Discussion in 'People Photography' started by wrbphotograhy, Jul 2, 2008.
3 cut off the lip...
I'm a sucker for those close macro shots. I say good job. To me the second shot is a bit off in white balance though.
thanks for the reply. i will play with the white balance some!
Nice, her eyes are gorgeous. The focus could be a bit sharper in 2 and 3... but it's not bad. Good use of natural lighting. In the first a reflector would've helped light her against the bright sky.
Nice images, C&C per req:
1. As mentioned, the focus is a bit soft. Additionally, the lighting is a little harsh. A reflector on her left and a diffuser on her right would have helped to even up the exposure.
2. As per 1 regarding focus and exposure. Additionally the composition is a little tight. I think including a little more of her head would have helped. As well, her right arm is a little distracting as it fades out. Good use of selective focus however.
3. Nice but just a bit too close. Again, slightly soft in focus, and about 1/3 stop too bright in the cheek highlights.
Just my $00.02 worth - your milage may vary.
I like these shots. Does she have an older sister with the same color of eyes (over twenty)? Just kidding...
I am a beginner, so I will offer some beginner criticism. I would try and use some fill-flash next time, just to see what happens. I honestly don't know if it will make the photo better, but take some with and without, and see if that doesn't help alleviate the issues other people were saying with the harsh lighting.
I also like the "hands off" approach to smoothing her face out in the last photo. Some people try to get rid of any skin definition (bumps and pores and what have you), and I think the way you did it makes your model look very natural. And I think where you placed your model in the first photo is great. The tree, IMO frames the photo VERY well (even if it is in the background), plus it has good blur to it, so its not distracting.
Thanks for all the great replys! That kind of criticism is what I need.
I will work on my focus more closely and see what I can do to make that better. What do you recommend to get that spot on? I am using 40d with the 28-135mm IS lens.
What do you recommend for use as a fill flash? Can you use the on camera one or would I need a speedlight on a remote flash cord?
Start with the second question first. Your on-camera flash has limited application as a fill flash, mainly because more often than not, you're (a) too close, and (b) need the light to come from a different direction. An off-camera speedlight is definitely the way to go. Before you go running out and spending a lot of money on a new flash however, don't forget that reflectors and diffusers, especially for outdoor work, make a LOT of difference. These can be very cheap; I get a lot of use out of the big piecs of heavy paper/cardstock that they sell for a dollar or two at art supply stores. White, or light yello are the most useful, and they can be trimmed and bent to fit almost any situation. The shiny foil "space blankets" are also very useful.
I have a couple of commercial diffusers, but these too can be home-brewed. Thin tissue paper works well, and for lighting, I get a lot of use out of translucent white plastic. Photography, especially portrait work is all about the lighting (although a pretty model doesn't hurt) but the lighting doesn't have to be expensive.
Your focusing question is a little more tricky. It depends on why you're missing the focus. My first guess is that you're accepting whatever the camera tells you, and if it chooses the wrong point on which to auto-focus, you're hooped. Always watch and see where it's focusing. Equally important is Depth of Field, (what "depth" of the image is in focus). This of course depends on your apeture, and is where the Depth of Field preview button becomes critical.
The middle image was shot at f 5.6 which based on the lens you were using and the focal length was either wide open, or almost wide open. No lens works it's best wide open - always try and stop down a couple of stops at a minimum unless there is a good reason not to. The further you stop down, the more area you have in focus of course. I would recommend that you do a search of "Hyperfocal distance" and "Depth of field calculators" there are a number of good articles which will explain this, and hopefully eliminate this problem.
Hope that helps.
Separate names with a comma.