Headshot(s) *Updated*

Chris L

Chris L

Messages
931
Name
Christian
Edit My Images
No
I'm not sure about this shot and so would like to hear some opinions from someone other than the tog or model :D

Whilst there can be a degree of variation in sharpness in a shot depending on what a tog is trying to achieve I also feel that at some point (given the content) that a picture can be too soft regardless of any waffle from the tog :)

As such, I'm happy with the pose but can't decide if the DOF is just too shallow. I'm not fishing for compliments...just trying to get an unbiased opinion :p My gut reaction is that it's too soft but I think because I like the pose so much I can't bring myself to dump it just yet :help:

The image is unprocessed apart from a small amount of sharpening and the usual faffing trying to get the colours/contrast right for web :)

mask1.jpg


Thanks in advance for your thoughts

Chris
 
Hi, Chris,

I don't see the image as soft. The eyes are plenty sharp, and everything else is superfluous.

The problem with this image is that the light lacks the drama to make the mask make sense, if you follow. ;) You have flat light, a lighter grey background, and clothing that tends to make the mask look comical rather than mysterious.

Take the same shot with one light, letting the shadows create depth and mystery, and put the model in darker, non-distracting clothes, and you'll have a memorable shot.

- CJ
 
The left eye is super sharp, the right eye less so. But the face in general is fine. The shoulders and shirt are, obviously, OOF. The fact that there's a difference between left eye and right eye suggests a very thin DOF, and that's confirmed by the beads as well - right side ok, left side oof. (But you knew all that)

I like the pic. But I'm not sure what the point of it is. There's no real context - why is she wearing a mask?

But - I've just gone back to look at your original question - I think the DOF is fine and works. A paying punter would have no problem with it.

As CJ says, there are other issues with the light - but that's not for me to solve
 
In my opinion why you may think it looks soft is because that there does not appear to be a focal point for the viewer.

As other posts have suggested most portraits should have the focus on the eyes. Although this is the case in this shot there is an awful lot going on around her eyes to distract the viewer, the dangly bits on the mask, which in my opinion leads you down to her blouse which is out of focus because of depth of field.

Hope this helps.
 
I pretty much agree with Tiler. The biggest problem with this image though is that the eyes just aint sharp. The eyes need to dominate to get away with all that oof softenss going on around the eyes, so you have two choices as I see it, sharpen the whole image so that the eyes and the mask are sharp, or just sharpen the eyes, which I think is the preferable way to go?

mask_3.jpg
 
My thanks to you all for commenting (As shown with the new "Thanks" button I've duely (ab)used :D)

The more I look at the original and read your comments I come to realise that for me the biggest problem here is in fact the light as CJ and Mobilevirgin stated. The eyes just don't stand out enough.

Whilst the image as a whole could be sharpened as CT suggested I don't think it will help overcome this issue. When viewed at a higher resolution the left eye is already "sharp enough" though the f/2.8 aperture has meant that the right eye will never be sharp enough.

With regards to CJ's suggestions about lighting and Tiler65's about the OOF blouse and detail on the mask being a distraction I've uploaded another one for anyone's comments. I'm not particularly fussed on the pose but was wondering if the lighting works better?

mask2.jpg


mobilevirgin said:
But - I've just gone back to look at your original question - I think the DOF is fine and works. A paying punter would have no problem with it.
Click to expand...

An interesting comment and one which I had a good example of today. As a suggestion for something I could look at doing, a work colleague brought a small photo album of images that her daughter had been given by the mother of a girl who had recently celebrated her birthday. Since the birthday girl's mother was also a school photographer (iirc) she took photos of the group of 5 girls that attended the party in a variety of poses. My colleague was really impressed with the photos. I can't think of any other way of putting the next bit...I'm not for one minute suggesting that the quality in that album is the same as she would produce when being paid but what struck me was how many were OOF or had funky skin tones etc. It just goes to show that what we look for as photographers isn't necessarily the same as the "punters"

Once again, thanks for taking the time to comment. Tis much appreciated :)

Chris
 
As Parliament says............ "The 'EYES' have it"

Eyes = Ayes before anyone gets on my case.

100% better. :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:


one small thing could you bring her right eye up to the same level of brightness as her left?
 
love it... certainly draws you into her eyes, with everything else playing second fiddle
 
Thanks to you all for taking the time to comment. It's bery much appreciated :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top