Getting into portraits cc please!!

[SGerrish2]

Shot this last night Nikon D60 50mm f1.8 iso 100. I like this photo but feel like something is off.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[pixmedic]

focus is off. not enough depth of field for enough to be in focus, possibly a missed focus as well.
not a fan of chopping the tops of heads off.

 

[SGerrish2]

So since she was laying on the couch how could I bring more depth of field? I figured the focus was off.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[pixmedic]

So since she was laying on the couch how could I bring more depth of field? I figured the focus was off.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

what aperture was this shot at?

 

[SGerrish2]

1.8

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[ronlane]

f/1.8 is really, really shallow. You can bring in more depth of field by going changing the f-stop. f/4 or maybe f/2.8 would help this.

 

[pixmedic]

1.8

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

try something more around f/4.
most of my portraits are between f/4 and f/5.6
you might have to up your ISO, or preferably, add light.

 

[SGerrish2]

Ok. sorry for my ignorance but when would you want a shallow depth vs non shallow. Further distance between subject and background?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[HughGuessWho]

Not a fan of the crop on the right arm. Since it is dark near the edge of the frame, it appears to be amputated. Its actually somewhat difficult for me to look at.
Just my opinion as a non-portrait photographer.

BTW, welcome to the forum.

 

[SGerrish2]

Thank you for the welcome. I think the crop was what put me off on the photo the most

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[ronlane]

Brian Peterson likes to ask this question. "when is the best time to take a vertical shot?" His answer, "right after taking a horizontal one." In this instance taking both portrait and landscape images would have allowed you to choose the better framing/cropping.

Some on here will say that vertical is named portrait for a reason. But it only cost a little time to do both to see which fits better.

 

[chuasam]

Not a fan of armpits

 

[SGerrish2]

So I need to work on cropping, no arm pits, depth of field and better focus. Thank you for the replies keep them coming....is there any good in this photo?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[KmH]

Depth of field (DoF) isn't just about the lens aperture.
Indeed it's more about the point of focus distance (PoF), the focal length of the lens used, and the size of the image sensor in the camera.

Using the D60 and 50 mm lens @ f/1.8 and a PoF distance of 3 feet the total DoF is only 0.07 feet deep (about 7/8").
At f/3.5 (2 stops smaller aperture than f/1.8) & a 3 foot PoF distance the DoF would be 0.15 feet (1.8")
At f/5 (3 stops smaller aperture than f/1.8) & a 3 foot PoF distance the DoF would be 0.21 feet (2.5")
At the same aperture setting, as the PoF gets closer to the subject the DoF gets even shallower. At the same aperture setting, as the PoF gets further from the subject the DoF gets deeper.

Few 50 mm f/1.8 lenses deliver their sharpest focus when used wide open.
So the main benefit of stopping down 2 or more stops is getting the 50 mm f/1.8 lens into that part of the aperture range than delivers the sharpest focus.

Online Depth of Field Calculator
f-number - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Online Depth of Field Calculator

Note too the distribution of the DoF changes as the lens aperture is stopped down.
At f/1.8 the DoF distribution is pretty much even with 50% of the 0.15 feet being in front of, and behind the PoF.
But at f/5 the distribution is 48% in front of, and 52% behind the PoF.

There are many ways to isolate your subject from the background. A shallow DoF is just one way, but it's also a way that requires an in-depth understanding of how to control the DoF.
Frankly a better way to isolate the subject from the background is to do so using light.

The quality of the light in your shots leaves quite a bit to be desired, as does the white balance. But the light direction was OK.
Usually, light direction and quality are what separate OK photos from very good photos.

 

[SGerrish2]

[QUOTE="SGerrish2, post: 3667463, member: 216251]....is there any good in this photo?

your watermark isn't overdone.

p!nK[/QUOTE]
Thanks

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk