Wide aperture portrait

[Zoolfoos]

Hm... I guess I don't have much to say. I shot this photo with a really wide aperture (f/2 or f/2.8 I believe... it's been a little while).

It's not really "conventional," although I certainly didn't take the picture just for the sake of being unconventional. I decided to include it in my portfolio for school reviews. I think most of them liked it.

I haven't shot black and white 35mm in a while, but I'd like to start again. It's one of my favorite mediums (or used to be anyway). I haven't shot anything but digital in a little while. I don't really have access to a dark room anymore, but I think I can convince my boss to let me set one up with his old equipment.

At any rate, I thought I'd pull out some of my slightly older work and see what you all think of it. Just curious, I guess.

Be honest, please.

/*EDIT - Wow, I actually did have a lot to say. I didn't mean to! */

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Why do you think it's unconventional?

 

[Zoolfoos]

His eyes are in shadow and the depth of field is so short that his eyes are in focus, but his chin is not.

Maybe "unconventional" is the wrong word, but it's certainly not in the style of traditional portraiture. By that I mean that no paying client at the studio (I work there, but not my studio, I'm not even a photographer there) would ever get something like this unless they specifically asked for it.

It was my personal work anyway, so I guess that's kind of irrelevant.

In the sense that it is a head-shot, it is conventional, I suppose.

 

[B-9]

Looks almost like something out of a Holga.

 

[thatguyyoudontlike]

What a stupid photo.
You give yourself way too much credit dude.
Your not unconventional.
If a photo sucks you cant just call it unconventional and expect that to make it good.

 

[terri]

What a stupid photo.
You give yourself way too much credit dude.
Your not unconventional.
If a photo sucks you cant just call it unconventional and expect that to make it good.

And you are giving yourself too much credit if you think TPF needs membership so badly the staff is going to tolerate your presence. You've already been warned once. Lose the attitude.

 

[Trenton Romulox]

I'm not sure there's anything unique about the photo. That isn't to say that it's bad. I mean, I rather like the shot. But I'm not sure I would have submitted it as part of a portfolio, but to each their own. That being said, I don't think it's a bad shot, I just don't think it would be a fair representation of the skills that you may or may not have. You know?

 

[nagoshua]

i wouldnt say it's unconventional, yeah a client at a portraiture studio wouldnt ask for it but something of a similar style could fit into a documentory or editorial piece.

I think you should work on your composition and the picture could use some eye contact and also some more detail in the shadow areas.

What a stupid photo.
You give yourself way too much credit dude.
Your not unconventional.
If a photo sucks you cant just call it unconventional and expect that to make it good.

Honestly man, dont say anything at all if it isnt contructive or helpful, i mean what advice have you given him to help his pictures??

Id like to see some of your work.. im sure theres plenty we could find wrong with that.

 

[Zoolfoos]

What a stupid photo.
You give yourself way too much credit dude.
Your not unconventional.
If a photo sucks you cant just call it unconventional and expect that to make it good.

I'm not trying to give myself undeserved credit, and I've already explained my use of the term "unconventional" once. I'm not trying to be "unconventional" because I think that makes me special or in any way compensates for shortcomings - it's just not something I would normally try to sell to a client. It's in my portfolio anyway, and I just wanted to know whether other people think it could belong there, or how it could have been done better. You answered NONE of those questions. What the hell is your problem?

And to everyone else who responded - thank you. I am trying to build a strong portfolio, and as it goes, I would like to rebuild it with some of my more recent work. I guess that at the moment I'm not entirely sure what I should keep or replace, and what to replace it with.

Trenton Romulox -
I don't know if I'd say it's totally unique either. I mean.... it's a head shot. I do like it personally, but I understand what you mean. I definitely want to use my portfolio to demonstrate the skills that I have. I'm a student, and I have a lot to learn still, but I don't want to come off as totally new to photography. I can tell schools that this is something I take seriously, but I'm sure they'll be more apt to believe it if my work shows that practice has taught me something. That is something I will keep in mind.

nagoshua -
Thanks for the advice. More often than not eye contact does make a photo so much stronger, so I can definitely see where you're coming from.

 

[Zoolfoos]

I hope that everyone understands what I meant when I said it was unconventional. It wasn't meant to sound cocky.

 

[Zoolfoos]

Perhaps a poor choice of words...

 

[Bobby Ironsights]

Ah yes, the classic, "up the nose, thank god it's blurry, and out of focus" portrait.

Was it Mathew Brady that first pioneered this style in the late 19th century...I forget? Didn't he also exhibit some seminal "halfway through a sneeze" portraits?

Well, whatever he did, I'm sure you'll come up with some interesting stuff yourself ZoolFoos. Have you ever thought of doing some work in Dental X-Rays?

 

[Zoolfoos]

Ah yes, the classic, "up the nose, thank god it's blurry, and out of focus" portrait.

Was it Mathew Brady that first pioneered this style in the late 19th century...I forget? Didn't he also exhibit some seminal "halfway through a sneeze" portraits?

Well, whatever he did, I'm sure you'll come up with some interesting stuff yourself ZoolFoos. Have you ever thought of doing some work in Dental X-Rays?

I don't really see the point in this post. Thanks for the absolutely useless criticism. So far nearly half the responses I've received on this thread have been total crap.

Ok. You don't like it. That's fine, but please tell me how you think it could be improved. If you don't have anything useful to say, then please say nothing. I can hardly think of a way that I could have offended you.

I don't know what makes you think that if you see something you don't like you should immediately respond by verbally attacking someone.

 

[Puscas]

Zoolfoos, you've somehow landed in a bad spot with this one. And I don't know why. I also don't get why some people react this way. Sure, your approach is nothing we all haven't seen before, but I get it; that's not what you are saying.
I think you should keep it in your portfolio. Why not show a variety of styles, right? The only thing I see is that the bright area on the right side is maybe too large. A crop might help, although that would probably ruin the ratio.





pascal

 

[Bobby Ironsights]

Since you quoted my previous comments, there is no point in trying to edit them out of this thread.

So...I don't like this portrait and here are my reasons.

- The viewer is looking up the subject nose, not something the subject would want, and seldom something the viewer wants

-The eyes are mostly invisible, not good in a portrait of a persons face.

- The constrast is excessive, and harsh

- There is obvious motion blur

- The plane of focus is not only overly shallow, it lies asymetrically on the lower cheeks of the subject leading the focus of the viewer astray

- The subject has a fairly tight and deep neck and prominent chin, his posture emphasizes his worst qualities, instead of de-emphasizing them. The resulting portrait seems to make a young man who should be easily photographed handsomely, look chicken-necked with a jaw like Jay Leno

There are other deficiencies, but the only really positive thing I can say about this photograph is that it very loosely obeys the rule of thirds.