Critique please :)

[bmitchell7798]

Good afternoon everyone. I am new to the forums and this is my first post. Would anyone care to offer their thoughts on these three photos?

Thank you



Shutter: 1/200
ISO: 200
WB: Auto
50mm
Aperture: f/1.8
Natural light

Shutter: 1/400
Aperture: f/1.8
ISO: 1250
WB: Auto
50mm
Natural light

Shutter: 1/160
ISO: 1250
WB: Auto
Aperture: f/1.8
50mm
Natural light

 

[The_Traveler]

The first is a sweet picture, reasonably framed (altho there's a lot of space on the right) but it looks oof. That may be due to camera motion. If you want much more you will have to start saving your pictures with the image data (exif) embedded or tell us the shutter speed and f stop.

The second is also sweet and also out of focus (OOF) but you've cut off part of his head and left space on the other side.

The third might be better focused (hard to tell) but the fake smile is not attractive (except to parents and relatives)

Lew

 

[jwbryson1]

The WB is all over the place too. These were all shot with natural light? Post the EXIF data.

Watch your backgrounds. For a really nice portrait, the background is going to be key. You don't want a lot of clutter or other distractions from the subject's face.

 

[PropilotBW]

... but the fake smile is not attractive (except to parents and relatives)

Lew

seriously man? He's a kid... That's not a helpful comment, but that's an unnecessary low blow since it's probably their child.

 

[jwbryson1]

... but the fake smile is not attractive (except to parents and relatives)

Lew

seriously man? He's a kid... That's not a helpful comment, but that's an unnecessary low blow since it's probably their child.

I don't think it's unhelpful at all. I think it's honest. This is not the forum for hand holding and lovey dovey everything. He asked for C&C and he got it. In general, that last shot is a snapshot in every sense of the word. A natural smile is more appealing to most people in a photograph. The comment was not a personal attack on the child, on the parent, or on anything personal relating to either of them. It was just an honest critique.

 

[The_Traveler]

... but the fake smile is not attractive (except to parents and relatives)

Lew

seriously man? He's a kid... That's not a helpful comment, but that's an unnecessary low blow since it's probably their child.

I don't think it's unhelpful at all. I think it's honest. This is not the forum for hand holding and lovey dovey everything. He asked for C&C and he got it. In general, that last shot is a snapshot in every sense of the word. A natural smile is more appealing to most people in a photograph. The comment was not a personal attack on the child, on the parent, or on anything personal relating to either of them. It was just an honest critique.

what he said.

 

[skieur]

... but the fake smile is not attractive (except to parents and relatives)

Lew

seriously man? He's a kid... That's not a helpful comment, but that's an unnecessary low blow since it's probably their child.

Sure it is a helpful comment. Fake smiles don't work for any viewer. Any serious parent photographer has turfed out fake smiles from their photos.

 

[CherylL1]

Hi Bmitchell & welcome to TPF. I like the natural pose in #2 best. The photos do seem out of focus a bit and with f/1.8 the in focus area is limited. Maybe someone with more tech experience can explain it better. The smile in the #3 photo is the same one my grand daughter sometimes gives me when I am trying to get a photo of her only she squints too. I tell her to say 'stinky feet' and that helps..lol.

 

[Rick58]

One is by far the best
Two could be nice with a few light adjustments, but cropping off the side of his head spoiled it
Three just isn't working well.

I think you might be surprise what some of the portrait guys could do with one. It might
not be perfect, but I could make a nice keepsake.

 

[Rick58]

Your shots aren't perfect, and I wasn't sure if anyone would offer any edits. So, I thought I'd throw my best attempt in here.
Maybe the folks that really know what they are doing will want to show you how bad my edit is, and show you how it could and should be done. BTW, welcome to the forum!

View attachment 40203

 

[bmitchell7798]

Thank you, Rick! That is awesome! And thank you to everyone else. I am relatively new to this hobby and still learning and trying and I appreciate the help.

Please excuse my ignorance as I am still learning... When I am using the 50mm 1.8 (dx crop), why is my son so out of focus? Am I standing too close?

 

[SCraig]

Thank you, Rick! That is awesome! And thank you to everyone else. I am relatively new to this hobby and still learning and trying and I appreciate the help.

Please excuse my ignorance as I am still learning... When I am using the 50mm 1.8 (dx crop), why is my son so out of focus? Am I standing too close?

In reality there are very few times that an f/1.8 lens can successfully be used at f/1.8. For one thing no lens is at it's sharpest at maximum (or minimum) aperture. They need to be stepped down a couple of stops for the best sharpness. In the second place an f/1.8 lens at, say, 10' only has a depth of field of only 10 inches on a DX crop Nikon. The closer you get the narrower the depth of field. At 7' it drops to 5 inches. At f/4 and 10' the depth of field is right at 2' which is plenty to keep a boy's face in the field of acceptable focus.

 

[Rick58]

When you shoot at 1.8, you are shooting at the shallowest depth of field.
Try raising your ISO which will stop down your lens further and give you more DOF.


He just types quicker then me ^

 

[bmitchell7798]

Thank you, Rick! That is awesome! And thank you to everyone else. I am relatively new to this hobby and still learning and trying and I appreciate the help.

Please excuse my ignorance as I am still learning... When I am using the 50mm 1.8 (dx crop), why is my son so out of focus? Am I standing too close?

In reality there are very few times that an f/1.8 lens can successfully be used at f/1.8. For one thing no lens is at it's sharpest at maximum (or minimum) aperture. They need to be stepped down a couple of stops for the best sharpness. In the second place an f/1.8 lens at, say, 10' only has a depth of field of only 10 inches on a DX crop Nikon. The closer you get the narrower the depth of field. At 7' it drops to 5 inches. At f/4 and 10' the depth of field is right at 2' which is plenty to keep a boy's face in the field of acceptable focus.

Exactly what I was wanting to know!

 

[bmitchell7798]

When you shoot at 1.8, you are shooting at the shallowest depth of field.
Try raising your ISO which will stop down your lens further and give you more DOF.


He just types quicker then me ^

Thanks to you as well! The ISO tip was a nice touch!