Picture lacks sharpness, critique requested

[Braineack]

If you shoot portraits of people with 200-300 on a crop sensor, it's your choice, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea in general.

it in no way makes it a bad idea either.

 

[Tomasko]

If you shoot portraits of people with 200-300 on a crop sensor, it's your choice, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea in general.

it in no way makes it a bad idea either.

Considering factors other than "background compression", yes, it does. Especially in a portraiture work where interaction with the subject is essential for good photos.

 

[Dragster3]

Seems extreme to me. Her hands are sharp though !!!

200mm is NOT extreme for portraits. the compression is flattering for both the face and background.

her hands are not sharp.

I guess I need glasses and a new portrait tele... LMFAO

Sent from my RS988 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

 

[gossamer]

A bit of powder would greatly minimize the highlights under her eyes and on her left cheek.
Her shoulders square to the camera is not nearly as flattering as having her stand with her shoulders at an angle to the long axis of your lens.
Also have portrait subjects lean forward a bit at the waist so their chin is over, and not behind, where a belt buckle would be.
One of the subject's feet should be closer to the camera with a majority of the subject's weight on the forward foot. It looks like she has most of her weight on the back (left) foot.

I think if I approached her with powder she'd have a problem with it. She explained she changed outfits a few times, and spent time on her makeup. Is there a type of powder you recommend, and an approach to applying it? Should I have them do it themselves, prior to coming to the shoot?

Posing any subject (except for a football player) square to the camera, especially a female subject square to the camera is just about the least flattering pose you can use. Have the subject turn their body about 20-30 degrees off-axis, place their weight on their back foot (I use a 2" foam 'Yoga block' under the front foot to transfer the weight and keep them comfortable) and turn their head toward the camera. This will induce a slight natural curve to the body. As Keith (KmH) mentioned have them bend forward ever so slightly at the waist, and lower their chin just a bit (to avoid a double-chin look). In addition, your light seems a bit too low raised it up so that the bottom edge of the modifier is more or less even with the top of the subjects head and then aim it down at about a 30 degree angle. This will be a good starting point and you can fine tune as you go.

Do you have any examples of this you could point to? These pictures were intended to be used for her social media profile pages as well as her political campaign. I have another where she is sitting on a park bench with legs crossed and looking more to the side. Maybe that's the one I should focus on.

You should be shooting at the equivalent of 50mm for a 3/4-full length shot. Also, as others mentioned, she should be turned slightly toward one side or the other. You can shoot both sides and make a determination as to the "better" side. And a single flash is the most unflattering you can use. The light should be strong on the "broad" side of her face, then you should use a scrim or reflector to provide some detail to the narrow side of her face. Oh, and don't forget the hair; it needs highlights.

50mm or 75mm on my crop sensor? And with my 24-70, I don't believe I could achieve the DoF blur I'd like. Do you have any examples?

As others mentioned women, especially those approaching middle age, when facial wrinkles start to become more prominent, the lighting and "lensing" need to be softer, even adding a slight softening filter. In the film days, and large format, there were lenses which had chromatic aberration, which aided in giving a softer look for women. Look at movies made in the B&W era; all women were photographed using soft focus lenses. No woman wants more wrinkles than absolutely necessary.

Do you think my modified version is not soft enough? I haven't quite grasped how to use any of the add-on filters available with Lightroom/Photoshop yet...

 

[pendennis]

As others mentioned women, especially those approaching middle age, when facial wrinkles start to become more prominent, the lighting and "lensing" need to be softer, even adding a slight softening filter. In the film days, and large format, there were lenses which had chromatic aberration, which aided in giving a softer look for women. Look at movies made in the B&W era; all women were photographed using soft focus lenses. No woman wants more wrinkles than absolutely necessary.

Do you think my modified version is not soft enough? I haven't quite grasped how to use any of the add-on filters available with Lightroom/Photoshop yet...

The modified version still seems a bit harsh, but from the single-source lighting. There isn't much that can be done with post processing if the light sources aren't what you needed to start. It's also difficult to control the DOF with such a great distance from the subject to the background.

The soft-focus filters I used were all camera mounted, with some custom ones made from nylon hose stretched across a filter ring. I also had a couple of large format portrait lenses made in the 1930's and 1940's which were "soft focus" by their design. Even today, I use filters on images as much as possible, to avoid a lot of editing.

Lighting is a tricky thing. My preference was to get the lighting to my liking before taking the picture; not that the algorithms used by Photoshop, etc., aren't great. The better original image I could get, the less modification in the darkroom or software programs. As I earlier mentioned, the more lighting sources, the easier it is to avoid huge post-exposure work. This was true in film, and is just as true in digital.

Alas, my portraiture days are long past, but my learning came from pros who worked with large and medium format. I also worked as an assistant, and I had notebooks full of notes and drawings of lighting setups, and used them to improve my skills.

I also know, from experience, what I envisioned in the final image. I made my set up based on that. It's again, critical, to help differentiate between what is a good photo, from a great one.

 

[KmH]

There's another reason to use 200 mm:
200 mm keeps the photographer well outside the subjects personal space, making the subject more comfortable and thus more photogenic.

 

[Destin]

I guess the pros who use the $5700 200mm f/2 for portraiture don't know what they're talking about then. I'm sure they spent that much on a lens because it's just terrible for portraiture.

Edit: *insert sarcasm here* - since some people couldn't catch on.

 

[Designer]

I think if I approached her with powder she'd have a problem with it. She explained she changed outfits a few times, and spent time on her makeup. Is there a type of powder you recommend, and an approach to applying it? Should I have them do it themselves, prior to coming to the shoot?

Do you have any examples of this you could point to? These pictures were intended to be used for her social media profile pages as well as her political campaign. I have another where she is sitting on a park bench with legs crossed and looking more to the side. Maybe that's the one I should focus on.

Advising a lady on her wardrobe or makeup could be a landmine, so instead of you coming up with suggestions, why not gather a few examples of excellent wardrobe, makeup, and posing and just show them to her. Let her decide how much she wants to mimic or not.

Your role as photographer is to evaluate and advise, but not necessarily dictate, especially to a paying customer. Your customer is essentially calling the shots, but a little education (done diplomatically) can help.

Arrange a second photoshoot with the lady, and dig into some reference material ASAP. Find a few good examples that she can emulate, and leave it at that. If she consents to a second photoshoot, she (and you) will be better prepared.

 

[pendennis]

The subject's wardrobe, while her "area" is not set in stone. In the past, I often discussed wardrobe well before the client showed up at the studio. Most of the time, they brought a couple of outfits and we shot several photos, usually Polaroids, to see how an outfit presented.

At one time I was a contract photographer to several Mary Kay Cosmetics agents. These ladies knew makeup, and could really assist the customers with makeup that would flatter them.

As to "invading" personal space; a lot of this depends on how comfortable the subject is when they enter the posing area. After a few years, I could usually tell if they were tense, or uncomfortable. I could usually gain their confidence, which made them better subjects. A lot were a bit overwhelmed by the gear (camera, stand, lights, backdrops). I would always walk them to the posing seat to insure that they were comfortable. If they were comfortable, I would either guide them by the arm, or hold their hand. And the chatter continued with lots of compliments directed to the subject.

The studio lights were usually most intimidating. Large soft boxes, umbrellas, and reflectors are not comforting. I'd usually take a trip cord, and have them pop the lights a couple of times, and that usually broke the ice.

These techniques are not rocket science; it's a matter of selling yourself and developing good rapport with the customer.

 

[tirediron]

Do you have any examples of this you could point to? These pictures were intended to be used for her social media profile pages as well as her political campaign. ...

 

[chuasam]

There's another reason to use 200 mm:
200 mm keeps the photographer well outside the subjects personal space, making the subject more comfortable and thus more photogenic.

200mm means you lack that connection with the subject. I find 105mm to 135mm far more idea.
You can talk and communicate and engage your subject. I make my living by my portraits and I prefer shooting from 2m to 3m away.

Oh and samples...

 

[chuasam]

I guess the pros who use the $5700 200mm f/2 for portraiture don't know what they're talking about then. I'm sure they spent that much on a lens because it's just terrible for portraiture.

Edit: *insert sarcasm here* - since some people couldn't catch on.

200mm f/2.0 is ridiculous and overkill for portraiture. Yes it has pleasing compression but a 70-200 f/2.8 is far more versatile.

Oh right...and similar knee to head shot as the OP's original but using a 105mm on a fullframe.

 

[rosh4u]

The lack of sharpness is due to missed focus and shallow DOF. You have the camera tilted up slightly which causes the focus plane to likewise tilt. Look at the point where the top of the yellow belt is near her right arm. You have good focus there. That's behind her face and if you add to that a slight tilt in the focus plane the focus miss is exacerbated. At f/4 DOF isn't enough to cover.

Joe

Completely Agree!

 

[Destin]

I guess the pros who use the $5700 200mm f/2 for portraiture don't know what they're talking about then. I'm sure they spent that much on a lens because it's just terrible for portraiture.

Edit: *insert sarcasm here* - since some people couldn't catch on.

200mm f/2.0 is ridiculous and overkill for portraiture. Yes it has pleasing compression but a 70-200 f/2.8 is far more versatile.

Oh right...and similar knee to head shot as the OP's original but using a 105mm on a fullframe.
View attachment 147034 View attachment 147035

I don't disagree that its overkill for *most* portraiture. But when used for portrait work it makes incredible images.

My favorite portraits I've taken have been in the 160-200mm range, and I'd shoot at that focal length for most of my portraits if I always had the room to do so. I prefer the background compression and subject isolation you get that you simply can't achieve as well at shorter focal lengths.

I won't drag the conversation away from the OP's topic any further. But just because you prefer to work closer to your subjects with a shorter lens doesn't mean that people using a longer lens are doing it wrong.

 

[Derrel]

I owned the 200/2 VR Nikkor for over a decade; YES, it is/was a great imager, but too heavy and bulky for most uses...a real PITA as far as carrying and balancing...it has BAD balance on any camera Nikon has ever made--super front-heavy and nose-divey! The new 105mm f/1.4 offers similar defocus potential (not identical, but similar), in a much smaller, much lighter, and much more-affordable package. The 105mm f/1.4 is the new highly-desired Nikkor lens offering for this decade.

As far as focal lengths go: kind of depends on the length one wants to use, and how far away you wanna' be...200 or 300 gives a voyeuristic look, and is well,well outside of the personal space of the subject, so it's one way of shooting, whereas an 85mm lens is very close-range. A 135mm is a nice focal length, but hard to find nowadays, whereas they were super-common in the 1980's.

A smaller lens can change the way "some people" react to the camera and the photographer; the 200/2 is massive, and very obvious. A 50 or 60 or 85 or 105mm slower-speed lens is unobtrusive.

Again...the sample pic: it's flash + ambient lighjt and BLURRING, not all focus-related. Look at the blurring on the face! You can NOT shoot flash + ambient at /200 at f/4 in daylight and NOT pick up a slight bit of "ambient"! Surprised yet not surprised that some people are unaware of this. Same goes for using VR and getting that weird "shakey" look!