Trying to get the best portraits I can..

[Lsatblu]

I will try vertical pictures on Saturday.

Would someone be so kind to guide me through creating a depth of field? I tried the virtual camera site that was posted above and that made sense. I was able to focus on those examples. But I can not figure it out on my camera...

I want my model to be in focus while the background is not.

On the screen I have a number that goes from 2000 to 30"..

Then there is the number F3.5 to 8 when zoomed out and when zoomed far in it goes to F10.

Also in my settings I can set the ISO to auto or 100 to 3200.

The focus can be changed from multi AF, Center AF, Spot AF and 0.5 to 7.0 and also unlimited.

I tried reading the manual but it doesn't explain it well. I would assume F3.5 would give me a good depth of field? And then I play around with the other number (2000 to 30") till I get a good contrast, but what about the ISO and focus?

I am confused because it seems I will have to manual go into the settings every time I want to take a different picture to adjust the focus and ISO...those are not done on screen easily like the shutter and apature are.

Thanks .

 

[bjorkfiend]

...

 

[Lsatblu]

*snip*

bjorkfiend, that you so much! I really appreciate that. You explained everything so well. I am shooting again Saturday so I will report back then with new images.

 

[Christie Photo]

Depth of Field is governed by your aperture.

AND..... focal length of the lens and the distance from camera to the subject.

If you want that nice blurry background, known as Bokeh, you will want to shoot at with a larger aperture.

Be careful, though, to not select an aperture that is too small. ...it is entirely possible to have such a shallow depth of field that not all of your model is in focus.

I'm sure you mean this occurs with too large an aperture. This is a good point. That's why I say it's your zoom that will give you the better results. Position your camera further away from your subject, then zoom in to achieve the framing you want. And, of course, select a "deep" setting where you have some distance between your subject and the background.

You want to shoot with as low an ISO as you can while providing a correct exposure.

Good advice. I don't think we hear this often enough. Always plan on using a tripod. When making portraits, the subject is not usually in motion. So if you need to shoot as slow as 1/15 of a second, you can still get good results as long as your camera is stable.

– Pete

 

[Christie Photo]

Attempt 2:

Any comments?

Well.... remember about working with open sky as a light source? How the light is coming from everywhere, especially straight down? Squint your eyes a bit and look at her face. Can you see the shadows under her brows and cheeks?

Now, go back to the shots under your deck where you "subtracted" the overhead light and do the same. Can you see it?

So, it's not simply shooting on an overcast day or placing your subject in shade. Doing that will give you a more tolerable lighting ratio (highlights verses shadows), but will present some different concerns like "direction" of light. See the catch light in her eye? You don't see this in the above image.

In this "deck" photo, you have her turned away from the light source, lighting the broad side of her face. This is called "broad lighting" (go figure). If you had turned her the other direction, toward the light, you would have achieved "short lighting," which is often more flattering for portraits.

-Pete

 

[bjorkfiend]

...

 

[Christie Photo]

I hope I'm not confusing anyone!

Oh, no! You brought up some very important points.

Thank you.

– Pete

 

[Samanax]

Understanding Depth of Field in Photography

Tutorials: Depth Of Field

Controlling Depth Of Field

Understanding Depth Of Field

Examples For Understanding Depth Of Field

 

[Thru_These_Eyes]

I saw that you asked about how to blur out the background...If you are just using a point & shoot, then all you need to do is back away from your subject and zoom in and snap the shot. You're still way too close to your subject to blur out the background! I skimmed through responses because I am at work right now, but I saw you asked about RAW...That is the LEAST of your problems. It does give you amazing control in POST PROCESSING but I don't feel that is something you need to be concerned about at all at this point. The second round of pictures were definitely better than the first...they were softer and her skin looked really nice and not so blown out. I just think they will look better if you back up your distance from her, zoom in on her and let the background blur out. It will direct the viewer's eyes right to her. =) Great Start!

 

[NateWagner]

Beyond what others have said, you really won't get much in the way of a blurred background with the camera you have. It will blur some, but, it will never create the depth of field that an SLR with a much larger sensor will create.

From what I understand the f/3.5 aperture you're using is going to be relatively compared to f/8 in an aps-c (crop sensor) camera.

 

[bdavis]

The first set of pictures looked good to me.

Regarding the one with the blown out background and dark subject, you should expose for the background, then pop a fill flash to illuminate your subject.

 

[Lsatblu]

Thanks for all the response everyone, this site is great. <3

Christie Photo,

How would I go about getting lighting like they did in this professional shot? http://justjared.buzznet.com/galler...c=danielle-panabaker-woods-gq-magazine-01.jpg

Is that not the broad lighting because her face is flatter even though you suggested short lighting? I may be miss reading what you said.

In this shot they have the light coming on her side..
http://justjared.buzznet.com/galler...c=danielle-panabaker-woods-gq-magazine-02.jpg

I might try placing my sister/model against my shed to see if I can get a similar light quality. Ultimately I think I want to have portraits like those, but of coarse with less skin showing.

Thanks again all!

 

[Christie Photo]

Is that not the broad lighting because her face is flatter even though you suggested short lighting? I may be miss reading what you said.

No... you've got it right. This too is broad lighting. I said short lighting is "often more flattering for portraits." When you have good looking people as models, broad lighting or butterfly lighting can work wonderfully. (Yeah... I'm saying your sis is good looking. It's up to you if you want to tell her.) Your shot comes very close to the pro shot even though you used only available light. The other guy used at least one strobe in front, and I'm thinking a second as a main light.

In this shot they have the light coming on her side..
I might try placing my sister/model against my shed to see if I can get a similar light quality.

Actually more from behind than from the side. See how it's hitting her hands? Here too, there's more than just available light. It's so hard to tell these days due to the amount of retouching, but if you look closely at her eyes, you can see what looks like a huge reflector fill, if not some sort of strobe, and a main light positioned above the camera.

Ultimately I think I want to have portraits like those, but of coarse with less skin showing.

Heh heh... well... aim high. That's good!

 

[Lsatblu]

Thanks for all the feedback . I took so many pictures yesterday, here are a few.

I hope you like them.

 

[Lsatblu]

Hi all...I am trying to get my sister a modeling contract and she needs the best possible pictures. I took these with her last Sunday:

They want my sister in only natural light. They said my photos were strong but still not at the level they need. These are some photos off their site, sorry for the size:

What would I have to do to get shots like those?