First attempt at self portrait

Iren

Iren

Messages
624
Name
Irina
Edit My Images
Yes
Ive been unwell recently and just feeling a bit down, so with some spare time in my hands i decided to try and shoot self portrait.
I had selfie iphone photo on my "professional" facebook page and that just had to go!

It was shoot in manual mode with auto face detector. The second photo, i know the focus is on my eyebrows, but have no idea why?! Moreover, in some photos focus was on the further eye and the closest eye was out of focus. Any reasons why?
image.jpeg
image.jpeg
 
Am I right in thinking you have a 6D Irina? Does it have WiFi? If so then it may be better to use the app to get the focus right rather than relying on the camera face detection jobby whatsit.

The focus issue will just be the camera not getting it right using the FD method.

My preference is for #1, I like the almost subdued colour palette, it seems to suit your mood well.
 
I echo what David says above. Much easier with the app. Although I've been recently doing selfies with film rangefinders - focus on an object, allow sufficient DOF and then put yourself where the object was.

THe other thing to mention is that if its for your "professional" Facebook page, what image/impression of yourself are you wanting to put forward to your potential client base.

As offered before - if you're ever oop north , I'll do you a portrait of you want.
 
minnnt said:
Am I right in thinking you have a 6D Irina? Does it have WiFi? If so then it may be better to use the app to get the focus right rather than relying on the camera face detection jobby whatsit.

The focus issue will just be the camera not getting it right using the FD method.

My preference is for #1, I like the almost subdued colour palette, it seems to suit your mood well.
Click to expand...

Yes, I have 6D and I did use the app (EOS utility 3) on my laptop to get a better view. However, I did not find there multiple focus points like if I look through the camera (if I remember correctly, It was some sort of square, focus point?! but it was too large, so I had to move it manually and it would be on my face, not eyes, so I ended up using auto face detector in the end).
Probably there is a better way, I just need to find it :)
 
Sir SR said:
I echo what David says above. Much easier with the app. Although I've been recently doing selfies with film rangefinders - focus on an object, allow sufficient DOF and then put yourself where the object was.

THe other thing to mention is that if its for your "professional" Facebook page, what image/impression of yourself are you wanting to put forward to your potential client base.

As offered before - if you're ever oop north , I'll do you a portrait of you want.
Click to expand...

Thank you! As I've mentioned above, I did use the app, but just could not find the right focus point that I needed probably, so ended up using auto face detector.

Thanks for the offer, I don't travel much within UK, but will bare that in mind
 
Is your facebook page related to photography? If so what sort of photography? Asking as it may alter any crit I offer :) (btw I do like the second image).
 
PaulButler said:
Is your facebook page related to photography? If so what sort of photography? Asking as it may alter any crit I offer :) (btw I do like the second image).
Click to expand...

Thank you, on the second image I look more like myself :)
Yes, its photography page, I do lifestyle, portraits, kids and family. Happy face photo would probably suit better, but in absent of that, first photos was still better than my iPhone selfie
 
Must admit I'm generally not a fan of phone selfies, they always seem somewhat distorted to me ...

I like the pastel tones in number 1 but ... Ignoring other technical aspects, I'm not sure it is the best image to be used for your facebook page. The reason being I would much prefer eye contact and engagement which is evident in the second image. The first image lacks any real engagement, tbh you look bored and uninterested (I know you had been unwell and do hope you are better btw). To me, the second image works much better both as a portrait and for use on your facebook page. Image two in colour maybe the best of both :)
 
PaulButler said:
Must admit I'm generally not a fan of phone selfies, they always seem somewhat distorted to me ...

I like the pastel tones in number 1 but ... Ignoring other technical aspects, I'm not sure it is the best image to be used for your facebook page. The reason being I would much prefer eye contact and engagement which is evident in the second image. The first image lacks any real engagement, tbh you look bored and uninterested (I know you had been unwell and do hope you are better btw). To me, the second image works much better both as a portrait and for use on your facebook page. Image two in colour maybe the best of both :)
Click to expand...

Thank you for the honest and constructive feedback, I am still finding what style I prefer, but pastel and soft/neutral tones is something I really like.
Agree about eye contact, I am feeling bit better now, thank you, so will try more in the coming weeks
 
PaulButler said:
Must admit I'm generally not a fan of phone selfies, they always seem somewhat distorted to me ...

I like the pastel tones in number 1 but ... Ignoring other technical aspects, I'm not sure it is the best image to be used for your facebook page. The reason being I would much prefer eye contact and engagement which is evident in the second image. The first image lacks any real engagement, tbh you look bored and uninterested (I know you had been unwell and do hope you are better btw). To me, the second image works much better both as a portrait and for use on your facebook page. Image two in colour maybe the best of both :)
Click to expand...

This one is little bit more cheereful and eyes are sharp, but no eye contact :(
p.s. once I upload it here, eyes are no longer share for some reason :(
irina_2.jpg
 
Loving that one in terms of expression and colours. As for sharpness that may be down to how it is being exported or perhaps compression. What software are you using?

For portraits, it isn't always necessary to have eye contact, but in my view for a business page it maybe should. Other people may of course have a different opinion.

It is more important that you are happy with the image you use as it is the first chance to create an impression with prospective clients.

Love the smile too!
 
#2 appeals more to me than the others Irina, but that's down to personal taste.
Your smile in #3 is just lovely, this I feel would work well for your business page if only there was eye contact.
I can't really give any suggestions for taking selfies as I have never taken one, I have a face for radio you see :D

Whatever happened to collaborating with a nearby photographer?
Is there anyone you could team up with to have them make your portrait and you reciprocate?
 
Sir SR said:
I like this one. I reckon this could have been lifted a bit by having a reflector camera right to bounce some light back into your eyes to give a bit of "sparkle"
Click to expand...

Thank you! I actually had reflector during this shoot, at some point, it did bring some light back into my face, but its very small, like 30cm, so not much of a use, I should get larger one
 
blakester said:
#2 appeals more to me than the others Irina, but that's down to personal taste.
Your smile in #3 is just lovely, this I feel would work well for your business page if only there was eye contact.
I can't really give any suggestions for taking selfies as I have never taken one, I have a face for radio you see :D

Whatever happened to collaborating with a nearby photographer?
Is there anyone you could team up with to have them make your portrait and you reciprocate?
Click to expand...

Thank you!
I'll change the photo on my Facebook business page once I have new, but I like the expression "face for the radio" :)

I've agreed to meet up with a photographer from this forum who leaves nearby, for the mutual photoshoot. We just need to set the date when both free, so hopefully next month.
 
PaulButler said:
Loving that one in terms of expression and colours. As for sharpness that may be down to how it is being exported or perhaps compression. What software are you using?

For portraits, it isn't always necessary to have eye contact, but in my view for a business page it maybe should. Other people may of course have a different opinion.

It is more important that you are happy with the image you use as it is the first chance to create an impression with prospective clients.

Love the smile too!
Click to expand...

Thank you! I have edited photo in LR and saved on my desktop, so I uploaded it from there, might be too large, but I could not figure out how to make it smaller.
My Facebook page it sort of trial and error, I am learning not just to take photos, but to present them to appeal to audience, but once (if ever) I have my own website, I'll try to do it right from the start. I do agree about importance of an impression.
 
If it helps any this is how I do it from LR. In Export, I choose my location, naming convention (shown in pic 1 below)
fs1.JPG

then set format (jpeg), color space (sRGB), quality - I find 85% works nicely for web size, even as low as 60 is ok .... Then click the resize box, enter the pixel size you want (1024 x 1024 in my example) don't worry over resolution, just leave where it is (240 default I think). Best not allowing LR to enlarge the image, its dreadful ime, finally set the sharpening target (screen) and amount (Standard in my example. See below :)

fs2.JPG

Took me longer to type out than do :D

Hope that helps.
 
PaulButler said:
If it helps any this is how I do it from LR. In Export, I choose my location, naming convention (shown in pic 1 below)
View attachment 96722

then set format (jpeg), color space (sRGB), quality - I find 85% works nicely for web size, even as low as 60 is ok .... Then click the resize box, enter the pixel size you want (1024 x 1024 in my example) don't worry over resolution, just leave where it is (240 default I think). Best not allowing LR to enlarge the image, its dreadful ime, finally set the sharpening target (screen) and amount (Standard in my example. See below :)

View attachment 96725

Took me longer to type out than do :D

Hope that helps.
Click to expand...


Thanks a lot! It does help..turns out I did not scroll down to Image Sizing..and really appreciate information about the details/quality/pixel size etc
 
PaulButler said:
If it helps any this is how I do it from LR. In Export, I choose my location, naming convention (shown in pic 1 below)
View attachment 96722

then set format (jpeg), color space (sRGB), quality - I find 85% works nicely for web size, even as low as 60 is ok .... Then click the resize box, enter the pixel size you want (1024 x 1024 in my example) don't worry over resolution, just leave where it is (240 default I think). Best not allowing LR to enlarge the image, its dreadful ime, finally set the sharpening target (screen) and amount (Standard in my example. See below :)

View attachment 96725

Took me longer to type out than do :D

Hope that helps.
Click to expand...

Interesting on quality. I've stopped using other than 100% for jpg becayse I'd keep finding compression artifacts at 85% or less if there were large areas of a single colour with a small tonal change across them, and for the small benefit in reduced file size it didn't seem worth doing less than 100%. YMMV.
 
ancient_mariner said:
Interesting on quality. I've stopped using other than 100% for jpg becayse I'd keep finding compression artifacts at 85% or less if there were large areas of a single colour with a small tonal change across them, and for the small benefit in reduced file size it didn't seem worth doing less than 100%. YMMV.
Click to expand...
Even at much larger sizes than 1024x1024 I never see artefacts @ 85%. No idea why you see artefacts. Do you edit raw files or jpegs?
 
PaulButler said:
Even at much larger sizes than 1024x1024 I never see artefacts @ 85%. No idea why you see artefacts. Do you edit raw files or jpegs?
Click to expand...

RAW files. First time it happened I wondered what all the rubbish was all over the images, ended up comparing before and after. I don't have the files handy now (they got binned) or I'd show evidence.
 
Further to the compression discussion I have just run a pretty basic test using the same image (a rather dull seascape). I did 3 exports @ 85% at different sizes 1024, 2048 and full size (6000) and one @ 100% at full size. The 85% full sized file is 7.28Mb the 100% is 14.1Mb so hardly a small benefit in file size I'd say. Visually I cannot see any difference between them either. They are on my flickr if anyone is interested.
 
I'll see if I can provide an example later. I normally export to a max of 1800 on the long side for web use (usually 1024 for other sites) so while it might save some, it won't save 7 meg.
 
Now this is weird - I went back to the photos that had previously had artifact problems, exported images at 65, 85 and 100 and they all *appeared* without artifacts. There did seem to be small differences between them when flicking through the images using the same viewer, but not enough to be visible if they were side by side.

On this basis I will continue to use 100, simply because I don't want odd things happening uncontrollably, exporting my images at reduced size for sites like here & flickr.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top