Derrel
Mr. Rain Cloud
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2009
- Messages
- 48,225
- Reaction score
- 18,939
- Location
- USA
- Website
- www.pbase.com
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
On shot #1...imagine if the camera had been rotated to vertical, and the camera had been lowered 12-15 inches...his head would then have overlapped the top of the tree line...we'd have been able to see through the gap between his arm and his body, and I think that would really,really have increased the feeling of overall depth of the scene...the portrait would have been a "tall" and there would have been more of his body shown, as well as more of the big round bale in the foreground, which would have echoed the straw behind him in the field.
I hate to harp on it, but this is a "standing pose, half-body", and as such, it would almost always look better as a "tall" with the half-body cropping. If it had been framed "tall", his face and body would be seen much larger, since the frame space is so, so much taller when a 3:2 camera is rotated to its vertical capture orientation. In this shot, he is taller than he is wide...and so...rotate the camera, and don't shoot down at him...the camera's back needs to be more parallel to his body....your camera height is too high...it makes him look like a boy, and not a young man, and emphasizes that you are taller than he is...
I hate to harp on it, but this is a "standing pose, half-body", and as such, it would almost always look better as a "tall" with the half-body cropping. If it had been framed "tall", his face and body would be seen much larger, since the frame space is so, so much taller when a 3:2 camera is rotated to its vertical capture orientation. In this shot, he is taller than he is wide...and so...rotate the camera, and don't shoot down at him...the camera's back needs to be more parallel to his body....your camera height is too high...it makes him look like a boy, and not a young man, and emphasizes that you are taller than he is...