Critique First attempt at portrait/people

Always good to have a willing model to photograph, :)

Both difficult lighting situations you've handled well but I guess the first one was the more difficult of the two as its suffering a little from being out of focus.
Compositionaly they need a little work too.
In #1, I find that as you are shooting from above it looks awkward, almost as if your daughters head is disjointed as we can't see her neck.
In #2 I think a step to your left would have separated that tree in the background from the side of your daughters head. I do like a central composition though, in fact it's a personal favourite. I'm a bit undecided on the central positioning of the background though. The join between the field and the sky splits the scene in half which distracts a little.
Good work, keep practicing, keep posting (y)
 
The lack of sharpness of the first is caused by camera shake - movement while photographing. I don't have a problem with photos from above, but it does make the subject look vulnerable, and can do odd things to the figure that may not be desirable.

The second is made weaker by lack of eye contact - other observations as already made.
 
ancient_mariner said:
.....The second is made weaker by lack of eye contact - other observations as already made.
Click to expand...

I never mind about the model not having eye contact, in fact I encourage them to look away / down etc, it appears more natural to me if they are engaged with something personal to them exactly as in this little girls scenario. Obviously there are times to engage with the camera but not necessarily.
 
I think.. that while these are good you're trying to be too clever. I still regularly make the same mistake fwiw.

When photographing people - especially when new to it - it's worth trying to keep it as simple as possible. Forget the inventive angles and curious poses with flowers and concentrate on getting a straightforward and engaging picture of someone.
 
Thanks guys. I'm not sure if i've softened the first picture too much. I used the radial filter on both and reduced clarity and sharpness. I'll have to look at the original to see if its sharp. I was resting on a metal grate so camera shake should have been minimised.
Update: Yeah it was slightly soft/out of focus.. What about this edit?
DSC_0052 by jason greenwood, on Flickr
 
Like this version better as it has some context. I don't know if you did or not but it always helps to work the shot by having the model move position/arms/pose. Here her arms are held in an almost defensive pose as if ready to run away, not I expect what you were after! So if you find a great location such as this, make the most of it by many variationin in pose.
 
Nice to see that last upload as my comment was going to be that it was cropped in to tight.
I like it so much more.

Gaz
 
The fact that the first was cropped so tight meant it lost detail when enlarged, hence it looked soft. Also, why did you apply a radial blur? I see no reason to do that.
The full image in the new edit show the context, the whole scene, she doesn't lose a hand now either and it looks a lot sharper. A much better shot.

The second shot in the field, along with a step to the *right* (not left as this would put the tree coming out of her head) to separate her from the tree, you could do with straightening the horizon as it's really distracting. Luckily that's easy to do after the fact.
 
Last edited:
ABTog said:
The fact that the first was cropped so tight meant it lost detail when enlarged, hence it looked soft. Also, why did you apply a radial blur? I see no reason to do that.
Click to expand...

I hadn't noticed that bit originally. There's no reason to blur a portrait of so young a girl - generally that's saved for subjects with wrinkles & blemishes - and the second version without blur is hugely better for it. If you *must* soften skin then one of the less harmful ways is to reduce clarity, which takes the edge of lines & wrinkles without making a mess of the picture.
 
ABTog said:
The fact that the first was cropped so tight meant it lost detail when enlarged, hence it looked soft. Also, why did you apply a radial blur? I see no reason to do that.
The full image in the new edit show the context, the whole scene, she doesn't lose a hand now either and it looks a lot sharper. A much better shot.

The second shot in the field, along with a step to the *right* (not left as this would put the tree coming out of her head) to separate her from the tree, you could do with straightening the horizon as it's really distracting. Luckily that's easy to do after the fact.
Click to expand...

I meant to say right, honest :)
 
Well Jason, if I'd taken that staircase shot as my first portrait I'd have been bloomin' delighted... and with good reason.

For me, you've got a cracking shot there and as others have said, the staircase makes the composition work and provides reason.

I'm less of a fan of the second - some nice ideas, but it doesn't quite hang together for me and the starkness of the light does fewer favours than the softer, ambient light in the staircase.

And to disagree slightly with Simon (who, like many others on here, has forgotten more about portraiture than I'll ever know!) - don't be afraid to experiment and try different things. It's part of learning what does and doesn't work. What I will say - in support of what he's saying - is that by introducing more variables and elements, you'll almost certainly take longer to nail down what makes each photo work (or not work). There are simply more things to focus on (pardon the pun) both as photographer and critiquer so your job is made more difficult all round. However, it's fun to try different stuff and if it keeps you getting out and shooting then keep at it.

Great first attempt!
 
pjm1 said:
Well Jason, if I'd taken that staircase shot as my first portrait I'd have been bloomin' delighted... and with good reason.

For me, you've got a cracking shot there and as others have said, the staircase makes the composition work and provides reason.

I'm less of a fan of the second - some nice ideas, but it doesn't quite hang together for me and the starkness of the light does fewer favours than the softer, ambient light in the staircase.

And to disagree slightly with Simon (who, like many others on here, has forgotten more about portraiture than I'll ever know!) - don't be afraid to experiment and try different things. It's part of learning what does and doesn't work. What I will say - in support of what he's saying - is that by introducing more variables and elements, you'll almost certainly take longer to nail down what makes each photo work (or not work). There are simply more things to focus on (pardon the pun) both as photographer and critiquer so your job is made more difficult all round. However, it's fun to try different stuff and if it keeps you getting out and shooting then keep at it.

Great first attempt!
Click to expand...

My point really was that the key to portraiture is the connection with the subject. I still struggle with that; I've spent ages doing fancy technical stuff when I should have been concentrating on the basics. You could learn from my mistakes - or just carry on doing your thing :)
 
juggler said:
My point really was that the key to portraiture is the connection with the subject. I still struggle with that; I've spent ages doing fancy technical stuff when I should have been concentrating on the basics. You could learn from my mistakes - or just carry on doing your thing :)
Click to expand...


And you're absolutely right of course - engagement is what draws the viewer in and is more important than pretty much any other aspect IMHO. I guess I just didn't want the OP to be dissuaded from experimenting (a bit)...

It also tends to correlate to what non photographers go "wow" about - it's rarely the technically excellent shot and more often the one that makes them laugh or at least connect with the subject.
 
Thanks guys. As to why I used radial blur; after watching youtube tutorials, it was said that adding radial blur AROUND the subject would soften the surroundings and enhance the facial features, specifically bringing the eyes out. There was no softening on the face. It was my poor technique I believe. The second is sharper and I'm glad I did experiment and take a few different versions of the same shot. Maybe not enough but I'm always learning and you guys always offer honest critique and praise so I'm moving forward in the right direction. Cheers.
 
jpgreenwood said:
Thanks guys. As to why I used radial blur; after watching youtube tutorials, it was said that adding radial blur AROUND the subject would soften the surroundings and enhance the facial features
Click to expand...

Well, that could be true but the resulting blur would be unlikely to have any relation to a real optical effect - DoF or whatever - and is consequently likely to be jarring.
 
juggler said:
Well, that could be true but the resulting blur would be unlikely to have any relation to a real optical effect - DoF or whatever - and is consequently likely to be jarring.
Click to expand...

This really - it's very difficult to get software blur to look like natural bokeh and *most of the time* an image is better off without unless it is an integral part of the image.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top