Gorgeous Kathleen! Should I have fixed these things?

[DGMPhotography]

Hey there,

So I would love some thoughts on my image here! Also wondering if you think I should clean up her hair a little bit in post, or leave it as is?



Thanks!

 

[Parker219]

Whats the purpose of this photo?

Is this formal "portrait"?

I notice the shadows on her face more than her hair btw.

I want to know what she is looking at...

 

[Derrel]

Looks okay. Shame about the too-shallow DOF though.

 

[manicmike]

Looks kind of blue on my screen.

 

[TreeofLifeStairs]

Looks okay. Shame about the too-shallow DOF though.

I was thinking the same thing. Her eyes are nice and crisp, which is good, but the hair along her forehead is out.

 

[apaflo]

Hey there,

So I would love some thoughts on my image here! Also wondering if you think I should clean up her hair a little bit in post, or leave it as is?

That image has fabulous potential. It is almost perfect as is, but is better with just a few tweeks. The purpose of the tweeks is to remove distractions from the mental image formed when a viewer looks at the picture. Forget all the "Rules", lets think about it in terms of the mind's eye of a viewer.

Draw an imaginary egg shaped area on her face, with the ponted end down and just touching the edge of the chin directly below the eye on the left. The wider top of the egg is a line right along her eyebrow. The left side isn't really important, other than that the hair entering along her jaw line should not be included. On the right the line should follow the shadow on her nose down, bisecting the upper lip and mouth and at the bottom connecting with the opposite side, but leaving the right edge of the shadow along her jaw line outside the area marked.

Okay? Nothing outside that line should be in sharp focus, everything inside it is the center of attention and should be 1) sharper, 2) brighter, and 3) higher contrast than the rest of the image.

Specifically, the eye on the left needs to be made a wee bit sharper, and it should be just a bit brighter than the eye on the right side. You might darken the right side eye, but it is already slightly out of focus and need not be more so. Sharpen the left side eye and also brighten up only the white part of the eye.

There are three things that will help the hair. First is a very slight blur to the hair along the left jaw line. Second is clone out the bright spot just above the "D" in your watermark and another bright spot on the left edge even with her jaw. Third is shift the color of the hair along the part line where it has grown out since being dyed.

The basic purpose is to lower the entropy by removing unnecessary distraction to the mental image of a viewer. Often that does not require totally removing something that also adds necessary context. Instead just a touch of blur or making it darker can be enought to re-order the dominance of compositional symbols within an image.


Original: View attachment 64936 Edited:

 

[bingbang]

Very subtle change made by apaflo, and I like this way of thinking about a picture.

 

[Derrel]

Very subtle change made by apaflo, and I like this way of thinking about a picture.

And yet, when looked at large, it still looks like the photographer botched a dead-simple shot by falling into the noob-trap of shooting wide-open from very close with a 50mm lens...it's like telling a beginning singer, "Okay, if you're going to sing off-key, here's how to disguise it...sing LOUDLY, and it'll sound better."

 

[apaflo]

And yet, when looked at large, it still looks like the photographer botched a dead-simple shot by falling into the noob-trap of shooting wide-open from very close with a 50mm lens...it's like telling a beginning singer, "Okay, if you're going to sing off-key, here's how to disguise it...sing LOUDLY, and it'll sound better."

I am hard pressed to see how it was botched.

The shot was at ISO 1000, f/1.8, and with a shutter speed of 1/100. This is with a DX camera (a Nikon D5100), so the significance is that at ISO 1000 it has a useful dynamic range of about 7 stops, and using a higher ISO is definitely going to degrade the image quality. A shutter speed of 1/100 with a 35mm equivalent focal length of 75mm is just faster than a minimum (1/75) for hand holding. And that pretty much requires using f/1.8, which for sharpness is quite acceptable with the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G lens.

And the DOF is perfect!

So just exactly where is this "noob-trap"?

 

[Derrel]

The noob-trap is shooting everything at wide-open aperture...you know...so the forehead is out of focus, one eye is in focus, one eye is out of focus...it's being "enthralled" by the lure of "f/1.8".

The realism is killed by the needless lack of focus. It serves no purpose, but just calls attention to the inexperience of the shooter. That's what a 50mm shot wide-open basically is...a noob-trap. You can point out ways to lessen the impact of blown focus and bad composition all you want. It's a great exercise for you,apparently.

Correcting faults and mistakes after the fact is the province of many of today's digital snappers. As the OP asked, "Should I have fixed these things?" My answer is , "You should have used more photographic skill when making the exposure, and done it right, in-camera." My answer is, "No, you should not have to "fix" mistakes, but rather, use the equipment as a skilled shooter would have and thus not MAKE the mistakes in the first place. Do not commit mistakes to film (or sensor)."

Sing in-key, not off-key. Spell properly, not haphazardly. Drive safely, not like a fool. Take a few extra seconds, and do it right, the first time.

 

[apaflo]

The noob-trap is shooting everything at wide-open aperture...you know...so the forehead is out of focus, one eye is in focus, one eye is out of focus...it's being "enthralled" by the lure of "f/1.8".

A noob-trap? More like artistic talent at work.

Style is a matter of taste, and perhaps the depth and complexity of style is a matter of innate talent matched to experience. Which is to say that the newby trap would actually be refusing to ever use a lens wide open, because "it isn't sharp". Or it might be thinking that a portrait needs to have every hair sharply in focus! Even if that distracts horribly from what a portrait is supposed to do...

Style that is based on a more complete understanding of the psychology of visual art can be a great deal more complex that just a "rule" that everything has to be sharply focused. For example the style appropriate for documenting a body at the morgue certainly needs to have both eyes in focus. And that might also be true for a very good snapshot for the family album, and isn't a bad idea for a Senior Picture or a Head Shot and a number of other very useful styles of photography.

For art it is not really a good idea to have the eyes balanced in terms of sharpness, focus. or perspective. It's just too bland.

The realism is killed by the needless lack of focus. It serves no purpose, but just calls attention to the inexperience of the shooter. That's what a 50mm shot wide-open basically is...a noob-trap. You can point out ways to lessen the impact of blown focus and bad composition all you want. It's a great exercise for you,apparently.

Realism??? Photographs are not realsim. The "needless" lack of focus serves a very specific purpose, and avoids calling attention to an aspect of an image that needs to be subordinate to other aspects.

Study the work of Picasso. Read "Entropy and Art" by Rudolf Arnheim (www.kenb.ca/z-aakkozzll/pdf/arnheim.pdf) and also study his classic text "Art and Visual Perception: A Psychology of the Creative Eye"

The characteristics of that style and the methods are all well known and understood.

Correcting faults and mistakes after the fact is the province of many of today's digital snappers. As the OP asked, "Should I have fixed these things?" My answer is , "You should have used more photographic skill when making the exposure, and done it right, in-camera." My answer is, "No, you should not have to "fix" mistakes, but rather, use the equipment as a skilled shooter would have and thus not MAKE the mistakes in the first place. Do not commit mistakes to film (or sensor)."

Sing in-key, not off-key. Spell properly, not haphazardly. Drive safely, not like a fool. Take a few extra seconds, and do it right, the first time.

A bit hung up on rules, eh? "There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs." said Ansel Adams. And the only value of rules is to assist to people learning basics, because once the basics have been learned those rules are not valid.

 

[pixmedic]

I would say the DOF is far from "perfect".
for portraits, you would typically shoot with a shallow DOF to blur an otherwise distracting or busy background.
in this case, there is nothing in the background that benefits from OOF or bokeh. instead, what we get is half of the headshot in focus, with the face, head, and hair quickly falling out of focus. this is generally not as desirable in a portrait where the subject is turned to that angle.

just because the equipment necessitated a large aperture such as f/1.8, does NOT automatically make the DOF "perfect".
it means, a tripod or monopod was needed to further reduce the shutter speed so the aperture could be adjusted for a larger DOF.
"artistic choice" is the battle cry of many a poor image. Now, this image is far from poor, but for a portrait "head shot", it needed more DOF, and it needed fill light.

yes yes...i know. "needs fill light" is another battle cry of the studio photographer that uses flashes or strobes. in this case however, it was, in fact, needed. the lighting is not dramatic enough to be artistic, and given that, fill flash would have been an improvement.
you cant call "artistic talent" after the fact, to cover up for a technical error. (note that this is NOT what the OP is doing btw)

this shot is not posed, lit, or staged to look like any sort of "artistic" or "edgy" shot. It is not posed or lit like someone who is trying to create or emulate a certain "style".
it IS however, posed and lit like it was meant to be a formal style staged portrait or head shot. I think we can rule out Picasso as a potential muse for this shot.

DGM- this is a decent shot, certainly not a tosser. the pose is good, I like the expression. however....this shot needed fill light and a deeper DOF, especially if her head is going to be angled like that. a shallower DOF would have looked a little better if she was facing the camera straight on.
the OOF shoulder and stray hairs are distracting, as is the strong shadowing with bits of light on her face and neck.

on a side note. yes. photos are realism. especially portraits. this is her. this is what she really looks like (I assume)

 

[apaflo]

I would say the DOF is far from "perfect".
for portraits, you would typically shoot with a shallow DOF to blur an otherwise distracting or busy background.
in this case, there is nothing in the background that benefits from OOF or bokeh. instead, what we get is half of the headshot in focus, with the face, head, and hair quickly falling out of focus. this is generally not as desirable in a portrait where the subject is turned to that angle.

Why do we want to blur a distracting background? And why would not the exact same reason be applied to something other than "background"? If the answer to the first question applies to something other than "background", then the exact same treatment applies.

There is no reason to necessarily avoid "the face, head, and hair quickly falling out of focus" if that produces an effect that is dramatically better than not.

Following these basic rules of thumb for beginners will prevent a photographer's style from ever developing past a beginning photographer's look! Follow them only until you can learn how to decide when to do better.

Here is a link that clearly demonstrates exactly how useful a narrow DOF can be for a portrait.

Nice portrait with narrow DOF.

Can we agree that the photographer who made that image didn't fall into any "noob-trap"? If so, note that it is virtually the same style as the image in this thread. One eye is in focus, the other not. Most if not all of the hair is blurred. DOF is very limited almost certainly by purposely using an f/1.4 aperture!

on a side note. yes. photos are realism. especially portraits. this is her. this is what she really looks like (I assume)

Fantasy!

It isn't her, and it is not really even what she looks like. It's just a photgraph, and is an illusion that reminds us of her.

Photographs are all illusions. Literally by definition. In particular, a portrait can never be reality. Reality is a living breathing human, an illusion is a photograph that makes you say, "That's Kathleen!" Except, it's a photograph, not Kathleen. (Ask the photograph how she feels today...)

 

[Braineack]

That picture would have been better with more dof.

 

[pixmedic]

I would say the DOF is far from "perfect".
for portraits, you would typically shoot with a shallow DOF to blur an otherwise distracting or busy background.
in this case, there is nothing in the background that benefits from OOF or bokeh. instead, what we get is half of the headshot in focus, with the face, head, and hair quickly falling out of focus. this is generally not as desirable in a portrait where the subject is turned to that angle.

Why do we want to blur a distracting background? And why would not the exact same reason be applied to something other than "background"? If the answer to the first question applies to something other than "background", then the exact same treatment applies.

There is no reason to necessarily avoid "the face, head, and hair quickly falling out of focus" if that produces an effect that is dramatically better than not.

Following these basic rules of thumb for beginners will prevent a photographer's style from ever developing past a beginning photographer's look! Follow them only until you can learn how to decide when to do better.

Here is a link that clearly demonstrates exactly how useful a narrow DOF can be for a portrait.

Nice portrait with narrow DOF.

Can we agree that the photographer who made that image didn't fall into any "noob-trap"? If so, note that it is virtually the same style as the image in this thread. One eye is in focus, the other not. Most if not all of the hair is blurred. DOF is very limited almost certainly by purposely using an f/1.4 aperture!

on a side note. yes. photos are realism. especially portraits. this is her. this is what she really looks like (I assume)

Fantasy!

It isn't her, and it is not really even what she looks like. It's just a photgraph, and is an illusion that reminds us of her.

Photographs are all illusions. Literally by definition. In particular, a portrait can never be reality. Reality is a living breathing human, an illusion is a photograph that makes you say, "That's Kathleen!" Except, it's a photograph, not Kathleen. (Ask the photograph how she feels today...)

well, first off, I never made any mention of either "noob" or "trap" so i am not sure why you are bringing that up with my post.

yes yes...there are SOME portraits that work with a shallow DOF. this is not one that I personally feel does it well.
the image you linked? its nice. not great. not fantastic....just nice. just like DGM's portrait is nice. (did you notice the lighting in the photo you linked? no bad shadows on her face? hmmm?)_

as for the background...backgrounds are rendered OOF for a number of reason when it is done on purpose. when backdrops are used, there is little need or use for it because you do not get the noticeable effect because you are making a simple flat surface OOF.
why would you not blur out a background that is distracting and offers nothing to the benefit of the picture? what do you do with your distracting backgrounds in a portrait? I avoid them all together, personally. when thats not possible, I do my best to crop and render them OOF without taking away from the subject. in the case of DGM's photo here, i refer back to my original statement about the lighting, and the fact that the DOF rendering here does not make the picture better.

portraits are all illusions? come on man. lets not drag this into total fantasy land. portraits are a representation of the subject. sometimes they are meant to be realistic, and sometimes they are meant to completely change the nature of the subject. this was very obviously not the latter. this is no attempt at Picasso. (thankfully)


man...why do people keep insisting on bringing up the word "style".
"style" is a joke. its a buzzword newbies and artists that are legends in their own often mind use to justify technical errors and an inability to learn basic photographic fundamentals and posing. this is not what is going on with DGM's photo.
DGM is not trying to make a "style" here, he is trying to take a good portrait. (hopefully)

this is not about being a photographic bad-boy, breaking all the rules for the sake of his tortured art.
this is a portrait. Claims of artistic license and purposeful rule breaking do little to belay the fact that the lighting here was insufficient.

DGM has not weighed in here for a bit, so I think we do him a disservice continuing to debate the merits of his photograph without him
getting in here and commenting on what has been said so far. this is his picture we are discussing after all.