First attempt at a portrait w/natural light with DSLR C&C?

[Speckles]

Oh, and for what it's worth, I like the photo. I was being silly b/c The_Traveler was being so doom and gloom about the angle and crap.

 

[The_Traveler]

When the picture is 'tall', it is in portrait mode; when it is ;wide' it is in landscape mode.
The ratio of one side to the other side is called the aspect ratio. Typical sensors are 2:3.
Portraits, imo, are much more suited to 4x5 aspect ratio.

Come on portraits really dont have to be shot "portrait" everytime. I think its great that an amateur is playing with angles like this.

i think the composition works well for this shot as well as the eye level.

That's true. But this isn't a good portrait because I get nothing about the person coming through.
It is a picture that could be an advertisement for sunglasses.
If the OP wants to show us the person, he needs to find a way to do that.

 

[simpy]

Again i am going to disagree. A portrait does not mean the shot has to be straight on with eye contact. The disconnected feel of this images could have been the OPs aim. MAybe the personality of the model is distent maybe she is locked in her own thoughts. Eye contact or no eye contact can really shift the feel of a portrait but that does not mean its not a portrait. A portrait is simply a likeness of a person this can be shown in many different aspects.

Are you going to tell Brian Duffy his portrait is wrong because Bowies eyes are closed

 

[TwoTwoLeft]

I think I figured out what's wrong with it... I like the photo for the light and colors, even the glasses work in that aspect (sunglasses ad). However... She has a cold expression and is hiding behind her shades, but the photo is so warm.. I think that's why it seems a bit off for a portrait.

 

[simpy]

I think I figured out what's wrong with it... I like the photo for the light and colors, even the glasses work in that aspect (sunglasses ad). However... She has a cold expression and is hiding behind her shades, but the photo is so warm.. I think that's why it seems a bit off for a portrait.

The simple fact that it has given you a cold feeling even with hot light shows that the shot works. It has shown the subjects personality (or what we imagine it) this is why it is a great portrait.

 

[The_Traveler]

Again i am going to disagree. A portrait does not mean the shot has to be straight on with eye contact. The disconnected feel of this images could have been the OPs aim. MAybe the personality of the model is distent maybe she is locked in her own thoughts. Eye contact or no eye contact can really shift the feel of a portrait but that does not mean its not a portrait. A portrait is simply a likeness of a person this can be shown in many different aspects.

Are you going to tell Brian Duffy his portrait is wrong because Bowies eyes are closed

No, of course. But he is an experienced photographer who is conveying something with his photos.
The OP is a self confessed beginner and needs to learn some basic issues first.

In 999/1000 a portrait will show the eyes and the face because the photographer is trying to make some contact and tell the viewer something about the subject.

There's no contact here and no idea what is going on.

This is a miss as a portrait because nothing from it and all your fabulating about 'cold expression warm color 'doesn't mean crap.

 

[simpy]

Again i am going to disagree. A portrait does not mean the shot has to be straight on with eye contact. The disconnected feel of this images could have been the OPs aim. MAybe the personality of the model is distent maybe she is locked in her own thoughts. Eye contact or no eye contact can really shift the feel of a portrait but that does not mean its not a portrait. A portrait is simply a likeness of a person this can be shown in many different aspects.

Are you going to tell Brian Duffy his portrait is wrong because Bowies eyes are closed

No, of course. But he is an experienced photographer who is conveying something with his photos.
The OP is a self confessed beginner and needs to learn some basic issues first.

In 999/1000 a portrait will show the eyes and the face because the photographer is trying to make some contact and tell the viewer something about the subject.

There's no contact here and no idea what is going on.

This is a miss as a portrait because nothing from it and all your fabulating about 'cold expression warm color 'doesn't mean crap.

Why should an amateur be limited by totally nonsenses rules. Yes understanding the basics of light and of exposure are one thing but never no matter how early on in your photography experience should you set yourself limits such as 99% of portraits show the eyes.
The fact is 6 out of 9 of your own "Environmental Portraits" have no eye contact.

 

[TwoTwoLeft]

Again i am going to disagree. A portrait does not mean the shot has to be straight on with eye contact. The disconnected feel of this images could have been the OPs aim. MAybe the personality of the model is distent maybe she is locked in her own thoughts. Eye contact or no eye contact can really shift the feel of a portrait but that does not mean its not a portrait. A portrait is simply a likeness of a person this can be shown in many different aspects.

Are you going to tell Brian Duffy his portrait is wrong because Bowies eyes are closed

No, of course. But he is an experienced photographer who is conveying something with his photos.
The OP is a self confessed beginner and needs to learn some basic issues first.

In 999/1000 a portrait will show the eyes and the face because the photographer is trying to make some contact and tell the viewer something about the subject.

There's no contact here and no idea what is going on.

This is a miss as a portrait because nothing from it and all your fabulating about 'cold expression warm color 'doesn't mean crap.

I noticed most of your photos attach a person to a cause or institution, something that you no doubt feel strong about. They tell a story, and I like that. Then there are some photos of some dogs in a hallway, or someone mopping the floor. Fantastic images, but do I feel any connection or a story unfolding? No. Is that your fault as a photographer? Absolulty not.
I'm a professional/expert and instructor in another field and I respect your experience in yours. However, I don't expect amateurs in my field to operate at my level and I keep this in mind when teaching. Remember when you were new?

Right now if a can achieve good composition get the exposure right and get my photos to provoke more questions than give answers, I'm happy.

 

[The_Traveler]

I noticed most of your photos attach a person to a cause or institution, something that you no doubt feel strong about. They tell a story, and I like that. Then there are some photos of some dogs in a hallway, or someone mopping the floor. Fantastic images, but do I feel any connection or a story unfolding? No. Is that your fault as a photographer? Absolulty not.
I'm a professional/expert and instructor in another field and I respect your experience in yours. However, I don't expect amateurs in my field to operate at my level and I keep this in mind when teaching. Remember when you were new?

Right now if a can achieve good composition get the exposure right and get my photos to provoke more questions than give answers, I'm happy.

The point I was trying to make to you that most good portraits show a face and eyes.
And the eyes are intent on something, the photographer, another person, something going on.

It is that intention that mobilizes the facial muscles and reveals the personality within.
That's the kind of thing that fashion photogs are trying to get at when they tell a model to 'work it'
Composition has its 'rules' but they don't mean anything.
A picture is good when it carries something beyond the frame, an emotion, an idea, something.
When you look at a picture you should have some idea of what the photographer is seeing and wants you to see; even if you don't understand what is meant there needs to be some connection or the picture fails.

Lew

BTW. those are pariah dogs (also know as pye dogs) at the entrance to a Buddhist temple in a small town in Myanmar and the other is a monk sweeping to aid his meditation - same town.

 

[Derrel]

"it is a great portrait."

Unfortunately, no, it (the original sunglasses shot of the woman) is not great. It is far from great. It's a pleasant enough picture of a woman wearing sunglasses, shown at what appears to be a riverbank, judging from the rounded stones in the background. It SHOULD have been framed as a vertical, based on her body position, and the active, outdoors scene, and the blandness of the background. Understanding the differences (plural!) between a horizontal "pose" and a vertical "pose" is something that a serious, educated portrait photographer must learn. The OP is a self-confessed beginner, and it really is obvious that this "portrait" is lacking in several different types of refinements.

It is correct to assert that a portrait need not "always" be framed as a vertical or tall; BUT, when the subject's body pose is active, and th subject's body positioning is cropped off and thrown away in favor of including meaningless background space (ie, dead space) then it is clear that the photographer is most likely self-taught, and is just muddling along and violating basic principles and ideas of composition and design that have been refined over several centuries. Making excuses because one does not understand design or composition is not going to cut it with me, or with many more visually sophisticated customers. Just as there exists poor writing, poor spelling, and poor musicianship, there also exists a wide spectrum of poor photography.

 

[TwoTwoLeft]

Thanks for the responses. Now I have somethings to go work on. This will always be just a hobby for me but I want to know how to get better since I hate being "just ok" at something.

Oh, and I didnt edit or crop the photo. Not that it helps.

 

[lyonsroar]

Lookin' awfully orange. Oompa-looma.

Also:

Write GUCCI or something under it to advertise the glasses... That does seem to be the focus of this photo...

 

[kundalini]

Two TwoLeft, just an opinion. Listen to Lew (aka The_Traveler) and try to absorb the larger message being delivered. Numbnuts that spout "screw the rules", likely do not have a solid foundation to support that opinion.

I'm not put off by the cleavage either.

 

[kundalini]

That's an interesting assumption to make about a poster, considering they're female. Maybe you should keep traveling, until you learn what the difference between a serious, and a less than serious post is.

This too is an interesting assumption.

 

[o hey tyler]

That's an interesting assumption to make about a poster, considering they're female. Maybe you should keep traveling, until you learn what the difference between a serious, and a less than serious post is.

This too is an interesting assumption.

I actually did check to verify that Speckles was a female. That was kind of the whole point, or else I wouldn't have said anything. I guess you missed that somewhere? :scratch: