Learning portraiture

[Rachel Foster]

I've been trying to create portraits that focus entirely on the subject. Criticism is welcome.


http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x153/annieblues/Minimalism/3047bw.jpg

[ron_hiner]

there is something captivating about the serious expression and the composition, but the image is too dark.

So, if it were mine, I'd brighten it up substantially. I'd want to see what it looks like with the catchlights somewhere around 240 or more.

On the other hand, a global brightening will probably ruin the dark mood of the shot... you might want to experiment with just brightening her face.

Also, for next time... I'd try to either set up a hairlight or a light on the background so that the subjects head has a bit of a defined edge, rather than fading to black. That's my style anyway.


Ron

[Rachel Foster]

Thanks...the original image is lighter. I tend to go heavy on contrast.

This is the untouched photo

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x153/annieblues/portraits/100_3047.jpg

and this is my lightened version. Any thoughts?


http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x153/annieblues/portraits/47lightened.jpg

[Kathy Rappaport]

I love the original. Love the tone, the light, the expression. Sometimes it's hard to mess with somethig good.

[Rachel Foster]

I'm actually torn between the original and the lightened version. I tend to like whichever I'm looking at.

Thanks for the input!

[ron_hiner]

I pretty much agree with Kathy... but I still like to ponder and experiment.

I very much like your color version... that gives the image a whole new dimension.

This is pretty much untouched except for bringing the levels up further... (note the shadow behind her head -- this is detail captured by your camera, but on my monitor it is not visible in your posted images.) I don't know how I got those blue streaks in her hair - it wasn't intentional.

http://www.ronhiner.com/opf/100_3047_rwh1.jpg

And an experiment... a little sepia, and a little fog, and a little vignette.

http://www.ronhiner.com/opf/100_3047_rwh2.jpg

These are not any better than yours... just different.

I experimented with the crop too... but I didn't come up with a better one.

The problem that remains for me... is that that the brightness and the detiails of the top of her dress pull attention away from her face. I guess I'd be looking at ways to minimize that and bring focus to her face. Maybe brighten the face, but not the dress. (That is a bit tricky because you don't want the dress to look dirty)

After all that, I like the first one best -- I'll bet its closest to what the camera saw. The second one (sepia) adds a bit of mystery, but doesn't add any value.

Ron

[Rachel Foster]

It is fun to experiment, isn't it?

This is the same child during that sitting with slightly different lighting and different pose.

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x153/annieblues/portraits/4bw.jpg

And again...

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x153/annieblues/portraits/254.jpg


I'm wondering which is best and why?

[Rachel Foster]

Which of these is better? and why? I'm here to learn, so any comments/critiques/suggestions would be appreciated.

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x153/annieblues/portraits/83bw.jpg

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x153/annieblues/portraits/80bw.jpg

[Aidan Weatherill]

In my opinion the first image is by far the most interesting. I like it in its "black and white but brighter" version.

The last two look a bit "snapshoty" and much less crafted. The final image would maybe work if the eyes were in sharp focus.

Nothing wrong per-say with the the sitting pose, but it may have worked better if you had either got down to her eye level more, OR shot vertically down on her, the current angle is a bit unexciting.

(imo!)

I found this interesting

http://www.lumitouch.com/benstudiotutorial/rules.html

remember rules are there to be broken :)

[Rachel Foster]

I think you are right. The last two do look more like a snapshot but I haven't been able to identify why.

Thanks for the input and for the link.

[ron_hiner]

I think you are right. The last two do look more like a snapshot but I haven't been able to identify why.

On-camera flash pretty much makes every shot look like a snapshot. In both of these shots, the light source is close to the lens, and it's small, so you get harsh shadow lines -- that is probably why it has the snapshot look.

Can you tell us what your light setup was?

Ron

[Kathy Rappaport]

Portraits are best when the eyes are sharp and in focus and you can see catch lights (the little reflections of the light source in the eyes).

The pose with makes me ask why you felt you needed it in the picture. Two knees maybe.

There are catchlights in the 1st but the 2nd there is nothing - the eyes are flat and lifeless. My peronsal preference is for the subject to be looking toward you.

[Ray West]

Hi Rachel,

I've been trying to create portraits that focus entirely on the subject. Criticism is welcome.My comments refer to the first image - the best on the page - whatever my 'best' may mean.

My first question is 'What is the subject?'. It must be the dress, or rather the embroidery. The background is dark, but the dress has the brightness, and is what I first see. wrt the untouched colour photo, the skin colour takes the impact away from the dress, so to speak (I think this is because the dress is a shade of black - albeit a light one, and thus he face is more noticeable in the coloured image.)

I think I would experiment a lot with this image, try different b&w conversions, tones, etc. Use a layer mask to reduce the dress brightness, maybe try and get some brighter eyes. It is an image that is well worth working on, depending of course on its final destination. ('final destination'? can be the second question ;-)

Best wishes,

Ray

[Rachel Foster]

I think that's it. The eyes have to be there. I was having a hard time identifying what was off.

[Rachel Foster]

Ok, so the dress detracts from the child. Yes, I think it does. A more muted color would have been better so the focus is on her face, not her outfit.

The lighting set up is an inexpensive "studio" light in which I used a very low wattage bulb (15 watts or so I think). I abhor on-cam flash, so that they have that look is a problem. I've been experimenting with direction of lighting and with brightness.

This is my "studio:"

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x153/annieblues/smallstudio.jpg.

Some shots that are a bit more successful lighting wise (to me, anyway) include this one

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x153/annieblues/portraits/235.jpg
but it has the "eye" problem. The eye(s) is/are not brought out enough.

This one is closer, I think

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x153/annieblues/portraits/237.jpg

and I'm currently thinking this one may come closest.

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x153/annieblues/portraits/100_3989-2.jpg


So...am I getting it? I truly appreciate the input and the help. I'm here to learn and this is exactly the kind of information I need. I can look at a photo and know it could be better, but don't know just what is off.

[Ray West]

Hi Rachel,

If you can see there is something wrong, then you are 90% towards fixing it. The other ten percent comes with looking some more. The dress colour/contrast can be fixed in photoshop/whatever. No longer is processing a chemical/darkroom issue. Part of your camera is in your pc.

With this latest three, The first one, what is the 'eye problem'? If it is because the eye is lost in the shadow of the nose, then you need to get more light into there. If the original image is in raw (I'm assuming it is all digital) then selective masking, and other editing processes may recover the detail. If it is the pose, i.e. you want the guy to look more at the camera, then it's a retake I guess. Practice will get you to know these things. You will not be able to alter the pose much in post processing ;-) If you can't get a friend to sit for you when you want to experiment, then use something else - make a 'crash test dummy', so to speak.

For specific correctional advice, then others can answer, wrt. softboxes, reflectors etc. but minimalist is good.

Best wishes,

Ray

[Rachel Foster]

Thanks...I think the problem with the first is the shadows. I'm fascinated by the play of shadows on faces, but I have not taken into consideration how vital it is to get the eye(s) in the shot.

[Kathy Rappaport]

One of my first exposures to studio light I had the fun of playing.

Take your model - even a large stuffed animal or doll (a bit better) and seat it on a stool.
Light your studio with one light .
Take your shot and move the light just a bit - first up and then down and watch what it does. Move the light from above - middle and low.
Repeat continually and you will see what the light and the shadow does.

It really gives you a feel of knowing what you want the light to do.

[Rachel Foster]

That's just what I've been doing! That plus standing on step stools, crawling on the floor, and shooting from whatever angle I can think of. So far my most successful lighting results have been with my guitar shots. I used a mini-maglight.

[Asher Kelman]

Let me take an opposite point of view. The second picture has an unusual pensive character. I'd like to see the same picture taken with and without the catchlights. Lack of focus is fine by me if it adds to the picture what you need to make it work. One can also learn a lot from accidents!

As far as the knee is concerned, there’s a lot of potential for adding an unusually sculptural element. I'd do much more on that, if the lad were available and willing. This photography is likely to be more of a signature style for you.

Perhaps sketch the boy as to how you could use one or more limbs in the portrait to effect.

Asher

[Rachel Foster]

I'd like to retake the shots, too. I do seem to go for black and white, nonsmiling portraits. The focus issue is (being brutally honest) because I've had my Canon Rebel for two days and am still learning it. My other photos have all been with a point-and-shoot (Easyshare). As to the model's availability, I can always try the old bribe approach (pushing back bedtime is a good one!).

[Nicolas Claris]

Bonsoir Rachel

I tend to agree with Asher, but the knee isn't very well placed as it is to much "present" on the foreground, I like my eyes to be drawn to the sight of this young fellow. So young and a so deep sight… this could be a real good shot.

I do also like when a part of the photo is sharp, here it should be the eyes and a bit of the hair, which means a little more DOF. Your aperture were ƒ5 you could have go easily to ƒ8.

A softer light (less burned whites) would also be less agressive, bringing the same mood as the boy's.

I also much prefer colors, even if less saturated, I'm not a B&W fan!

Below is a fast and harsh try to show what I've tried to explain…

http://mnclaris.free.fr/forum/80bw_NC.jpg

[Rachel Foster]

I see! I REALLY have to learn how to use Photoshop!

[Rachel Foster]

I'll go for PS in a heartbeat if it improve a shot. But...I, too, want the shot to come out right "in the camera."

I think I've taken my first baby steps toward being an artist (if one truly must suffer for one's art). I went to the park to shoot this afternoon and provided a feast for a nation of mosquitos. I have six bites on my face alone. But....I think I got maybe one or two that are worthwhile. I'm cropping now and the one that's possibly the best is going to stand as is after a crop. That's what I want to get to. On the other hand, PS will be cranked up for some of the others.

[Nicolas Claris]

I went to the park to shoot this afternoon and provided a feast for a nation of mosquitos. I have six bites on my face alone.

Perfect moment for self portrait!

[Rachel Foster]

LOL! I'm game. Unfortunately they don't show well (I have a hard time adjusting the lighting when I'm in front of the cam!), but there is a bite on each cheekbone just in front of my ear. The 3rd shot was aimed at showing the bite next to my nose. It doesn't but I liked the look of the shot anyway. (I've got the photog bug...bad!)

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x153/annieblues/Me/015.jpg

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x153/annieblues/Me/016.jpg

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x153/annieblues/Me/017.jpg

I just realized it doesn't show well because it's on the other side of my face. I shot the wrong side.

[Paul Bestwick]

Rachel what you are doing at the moment is the recipe for success. Experimentation & lots of practice.
In addition of course, no doubt you are looking at the work of other photographers.

Don't expect miracles overnight, it is a long process. I know, I am going down that path as well & expect I may well get at least half way to my goal by the time I retire.
Of course by then, I will have raised the bar a bit higher so I will be no closer to satisfaction then what I am now.

That said t though, having people paying you to shoot their portraits & expressing a high level of satisfaction is rewarding.

[Rachel Foster]

Oh, you are so right! The adult model is my "spousal unit" and I was tickled pink when he told me me that some of the shots I've taken of him are the first photos of himself that he's ever liked. This is my current favorite of him

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x153/annieblues/portraits/1146bw.jpg

It could be cleaner, I think, and in better focus. I was still using my point-and-shoot then.

If photography were easy I wouldn't be so interested. It's the challenge that is so irresistible.

[Rachel Foster]

Double post...first had images too large.

[Rachel Foster]

I did the shoot over again. I'm rarely satisfied with the results, but one of these I'm very pleased with (the second one). Both are untouched except for a slight crop.

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x153/annieblues/portraits/jacobmonday034.jpg


http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x153/annieblues/portraits/jacobmonday045.jpg

[Kathy Rappaport]

Much, Much better.

Now for Cropping - that makes it great digitally, but when you go to print it might not fit the paper the way you thought. One more thing to think about when you crop is standards of paper, frames and mat!

[Kathy Rappaport]

I find that some of the best images I take come from having the subject be comfortable with me, my camera lens and the surroundings. So your husband would be naturally (we would hope) relaxed for images you take of him - producing a better image. My favorite photo of my husband was taken in a bar, having a glass of wine, while people watching during a camera class in San Francisco. I was street shooting and we were taking a break before returning to the studio that served as a classroom.

[Rachel Foster]

Would love to see that!

[Rachel Foster]

I've run into that! I've been thinking about framing with a black frame to fill out the rest of the paper.

[Kathy Rappaport]

You can also print on standard paper that is larger and just have the photo not fill out the paper (Thanks, Will)

[Charles L Webster]

Rachel, the first picture of your son is good, but could use some attention.

Keeping the light off the background will avoid the appearance of wrinkled fabric in the b/g. This is most easily done by moving the subject away from the b/g, but I know your space is limited, so I'd suggest using barn doors or something similar to control the light.

The hotspot below his ear is distracting, and contributes to a dark line across his right cheek. Look at Chuck Gardner's portrait lighting tutorials at http://super.nova.org/DPR/ for some good advice about basic portraiture.

<Chas>

[Rachel Foster]

Thanks, Chas!

[Rachel Foster]

I also like this one but I think, in light of what I've learned, the eyes are not enough of a focal point (no pun intended!)?

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x153/annieblues/portraits/13crop.jpg

[Nicolas Claris]

Rachel

thanks for playing the game!-) wow those beasts didn't miss you! thanks for sharing, I'm going to look for my "off" bottle…

I like much better the last photo, though the knee is still disturbing.
Colors are deep and bring a magnificient warm atmosphere…

I am with Kathy about the crop of the other pic.

If you frame correctly when you fire, you shouln't have to crop later and eventually miss some good pixels for your print…

[Rachel Foster]

Framing correctly would be the goal...yup. I'm "shooting" for that (pun intended!)

Does anyone like the knee in the last one? I kind of like the personality it conveys, but if it only distracts then it doesn't belong in the photo.

You mentioned warmth in the colors. After I set up the lighting, I put a dim red "party" lightbulb in a nearby lamp. Maybe it took away some of the sallowness of the regular light bulbs?

[Nicolas Claris]

Sorry Rachel, I wrote it wrong, it is not the knee, (knee is ok there) it's the foot that disturbs my eye…

[Rachel Foster]

It is rather attention getting. i could try to fade it, but thought I'd try a recrop.

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x153/annieblues/portraits/13ropagain.jpg

All told, I think I like this one best of the series.

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x153/annieblues/portraits/jacobmonday017.jpg

[Nicolas Claris]

Much better imho, I would have tried the vertical framing for the 1st one…

[Rachel Foster]

By the way, I went to the same park again today. The mosquitos went for the right cheekbone again and this time the size of the welt makes me think they invited all their friends and had a banquet. Sigh.