each stage ( from opening the image, ACR then saving as jpeg and see at which point the problem is occuring.
 
For me, what works in one context doesn't in another. So your if you pics a practice for a social or wedding style portrait portfolio the crit will be very different to one that assumes you are producing a more spontaneous reportage style portfolio. Both equally valid, but different.
So, a stray hair maybe fine in reportage style but less acceptable in a studio style, and of course these are only conventions not rules written is stone.

Hope I'm not teaching my Grandmother to suck eggs here :) Tho' what worries me is photoshop spying on my every move !
 
dean messenger said:
I'll leave that for those who want to shoot plastic images for the likes of vogue.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the lighting you have used gives this effect, no texture on skin and clearly from the RAW file photo is underexposed now in post you should only try and recover that by 1 stop possible 1.5 stops nothing more otherwise you lose too much.

The light 1:1 is normally recommend for kids and I understand how difficult it is to get them to stay still for 5 mins! So my suggestion is use a teddy bear or dolly first to check your lighting and exposure (don't trust back of camera screen) learn to use the histogram.

Take the advice as you will even though it doesn't seem like it look into what @Phil V has advised what you should be practicing getting as much right in camera and little PP after.
 
Last edited:
Tintin124 said:
Take the advice as you will even though it doesn't seem like it look into what @Phil V has advised what you should be practicing getting as much right in camera and little PP after.
Click to expand...

Personally I think this is a huge point to note. I think far too many photographers rely on PP to save the day, get the picture how you want it first and foremost.

Sometimes it can't be done or something is missed that you thought was right but try your best to get it right on camera first.

That's not a dig at you OP, just a general remark, just so happens to be on here as this is the first place I saw it posted
 
This is the first time I've been back and re-read my post.

I'm apologising if it comes across as a bit arrogant, but hopefully you can see what I meant, which is to care for the craft whilst the subject is there.

There's far too much advice nowadays about what can be 'saved' in post. To be totally honest, a good retoucher could create a decent image from 2 of these. But it'd take hours, and it only takes 1/200 sec to take a picture.
 
Last edited:
i think the whole thing is a lesson learned in checking your Post processing settings. i can still only attribute the raw file being adjusted to previous settings when it has been opened and saved as jpeg in ACR hence causing the problems which are shown as not being there on the unaltered raw file from the dropbox.
sometimes getting it right in camera isnt always possible of course, those spur of the moment shots or in situations where you have to just make the best of whats available to you ( liks shooting in brighton sewers while on a tour there. limited time and appalling light even at ISO 6400 and above and no chance of popping up a tripod).
in regard to these shots its still a new thing for me and relying on basic studio gear of a couple of flashes and umbrellas in different light and space situations theres still much to learn. but then every time i take the camera out its a learning experience no matter what im shooting.. you wouldnt be human if you didnt gain something new from every shoot you do.
all part of the challenge and enjoyment of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top