Family Headshots; CC?

[DGMPhotography]

Not a bad start!

I'd agree with the others about the DOF. Whenever I do headshots, I usually start around f/5.6 and work from there. The main thing is to have the eyes in focus.

As for the angle thing, you said you're too short to take photos at eye level, so my advice would be to bring a portable step stool! I got one from Lowe's for like $10, and always keep it in my car in case I need it. Gives you an extra foot or so to work with.

 

[beccaf91]

Not a bad start!

I'd agree with the others about the DOF. Whenever I do headshots, I usually start around f/5.6 and work from there. The main thing is to have the eyes in focus.

As for the angle thing, you said you're too short to take photos at eye level, so my advice would be to bring a portable step stool! I got one from Lowe's for like $10, and always keep it in my car in case I need it. Gives you an extra foot or so to work with.

I had one in my trunk; but I broke it when I was opening it up. Lol. -_- I'm just so obsessed with bokeh but with an 85mm lens at that distance, even if I have a smaller aperture I should still get that effect, right?

 

[Gary A.]

Thank you for sharing and accepting the critiques in stride. Two remarks:
1) I echo all the above critiques both negative and positive; and
2) I recognized that much of your description of the difficulties was setting the stage for the images. But I also sensed that you may have been making a few excuses. I learned early in my pro career that nobody, (with the exception of Mom), cared about the difficulties. They ... (I had editors not clients) ... They only cared about the photos, the end results.

 

[josh817]

Go

Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

 

[DGMPhotography]

Not a bad start!

I'd agree with the others about the DOF. Whenever I do headshots, I usually start around f/5.6 and work from there. The main thing is to have the eyes in focus.

As for the angle thing, you said you're too short to take photos at eye level, so my advice would be to bring a portable step stool! I got one from Lowe's for like $10, and always keep it in my car in case I need it. Gives you an extra foot or so to work with.

I had one in my trunk; but I broke it when I was opening it up. Lol. -_- I'm just so obsessed with bokeh but with an 85mm lens at that distance, even if I have a smaller aperture I should still get that effect, right?

Yes, it's a balancing act. You can still have the background blurry, while keeping the subject in focus.

 

[beccaf91]

Thank you for sharing and accepting the critiques in stride. Two remarks:
1) I echo all the above critiques both negative and positive; and
2) I recognized that much of your description of the difficulties was setting the stage for the images. But I also sensed that you may have been making a few excuses. I learned early in my pro career that nobody, (with the exception of Mom), cared about the difficulties. They ... (I had editors not clients) ... They only cared about the photos, the end results.

Trust me, I'm not whining to my clients and in general they are happy with what they get. But I want to be happy with what I'm producing. I like to be the best (or at least competitive) in everything I endeavor to do. I apologize if that's how they come off. I'm not here to be pitied or have my work judged with a handicap (lack of gear, experience, vertical challenges). I am simply stating the issues I encounter, as I encounter them, in the hopes that someone here will relate and relay to me how they overcame those challenges themselves. I am aware of my limitations and 99% of those limitations will only be overcome with my own hard work. But the 1% could be overcome with excellent advice from seasoned artists that I admire. That's all.

 

[Derrel]

This is a neat DOF, AOV, and Equivalent Lens calculator page! Depth of Field, Angle & Field of View, & Equivalent Lens Calculator - Points in Focus Photography

it shows the depth of field, angular fields of view, and physical picture heights and widths AND as a bonus also has some word descriptions like Closeup of Face, Head & Shoulders,

Half Body, and so on, which take into account the format used, and the focal length, and how far away the camera must be to show the desired framing! Pretty cool. This used to be done by charts, back in the Speed Graphic days. Now, with modern software, one can plug in a camera and a lens length,and hit the desired framing, and the height and width the camera will capture can be shown in seconds, and the DOF varies as the lens f/stop chosen is entered.

This type of Angle of View calculation is very helpful when you need to know what real-world physical dimensions a camera will capture with a given lens, at various distances, such as when you might have to photograph a certain-sized item in a confined location, etc..

In the screen cap I made, I selected Canon APS-C camera, 85mm lens, and clicked Head & Shoulders as my desired framing, and it spat out Distance of 8.793 feet; I selected my favored f/stop for this, f/8, and I got back a DOF of from 8'4" to 9'3", or about 11 and one-half inches total DOF band.

 

[Designer]

I'm just so obsessed with bokeh but with an 85mm lens at that distance, even if I have a smaller aperture I should still get that effect, right?

As you see from Derrel's post, multiple factors affect the DOF and the blur. Use either the one Derrel used or the one I posted, and start plugging in some numbers.

Things that matter:

Bokeh - The quality and design of the lens. Nothing more. I am more familiar with Nikon lenses, but presuming the Canon 85mm produces "Bokeh", then you should be able to get the effect you want. Please note: the blur, depending on the lens, can be smooth and creamy i.e.: "Bokeh", or it can be jittery, angular, or otherwise misshapen in some way, which doesn't actually qualify as "Bokeh". There are many types of blur, identified with their own names. In case you don't get the smooth creamy dreamy OOF that you are looking for, you need to buy a better lens. Do your research before buying an expensive lens that doesn't give you "Bokeh".

Aperture; Go toward the wide end, but depending on all factors, maybe not the widest.

Focal Length; Medium long (85mm - 200mm) works best.

Distance; Distance from lens to subject, AND distance behind subject as well. Note: blur can be had in front of your subject as well as behind. Both at once, if you have the right foreground/background.

Sensor; You're kind of stuck with the one you have, unless you have multiple cameras from which to choose.

So I would say that just offhand, you are probably not going to use the 85mm at exactly the same distance anyway, but as I have been saying, run the numbers so you actually know what your DOF is. Carry a tape measure with you out in the field with you before you learn to estimate distances.

 

[Designer]

I am simply stating the issues I encounter, as I encounter them, in the hopes that someone here will relate ..

I relate. Issues of my own.

 

[Derrel]

I am simply stating the issues I encounter, as I encounter them, in the hopes that someone here will relate ..

I relate. Issues of my own.

It's good to hear some of the back story behind a set of photos; knowing how/what/why can give us insight. You're short, and so you got up onto an elevated shooting platform, and found it was precarious, and also lead to the shooting down on subjects POV, which shows up the most in #4 of the older boy, and I'd say that there was a valuable lesson learned there. But as you said, you got light subjects in front of a darker backdrop, so you got subject Pop! and separation. The lighting is smooth and not awful, nor squinty,etc.,etc..

So...I wondered to myself, what could be improved,quickly and withiout much effort, with these? What would I do with these shots? I pulled them into LR, and frankly, there was not a lot wrong with your initial JPEGs. ANY photo can retouched for an hour, or two hours, but that's not the point.


cropped a bit, minor adjustments, I am not super fond of this cross-body eye glance,and its sort of the odd shot out from this set, lighter, and different than the others.





Minor WB adjust, Vignette #1 from Lightroom. A strong shot! Pleasing rendering! She looks great!


Cropped this more tightly. White T-shirt might have UV brighteners in the fabric itself, which is common, and makes it photograph a bit blue-tinted but that makes the shirt look super-white to human eyes in the real world. Whites of the eyes look good, but the shirt is in evening light, so a little bit of blue tint is somewhat expected by many people. Maybe could use a little bit of WB warming.


Cropped into this quite a bit, and gave it a slight rotate CW.

One thought, I like to look at, crop, and judge shots like this as small images on-screen, so I get a sense of the overall gestalt of the image. If I like the shot as a thumbnail-sized picture, I will most usually like it as a large image. I hope you don't mind me showing these minor reworks, Becca. I think you can see they are for the most part much better than they are bad!

 

[chuasam]

Image #1
might have tried from other side of the face.
Quite often the side with the parting is the better half of the face (not sure why).

 

[beccaf91]

Image #1
might have tried from other side of the face.
Quite often the side with the parting is the better half of the face (not sure why).

That's interesting.... I will try that this weekend.