Bikini Portraits. How did I do?

[JacaRanda]

Something really cool and creative could have been done with the harsh shadow of her against the rail.

The shadow was what I wanted in the first picture. But I guess you have examples of what you mean creative?

I'm not creative at all, but here are some ideas.
https://www.pinterest.com/jamiestuartj/creative-shadows/

 

[Derrel]

What, only 14 shots?
Looks like you did alright, and used the light well enough. If anything, I think more depth of field is good to have on shots like these, ones which incorporate a large expanse of landscape, with the model shown full-length. Just a little bit more depth of field is my preference.

I shot about 300 shots but I think you just probably do not want to all shots, do you?

Wouldn't more depth of field drown the subject into the background and make it worse regarding emphasizing the subject? As Trever below already mentioned "total lack of central focal point"?

I'll explain what I meant. I don't want this to be read as a rant, but whatever. Maybe you can try to understand what I am going to try and say in evaluating fourteen of your shots, almost all done with,basically, the same exposure settings and mostly the same basic visual look. First, there were too many images for me to want to invest the time to type out point-by-point C&C on 14 images, but my comment was about a couple of photos, mainly the ones where she is by the brick wall, and also the rock wall face; I look at those types of photos as classic "girl in situ" types of glamour photography, where the idea is a situation (landscape, urban situation,whatever) where the model AND the situation she is in, are the subject of the photo. It's like small-scale landscape photograph meets pin-up model. Showing large expanses of situation, around the model, surrounding the model, the model being seen in the location.

There is more than just shallow depth of field as a way to emphasize a model. What you did in these images is best done using deep depth of field. But, because of the lens length and distances you were shooting at you got almost enough depth of field to show her and the immediate environment in good focus, but you started losing sharpness just a little bit too close to her for maximum revealing of the scene. You need to stop the lens down if you want to frame a woman smallish in a big scene, otherwise you have 90% OOF background and 10% model.

If you had backed off to 75 feet and used a walkie-talkie to communicate with her, you could have used a 200mm lens at f/4 and gotten some different looks, but this set was shot mostly with a short lens. The lack of central focus point is to sort of be expected: this is an old,old type of photography, where the scene and the model, together, make up the overall, total picture. I think some of what makes the lack of central focus on half of these is her lack of posing skill and her beginner-level modeling abilities; SHE is not commanding any attention because her body posture and facial expression/eyes are just not up to this type of work. In a long shot like this, the model simply has to carry a lot of the weight, and this young lady is not experienced enough to do that.

Again...there were 14 shots--UN-NUMBERED. It's a hassle to count down and do your work for you when you ask for C&C/comments.Shots 2,4,5,6 all would look better with MORE DOF. There are four others that need either 1) more DOF or 2) a whole lot,lot less DOF, depending on what the photo is supposed to be about. if you want to show a model in a location, go either shallow DOF or show the scene rendered sharply, but try to avoid this in-between gray area that results usually from shooting hand-held in marginal light with a marginal exposure combo that's neither fish nor fowl. Example: the shot of her on the steel bench, shot vertical...there's an entire "scene" being shown, but there's NOT ENOUGH IN FOCUS--because you shot this at f/2.8! Her face is in focus, but almost nothing else is, and yet, she is swimming in a scene; the shot above that of her on the bridge looking camera left, same thing, f/2.8 with a wide lens. Far too much out of focus, yet almost-recognizable foliage,competing for attention in a semi-wide angle lens shot...the background is distracvting as hell, it's irritating. She's shown in a nice scene, a good location, but you're in the no-man's land of indeterminate intentions...do you want to show the girl + scene? If so, then focus the scene with f/16 and a tripod, OR throw the background wayyyyy OOF with a fast shortish lens, like 85mm at f/3.5.

The human brain can recognize stuff that is almost in focus, and sublimate only so much of that almost-clear-enough-to-see stuff. This is the central issue for me. I do not like wide-angle glamour outdoors shot at f/2.8 or so...there's no visual payoff. The model is not separated from the scene, the scene is not shown clearly enough...these images would have an entirely different look if the lens had been stopped down OR if you had another,longer lens. This is a well-known genre of glamour work, and you're not quite getting the background separation look, nor the background-sharp+girl sharp aspect. The lens is not a good people photography lens for this type of work--its bokeh is not pretty,and it's not fast enough to get foreground/background separation at the shorter end.

28,32mm at f/2.8 is not showing the landscape off well, but is making it hashy in the bokeh region of the images, and on closer-range shots, is showing the model's legs/feet OOF. The issue is that the bokeh region is large, and has a lot of high-frequeuncy detail, and the lens has average to poor bokeh rendering. Almost all my issues would have been solved by f/5.6 to f/8 shots with these short focal lengths.

Just trying to point out that if you want to shoot these common visual tropes. there are at least two good ways to do it; if you look at Trevor's glamour work, he's excellent at the narrow-angle/small-scale/telephoto work,with pinpoint focus on the model. In this kind of wide-view work, the background is a huge element of the photos,both by actual area and by visual weight metrics. Using a 24-70mm at f/2.8 at the short end is creating backdrops that are annoyingly almost-in-focus. The bokeh of that lens is not pretty,and when the background is this kind of stuff, with a lot of small, high-frequency detail like leaves and sharply-defined rock formations, the effect of harsh bokeh is distracting. It's better to stop down to a small aperture, and show the landscape instead of hinting at it with a short lens shot wide-open when wide-open is only f/2.8. The expansive backgrounds on some of these need to be either way out of focus, or shown crisply. These lack a central focus because the actual lens-focus is in a type of no-man's land.

 

[snowbear]

It looks like her skin color is inconsistent. Honestly, I think there are too many for a single post.

You can always skip looking at the photos if there are too many, right?

That is correct, however you did ask.

 

[julianliu]

What, only 14 shots?
Looks like you did alright, and used the light well enough. If anything, I think more depth of field is good to have on shots like these, ones which incorporate a large expanse of landscape, with the model shown full-length. Just a little bit more depth of field is my preference.

I shot about 300 shots but I think you just probably do not want to all shots, do you?

Wouldn't more depth of field drown the subject into the background and make it worse regarding emphasizing the subject? As Trever below already mentioned "total lack of central focal point"?

I'll explain what I meant. I don't want this to be read as a rant, but whatever. Maybe you can try to understand what I am going to try and say in evaluating fourteen of your shots, almost all done with,basically, the same exposure settings and mostly the same basic visual look. First, there were too many images for me to want to invest the time to type out point-by-point C&C on 14 images, but my comment was about a couple of photos, mainly the ones where she is by the brick wall, and also the rock wall face; I look at those types of photos as classic "girl in situ" types of glamour photography, where the idea is a situation (landscape, urban situation,whatever) where the model AND the situation she is in, are the subject of the photo. It's like small-scale landscape photograph meets pin-up model. Showing large expanses of situation, around the model, surrounding the model, the model being seen in the location.

There is more than just shallow depth of field as a way to emphasize a model. What you did in these images is best done using deep depth of field. But, because of the lens length and distances you were shooting at you got almost enough depth of field to show her and the immediate environment in good focus, but you started losing sharpness just a little bit too close to her for maximum revealing of the scene. You need to stop the lens down if you want to frame a woman smallish in a big scene, otherwise you have 90% OOF background and 10% model.

If you had backed off to 75 feet and used a walkie-talkie to communicate with her, you could have used a 200mm lens at f/4 and gotten some different looks, but this set was shot mostly with a short lens. The lack of central focus point is to sort of be expected: this is an old,old type of photography, where the scene and the model, together, make up the overall, total picture. I think some of what makes the lack of central focus on half of these is her lack of posing skill and her beginner-level modeling abilities; SHE is not commanding any attention because her body posture and facial expression/eyes are just not up to this type of work. In a long shot like this, the model simply has to carry a lot of the weight, and this young lady is not experienced enough to do that.

Again...there were 14 shots--UN-NUMBERED. It's a hassle to count down and do your work for you when you ask for C&C/comments.Shots 2,4,5,6 all would look better with MORE DOF. There are four others that need either 1) more DOF or 2) a whole lot,lot less DOF, depending on what the photo is supposed to be about. if you want to show a model in a location, go either shallow DOF or show the scene rendered sharply, but try to avoid this in-between gray area that results usually from shooting hand-held in marginal light with a marginal exposure combo that's neither fish nor fowl. Example: the shot of her on the steel bench, shot vertical...there's an entire "scene" being shown, but there's NOT ENOUGH IN FOCUS--because you shot this at f/2.8! Her face is in focus, but almost nothing else is, and yet, she is swimming in a scene; the shot above that of her on the bridge looking camera left, same thing, f/2.8 with a wide lens. Far too much out of focus, yet almost-recognizable foliage,competing for attention in a semi-wide angle lens shot...the background is distracvting as hell, it's irritating. She's shown in a nice scene, a good location, but you're in the no-man's land of indeterminate intentions...do you want to show the girl + scene? If so, then focus the scene with f/16 and a tripod, OR throw the background wayyyyy OOF with a fast shortish lens, like 85mm at f/3.5.

The human brain can recognize stuff that is almost in focus, and sublimate only so much of that almost-clear-enough-to-see stuff. This is the central issue for me. I do not like wide-angle glamour outdoors shot at f/2.8 or so...there's no visual payoff. The model is not separated from the scene, the scene is not shown clearly enough...these images would have an entirely different look if the lens had been stopped down OR if you had another,longer lens. This is a well-known genre of glamour work, and you're not quite getting the background separation look, nor the background-sharp+girl sharp aspect. The lens is not a good people photography lens for this type of work--its bokeh is not pretty,and it's not fast enough to get foreground/background separation at the shorter end.

28,32mm at f/2.8 is not showing the landscape off well, but is making it hashy in the bokeh region of the images, and on closer-range shots, is showing the model's legs/feet OOF. The issue is that the bokeh region is large, and has a lot of high-frequeuncy detail, and the lens has average to poor bokeh rendering. Almost all my issues would have been solved by f/5.6 to f/8 shots with these short focal lengths.

Just trying to point out that if you want to shoot these common visual tropes. there are at least two good ways to do it; if you look at Trevor's glamour work, he's excellent at the narrow-angle/small-scale/telephoto work,with pinpoint focus on the model. In this kind of wide-view work, the background is a huge element of the photos,both by actual area and by visual weight metrics. Using a 24-70mm at f/2.8 at the short end is creating backdrops that are annoyingly almost-in-focus. The bokeh of that lens is not pretty,and when the background is this kind of stuff, with a lot of small, high-frequency detail like leaves and sharply-defined rock formations, the effect of harsh bokeh is distracting. It's better to stop down to a small aperture, and show the landscape instead of hinting at it with a short lens shot wide-open when wide-open is only f/2.8. The expansive backgrounds on some of these need to be either way out of focus, or shown crisply. These lack a central focus because the actual lens-focus is in a type of no-man's land.

Derrel,

I appreciate you spending so much time making these comments. You must be "inspired" to say what you are trying to say and that's good for me to learn. I do not mind you explaining or ranting or whatever you say about the photos, as long as it focuses on the photography subject itself.
I think I got your point after reading all these and I would like to give it shot another time with either long focal length and large aperture to blur the background or with small aperture to show off the background. I did not think this much and did not have much experience of shoot some "good" outdoor glamour shots but I think I learned a lot by posting these imperfect pictures here, right?
I should have numbered the photos. I still prefer to post a good number of photos though, which I think will expose what my shortcomings of shooting these photos. If I just posted one picture, would you be able to tell me what you just said? Though as I said, I should numbered the photos and remind people to comment one or all photos as they wish.
But again, thanks for your time. I look forward to more critiquing from you if you are willing to offer.

Julian

 

[Derrel]

Julian,
Thanks for the response. I think you have the right idea: shoot with a smaller aperture to show the whole scene in pretty good sharpness, or go with a longer focal length lens that has a much narrower angle of view behind the model, and which will create a smaller background, which is much easier to control.

And yes--a large number of photos does offer us the advantage of seeing patterns that one or two or even three shots might not reveal, such as the basic f/2.8 at 1/100 type of exposure choice.

When you come right down to it, pictures shot at f/2.8 at close distances like this will often have missed focus, inadequate depth of field, and at slow speeds like 1/100 second, some subject motion blurring, and on High-MP cameras, some mirror shock and shutter vibration from the first curtain slamming open--if you look closely enough.

Wide-open at f/2.8 is not the best way to shoot photos of people in this type of situation, which has a huge amount of the frame taken up by high-detail background items. There's a lot of difference in the way the scene is rendered when the lens has been stopped down to f/5.6 or f/6.3.

 

[julianliu]

Julian,
Thanks for the response. I think you have the right idea: shoot with a smaller aperture to show the whole scene in pretty good sharpness, or go with a longer focal length lens that has a much narrower angle of view behind the model, and which will create a smaller background, which is much easier to control.

And yes--a large number of photos does offer us the advantage of seeing patterns that one or two or even three shots might not reveal, such as the basic f/2.8 at 1/100 type of exposure choice.

When you come right down to it, pictures shot at f/2.8 at close distances like this will often have missed focus, inadequate depth of field, and at slow speeds like 1/100 second, some subject motion blurring, and on High-MP cameras, some mirror shock and shutter vibration from the first curtain slamming open--if you look closely enough.

Wide-open at f/2.8 is not the best way to shoot photos of people in this type of situation, which has a huge amount of the frame taken up by high-detail background items. There's a lot of difference in the way the scene is rendered when the lens has been stopped down to f/5.6 or f/6.3.

Yes I got your idea and will try it out next tkme

 

[rlemert]

"They are taken in Red rock amphitheater in Denver area. Do you live in this area?"

Many years ago. I went to that little hard-scrabble college in Golden - spent several hours climbing around Red Rocks in geology classes. I figured it had to be either Garden of the Gods, Red Rocks, or the Flatirons in Boulder.

 

[Milky]

When I do a photoshoot (didn't do that much but well), I like to limit myself to 5 photos out of it, maybe some more if model ask for it. You can go up to 10 if you have really different settings / outfits, which is not really the case here.

Regarding the shots in themselves.... well skin tone is too close from the backgrounds in most case, which is what you should use IMO more than small DOF.

Model seems to be always in the center, which is no my favorite when you can actually have an interesting background.

In most of the photos, the light don't seem to do anything to shape the body of this girl, looks almost like plain straight light... that would be for me the real problem of the lot.

But that's a good start, good luck for next time.

 

[The_Traveler]

I should have numbered the photos. I still prefer to post a good number of photos though, which I think will expose what my shortcomings of shooting these photos. If I just posted one picture, would you be able to tell me what you just said? Though as I said, I should numbered the photos and remind people to comment one or all photos as they wish.
But again, thanks for your time. I look forward to more critiquing from you if you are willing to offer.

Julian

If you post a great many photos you will get, what you go here, very general comments that won't point out enough specific problems.
No one has yet said what strikes me right off the bat that, in none of these pictures, does she look particularly happy, graceful or attractively posed.
In general, she is awkwardly posed in clothes and shoes that do nothing for her and in fact detract.
The background is just there and she is not in it as much as dropped in front of it.
Have a look at treverit's pictures and you'll get a better idea for how the colors of both clothing and background need to work together and the pose needs to be appropriate to the kind of body the subject has.

 

[beagle100]

I agree with some of the other posters - there is inconsistent skin color, exposure issues, shadows across the model, etc.
some need cropping and for others I would choose a narrower DOF or a different focal point

But hey, good looking bikini models are always fun!