• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Tips for Handheld Self Portraits?

Mike Spinak

pro member
Lately, I've been taking a lot of handheld self portraits. I take care of my dear friend's two year old daughter (who is a dear friend, in her own right) whenever I can spare the time. She likes for us to take pictures of the two of us, so I take lots of handheld self portraits, with her (and sometimes her mom).

I imagine almost all of us take handheld self portraits, at some time. Though there is an intrinsic element of informality about such pictures, along with the issues that arise from not being able to see through the viewfinder what the picture looks like, I still desire... as in all areas of my photography... to do the best I can.

What tips could you all share, about how to do the best handheld self portraiture? How do you create a composition with intent, well communicated, when you are working blindly? How do you frame? How do you focus? How do you expose? How do you prevent looking like you're in a contorted position, holding your arm/s as far away from your torso as possible? I'd appreciate any general advice.

Here's an example of the type I've been doing, lately: a picture of me along with two generations of beloved friends:

portrait-bits.tcl


I took this picture with both hands on the camera, framing as best I could. (This square crop is the full vertical height of the original frame, with a bit of the right and left cropped out.) I used my Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L lens set to 24 mm, with an aperture of f/8, and a shutter speed of 1/250th of a second. I used the Canon 550 EX flash, set to +2 stops, with a Lightsphere II Clear Photojournalist diffuser bounced off the ceiling.

I like the results, but I always want to do better. Criticism of this handheld self portrait is welcome, too, but I am mainly looking for more general comments about how to do handheld self portraiture as well as possible.

Mike

www.mikespinak.com
 
Mike Spinak said:
]

I like the results, but I always want to do better. Criticism of this handheld self portrait is welcome, too, but I am mainly looking for more general comments about how to do handheld self portraiture as well as possible.

An often overlooked piece off portraiture technique is the subjects mood. And if the shot captures the mood, then technical flaws are easily forgiven as the content carries the image rather than the technique.

On a gearhead front, this is one place digicams have a huge advantage. Flip out the LCD and point it forward so you can actually compose. And their light weight allows easy single handed usage.

And off topic, there is always the self timer and a tripod. Or a tripod and remote shutter release for close in shots like this.

some thoughts,

Sean
 

Mike Spinak

pro member
Thanks, Sean.

An often overlooked piece off portraiture technique is the subjects mood.

I tend to be very aware of this when photographing others. I have not really thought about this, in regard to shooting myself. I tend to be happy most all the time, and even more so when playing with the little girl in this picture. As for her mood... she has a remarkably good temperament, and further, I expect she would only be requesting that we take pictures of ourselves when she is feeling happy and playful. The woman in this picture wasn't feeling well when this picture was taken, but is nonetheless a very cheerful person most all of the time, especially when we are all playing together.

On a gearhead front, this is one place digicams have a huge advantage. Flip out the LCD and point it forward so you can actually compose. And their light weight allows easy single handed usage.

That does sound like an advantage. I may pursue using digicams for this, but I'm not sure they would meet my technical needs. Are there digicams with which one could attach a powerful flash, manually set, at an adjustable angle, and with a diffuser? Or, alternatively, can one get good results with a digicam at high ISO? Do they shoot RAW? Can they make good quality big prints? I have almost no experience with point-&-shoot mini digital cameras, but my impression was that they were too compromised.

And off topic, there is always the self timer and a tripod. Or a tripod and remote shutter release for close in shots like this.

I am well aware that there are other techniques available than handheld, which could potentially produce better results. This question is about how to use handheld technique as skillfully as possible, not about what other self-portraiture techniques make better alternatives than handheld.

Thanks, again.

Mike

www.mikespinak.com
 
Mike Spinak said:
Thanks, Sean.
You are welcome. :eek: Please note my comments were in general rather than specific to your shot.

Mike Spinak said:
I tend to be very aware of this when photographing others. I have not really thought about this, in regard to shooting myself.
This is why I mentioned it, emotion can carry a portrait much further than technique. A fence post sticking out of persons head matters less than the smile on their face. Albeit, good technique can enhance the shot too.

Mike Spinak said:
I tend to be happy most all the time,
You are blessed. :eek:

Mike Spinak said:
and even more so when playing with the little girl in this picture.
I love happy children, they are a true joy.
Mike Spinak said:
As for her mood... she has a remarkably good temperament, and further, I expect she would only be requesting that we take pictures of ourselves when she is feeling happy and playful. The woman in this picture wasn't feeling well when this picture was taken, but is nonetheless a very cheerful person most all of the time, especially when we are all playing together.
In general, I would say the lass looks happy but more a mellow and blissful contentment in the moment. The lady (mom) looks happy as the smile touches hre eyes and the hand on the lasses head shows that tenderness is likely an element of that however she feels.

You on the other hand, look pleased/happy but also stressed. I suspect the weight of holding up the camera is what creates this tension.

In general, it is a very cute shot and I like it.
Mike Spinak said:
That does sound like an advantage. I may pursue using digicams for this, but I'm not sure they would meet my technical needs. Are there digicams with which one could attach a powerful flash, manually set, at an adjustable angle, and with a diffuser?
Not that I know of and hotshoes and a decent aperture range are getting rarer. But they almost uniformly have flashes and you could set up the flash with an optical slave on a tripod (much safer and stable around a toddler or with an umbrella in the slightest breeze. And for this application the tiniest models are what would remove the stress of holding the camera from your face. And you could talk about the picture you see in the reversed LCD with the lass to share the creative moment. Thing about giving her the chance to make faces at herself and the camera and sharing moment. :eek:


Mike Spinak said:
Or, alternatively, can one get good results with a digicam at high ISO?
Cigarette pack sized cameras and their tiny sensors do not mix well with high ISOs, but with good light and the extensive DoF of such small sensors (and focal lengths) do take clean sharp shots in good light. High contrast light tends to bring out lens design failures.

Mike Spinak said:
Do they shoot RAW?
Some do, some do not. The problem here is convenient size does not map to prosumer features like RAW format or hotshoes.

Mike Spinak said:
Can they make good quality big prints?
It depens on what you mean by big. A 3.3 MP digicam (I had a Nikon Coolpix 990 once upon a time until it got dropped) can make a decent but soft 8x10. The same sensor size at 7 MP likely has more noise. But at 8x10 and ISO 100 that noise should not be an issue. At 16x20 it will be for noseprint viewers (myself included). But on the wall while enjoying a dinner party it would not be. And you can always fall back on the classic noise reduction filters for PS.

In short, I would say you can get adequate but not good big prints. Myself, I have yet to get a shot I felt that was worth printing larger than 8x10. Although I now have a Canon Rebel XT (350D) and a couple of decent lenses (50/1.4 and 100/2.8 macro) so I am working towards getting some shots. Although at moderate magnification (1:2 or closer) the macro shows how filthy my sensor is.

Mike Spinak said:
I have almost no experience with point-&-shoot mini digital cameras, but my impression was that they were too compromised.
With good light, even the worst camera can produce excellent results. With a disposable film camera with flash and proper lighting gear any competant photographer should be be able to take fantastic photos. Although the lighting gear will cost good money. The photographer and control of light matter more.

With the size of your example shot, any decent digicam should be able to produce that. Your fancy, but heavy, zoom lens may have clean boke at larger apertures, but that really looks like a lot having more DoF from a smaller aperture at small sizes (I am looking at your snap at 5x5 inches right now as I run both my displays at 1600x1200).

My only complaint with some technical experts is their answer is always to use the absolute best technology whether asked for the best or just for good enough. This is not to malign their expertise, but it does malign their concept of good enough which is about people in general rather than picky photographers in specific. If you look at http://www.envisagement.com/Spring_Collection_2005.php?image=267 you will see a shot from a 5 MP Canon G5 (larger and heavier than I would recommend for your goal) and it made lovely clear and sharp 8x10.

Using a cigarette pack sized camera that only weighs a tad bit more would allow you to get decent sharp 8x10s with auxiliary lighting using a slave. And a very light camera will let you be more a part of the moment than straining muscles holding the DSLR and flash steady one handed is work after a few minutes and having it show on your face.

I would suggest a trip with several CF cards to a local camera store/Best Buy/... and taking a slaved flash and having the store clerk serve as tripod and running some tests on cameras that feel right and have a swing out LCD and perhaps RAW.

Mike Spinak said:
I am well aware that there are other techniques available than handheld, which could potentially produce better results. This question is about how to use handheld technique as skillfully as possible, not about what other self-portraiture techniques make better alternatives than handheld.
I expected so, but I was aiming for a general answer and other readers may not be aware. This is just a forum concept for me where I right for the reader while interacting with other posters.

all the best,

Sean
 
Last edited:

Mike Spinak

pro member
Hi, Sean,

Please note my comments were in general rather than specific to your shot.

Okay... noted.

I love happy children, they are a true joy.

Yep, they're the biggest joy there is.

I'm working on a big photo project with the little girl in this picture, and I value your commentary. More to come, regarding this, later.

In general, I would say the lass looks happy but more a mellow and blissful contentment in the moment.

I think that's fairly accurate. I also think you are looking at curiosity, anticipation, and an attempt to fully comprehend, regarding the photographic process she's participating in.

The lady (mom) looks happy as the smile touches hre eyes and the hand on the lasses head shows that tenderness is likely an element of that however she feels.

Again, I think that is accurate, as well as perceptive. It was totally spontaneous on the mom's part, to put her hand on her daughter's head like that. I think it adds a dimension to this picture.

You on the other hand, look pleased/happy but also stressed. I suspect the weight of holding up the camera is what creates this tension.

I think you're close... but the tension has more to do with the strain of trying to hold the camera as far from my body as possible, to get all three of us within the frame, and trying to keep my arms to a minimum in the composition, and trying to adjust manual settings in this odd position.

In either case, this brings up that a factor in taking this kind of picture successfully may be minimizing tension from the way one is holding the camera. Using a lighter camera and/or lens may be part of this, also using a comfortably wide-angle lens for the task may help (though this may introduce more issues with unflattering perspective). I suppose, for the future, I'll be conscious not to extend my arms out quite so far, and then I will aim upward a little more, because it is less of an issue to cut off some of the bottom than some of the top, when I am framing more tightly from having my arms closer to my body.

In general, it is a very cute shot and I like it.

Thanks.

You would need to know me better to have a sense of this, but I also think that as a self-portrait, it does a fair job of showing me "in my environment", and showing certain aspects of my personality. I don't think it is extraordinary in this way, but I do think it is competent.

But they almost uniformly have flashes and you could set up the flash with an optical slave on a tripod

That's an interesting idea for how to get around the limitations of a small digicam. That would, unfortunately, make the whole affair of taking these pictures less spontaneous. However, if I know in advance that she is likely, at some point, to request that we take pictures of ourselves together (and I do), then I can anticipate this and set it up in advance. Thanks for the idea.

Also thanks for going into more details about the features/lack thereof in small digicams. It does sound like I might find such a cam compromised, but it also sounds like I may be able to work around at least some of the compromises. It's worth going down to Fry's Electronics with a flash and a flash card and playing with a few, then borrowing one from someone to try out.

My only complaint with some technical experts is their answer is always to use the absolute best technology whether asked for the best or just for good enough. This is not to malign their expertise, but it does malign their concept of good enough which is about people in general rather than picky photographers in specific.

I agree with you, and I don't always push people that they should outlay huge amounts of cash to get the best. (I do, however, push people to go beyond "good enough" in terms of the compositional quality of their pictures, toward trying their best for nearly every picture.)

As for myself, I can be satisfied with a picture that is compositionally worthwhile, but executed with lesser equipment. Nevertheless, I do have the fancy equipment, and I do like being able to use it to its utmost.

In the case of the self-portrait shown here, the end use is likely to be a $3 12x18 Costco print, with 3 inch white borders on both sides. We'll put the pic up on the fridge, or on her easel. She'll have room to draw in the borders, or tear them, or put stickers on them, or whatever embellishments she sees fit. Then... and here's the part where big prints and a high megapixel count really helps... we'll take it down, pore over it and discuss what we are looking at in great detail. (Such as, her pointing and asking, "What's this?"; "That's a kind of tooth called an incisor"; "What's this?"; "That's a hemangioma"; "What's this?"; "That's a cut from shaving"; "What's this?"; "That's an eyelash"; "What's this"; "That's a freckle"; etc.) When we're done with that, she'll probably keep it in her room for a while, to pore over some more. Her mom will probably want a small print for putting in a photo album, and may want a big print to go into the rotation for decorating her office for her medical practice.

I was aiming for a general answer and other readers may not be aware. This is just a forum concept for me where I right for the reader while interacting with other posters.

Okay, understood.

Thanks, again.

Mike

www.mikespinak.com
 

Anita Saunders

New member
What a fab result! It is difficult capturing a decent self portrait with just yourself as subject, never mind with two others in the frame! This one looks natural, free, and fun. The light is really good without harsh shadows and the composition works really well! My only criticism is that your head is slightly too tilted backwards and it distorts a little with such a wide angle lens (too much neck not enough eyes).

I wouldn't recommend a digicam. For one, the flash is harsh that close without the use of bouncing/diffusing. In my experience (with a canon digicam) is that high iso is really noisy from small cameras and in fact this is one reason I ended up selling mine.

I don't see that I could contribute to improving your technique as your result far exceeds any I have taken and you have already chosen a good lens with appropriate cam settings and flash technique. Focus is sharp too. One thing perhaps, is that I often use the reflection in the lens to compose. I would also ensure you compensate with the angle of your head, by tilting forward a bit for a more flattering angle on a wide lens.

This is a very satisfactory shot Mike. Congrats.
 
Top