General Critique #4

[OGsPhotography]

Baby its cold outside;

 

[Designer]

The eyelashes appear to be in focus, but not the iris. How'd you do that?

Also, you missed the frame quite a bit.

 

[tirediron]

It looks like focus was around the left eye and a large aperture was used from a very short distance, resulting in an extremely shallow DoF. For most portraiture work, I recommend using an aperture sufficient to ensure that the whole face is in sharp focus. Additionally, you've over-exposed resulting in blown/nearly blown highlights in the whites of the toque & hood "fur". I think a different composition which included either all of, or significantly less of the hood (and possible consideration for portrait orientation) might have improved things.

 

[OGsPhotography]

Thanks guys,

Designer;

I did some Lr brush on the eyes that may be why they look oof now.

I've really got to start framing for the middle with my portraits, it seems a bad habit this pushing to the side.

Tirediron;

I used 1/125 f4 Iso 800 from 2' with the 50mm Mmode.

I had about ten seconds to get the shot, need to be able to dial in better and faster. I think your suggestion to up the fstop (5.6? Higher?) would not only provide a better DoF, but would have fixed the exposure problem as well.

I'll try again if light and circumstance allows!
OG

 

[Derrel]

SNIP>
I've really got to start framing for the middle with my portraits, it seems a bad habit this pushing to the side.

OG

I agree with your assessment: the composition on this is hurt by the decision to shoot this in the landscape orientation. In addition to all the empty, blank space on the left, the landscape orientation has caused the eyes to be about level with the mid-height of the frame; has caused the chin to be way too low in the frame; and has caused a huge amount of hat and headband to be at the top of the frame. Having the chin that low in the frame might work for a shot in the cinema, but for a still frame, it's not the best way to frame a close-up.

As Tirediron mentioned, the hood is a big element of this shot...the low chin, the eyes mid-height in the frame...the bad habit you mentioned that you have...it's not just "pushing to the side"...it's more significant an issue than that; it's not making the decision to frame a tall, slender person so that the frame orientation agrees with the subject, but instead of allowing the frame's orientation to clash, aggressively, with the subject.

What the heck is the powdery, dusty-like stuff in the upper left hand corner?

 

[Designer]

I've really got to start framing for the middle with my portraits, it seems a bad habit this pushing to the side.

You might think about developing the habit of framing W I D E so you can crop to the optimum in post.

At any rate; if this was framed in portrait aspect ratio, with your subject more in the middle, and framed extra wide, then you could crop it exactly as you wish.

 

[Derrel]

I've really got to start framing for the middle with my portraits, it seems a bad habit this pushing to the side.

You might think about developing the habit of framing W I D E to you can crop to the optimum in post.

At any rate; if this was framed in portrait aspect ratio, with your subject more in the middle, and framed extra wide, then you could crop it exactly as you wish.

Now that 16-18-20-24-36-42 Megapixel digital cameras are in wide use, this idea, that of framing significantly more loosely, and then cropping later at the computer, has become more viable than ever before. On photos that show only a small physical area, such as on a portrait like this and not say, a distant landscape image, even a pretty heavy crop-in still has plenty of pixels-per-square inch of subject, so the quality loss is usually not going to be all that significant for normal shots.

Digital images from the more-modern cameras with APS-C sized sensors have a lot of information in them, and the old crop-it-in-camera-at-all-costs issues we used to have with say 35mm film and grainy ASA 200 to ASA 400 film is just a non-issue. Most of us now are shooting clean digital images that have about the same real-world cropping potential that 120 rollfilm had 30 years ago when using an ASA 160 color negative film: meaning there's a pretty easy opportunity to "shoot loose", and then crop however the final image looks best: square, tall,wide, panoramic, 16:9, whatever looks good, artistically.

 

[OGsPhotography]

Derrel; the powdery stuff in the upper left is just remnants of the background which I had darkened in Lr. Perhaps I should have darkened it a bit more.

I like the theory of shooting loose and cropping, I try to crop and straighten first thing in Lr. This pic didn't afford me that luxury.


Thanks again,
OG

 

[JustJazzie]

Ill be honest! I like this. I think the composition is okay because I like where the flower sits in the frame. (even from the right and top) Sure, the focus could be a LITTLE sharper, but its hardly one to toss! I would clean up her face a bit, do a little skin smoothing and print it. Keep on shooting! You are definitely on the right track.

 

[Shades of Blue]

Ill be honest! I like this. I think the composition is okay because I like where the flower sits in the frame. (even from the right and top) Sure, the focus could be a LITTLE sharper, but its hardly one to toss! I would clean up her face a bit, do a little skin smoothing and print it. Keep on shooting! You are definitely on the right track.

I agree with this. I think it's a nice shot. The focus seems sharp on the pink bow as well, which is maybe why the eyes don't seem as sharp.

 

[paigew]

Derrel; the powdery stuff in the upper left is just remnants of the background which I had darkened in Lr. Perhaps I should have darkened it a bit more.

I like the theory of shooting loose and cropping, I try to crop and straighten first thing in Lr. This pic didn't afford me that luxury.


Thanks again,
OG

Turn off auto mask and you won't have those specks. [emoji6]