Haven't posted in awhile, would like some CC

[ChrisedwardsHT]

Hey guys, looking to see what you would change about this shot, if anything? Single speedlight through umbrella to subjects high left.

Dale by Christopher Edwards, on Flickr

 

[tirediron]

Not bad at all; I tend to go for a bit more DoF in my portraits but that's purely a creative/personal choice.

 

[Christie Photo]

I do like your lighting ratio, but not really sold on the butterfly (VERY slightly modified) lighting scheme for this model.

I might crop down VERY slightly at the top... maybe add a TAD of a vignette.

Good choice of background tone... Deep tone of clothing works fine, but might like something other than a T-shirt for this expression. Hmmm....

All-in-all, pretty nice. Good use of a single light!

-Pete

 

[Derrel]

Spot-on comments above from Christie Photo. I agree: crop a wee bit off the top.

 

[Designer]

Hey guys, looking to see what you would change about this shot, if anything? Single speedlight through umbrella to subjects high left.

The straight-on pose is unflattering and too static. Why wouldn't you go for a deeper DOF? His ears, hair, neck, and shoulders are completely OOF. Your model needs more separation from the BG. BG value is way too close to the model's skin tone. One-light portraits can be done, but you need a reflector opposite. The frame proportions emphasize and exaggerate the length of the man's face/neck.

 

[ChrisedwardsHT]

Hey guys, looking to see what you would change about this shot, if anything? Single speedlight through umbrella to subjects high left.

The straight-on pose is unflattering and too static. Why wouldn't you go for a deeper DOF? His ears, hair, neck, and shoulders are completely OOF. Your model needs more separation from the BG. BG value is way too close to the model's skin tone. One-light portraits can be done, but you need a reflector opposite. The frame proportions emphasize and exaggerate the length of the man's face/neck.

Hey thanks for that information for the reflector, skintone tones, etc. Curious to why you are wanting a deeper DOF, or just a personal preference? I think if I had a bigger area to work with, I would have chosen my 70-200, maybe you wouldn't be experiencing the exaggerated length in face/neck.

 

[Designer]

Curious to why you are wanting a deeper DOF, or just a personal preference?

Well, why not? Why not get your entire subject in focus? People do have ears, you know.

I think if I had a bigger area to work with, I would have chosen my 70-200, maybe you wouldn't be experiencing the exaggerated length in face/neck.

I was referring to the proportions of the frame.

 

[Derrel]

Why a deeper depth of field?

Because this is a type of photographic portraiture called neorealism, or hyperrealism. It shows him down to the pore level, the whisker level, in unflinching, direct eye contact with the camera. But, instead of the man, the person, the personage being sharply shown, it's a shot that focuses on his eyeglasses. The shot has lost a tremendous amount of impact because the depth of field is so shallow, Instead of the portrait truly featuring or emphasizing _him_, it shows us that you made an unwise f/stop choice; it shows off YOU, not the subject. And in this kind of work, everything within the final shot is _a choice_. This type of portraiture is designed to emphasize REAL-ness of the subject, but the execution of the shot is marred by a shallow depth of field that screams, "Look! I shot this almost wide-open! Look what I can do with a camera!"

I don't want the above description to sound too harsh, but...Me, and 15 other photography students had the above discussion 35 years ago in a fine arts photography class critique that featured hyperrealism as a topic, and I've heard far, far worse ways of describing what your picture is like. You asked ,"Why?" and I gave you an unvarnished explanation of the issue with shooting with ultra-shallow depth of field on a "type of photographic portrait" that almost demands deep DOF for maximum impact.

The shallow DOF kills the "impact" of the hyper-realistic goal of this kind of shot. Choosing to shoot this as a shallow DOF shot was not the best choice to further a neo-realistic or hyper-realistic artistic endeavor. This is a matter of taste and discernment.

 

[ChrisedwardsHT]

Why a deeper depth of field?

Because this is a type of photographic portraiture called neorealism, or hyperrealism. It shows him down to the pore level, the whisker level, in unflinching, direct eye contact with the camera. But, instead of the man, the person, the personage being sharply shown, it's a shot that focuses on his eyeglasses. The shot has lost a tremendous amount of impact because the depth of field is so shallow, Instead of the portrait truly featuring or emphasizing _him_, it shows us that you made an unwise f/stop choice; it shows off YOU, not the subject. And in this kind of work, everything within the final shot is _a choice_. This type of portraiture is designed to emphasize REAL-ness of the subject, but the execution of the shot is marred by a shallow depth of field that screams, "Look! I shot this almost wide-open! Look what I can do with a camera!"

I don't want the above description to sound too harsh, but...Me, and 15 other photography students had the above discussion 35 years ago in a fine arts photography class critique that featured hyperrealism as a topic, and I've heard far, far worse ways of describing what your picture is like. You asked ,"Why?" and I gave you an unvarnished explanation of the issue with shooting with ultra-shallow depth of field on a "type of photographic portrait" that almost demands deep DOF for maximum impact.

The shallow DOF kills the "impact" of the hyper-realistic goal of this kind of shot. Choosing to shoot this as a shallow DOF shot was not the best choice to further a neo-realistic or hyper-realistic artistic endeavor. This is a matter of taste and discernment.

Your reply doesn't sound harsh, I come here to post things wanting good honest feedback/critique about what I have been doing. I appreciate that you went deeper into replying and explaining so I can further research rather than just giving a short cocky answer. Thanks!

 

[Derrel]

Thanks Chris. I appreciate your reply. There's plenty of stuff of this style on the web to look at, some good, some not good, some great.

 

[bulldurham6 1]

I have to agree 100% with Derrel. Eyes not sharp on a portrait, regardless of intent immediately kill the shot. Everything else is pretty much a negotiable artistic choice.

 

[Designer]

.. rather than just giving a short cocky answer.

I will have you know that I put just as much careful thought and consideration into my short cocky answer as you did in determining your DOF in this portrait.

 

[ChrisedwardsHT]

.. rather than just giving a short cocky answer.

I will have you know that I put just as much careful thought and consideration into my short cocky answer as you did in determining your DOF in this portrait.

Careful thought and consideration? Okay. Have you ever thought that maybe not everyone that comes on here is a professional photographer and just wants good honest feedback that provides them with information to go out and research more. I have shot on and off for the past few years, nothing more than a hobby. I forget that the “know it alls” are out on these pages and that’s probably why I stopped posting on here before.


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

 

[JonA_CT]

Careful thought and consideration? Okay. Have you ever thought that maybe not everyone that comes on here is a professional photographer and just wants good honest feedback that provides them with information to go out and research more. I have shot on and off for the past few years, nothing more than a hobby. I forget that the “know it alls” are out on these pages and that’s probably why I stopped posting on here before.


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

While his advice wasn't terrible, tact is important when someone is trying to learn (and I have lots and lots of research-based evidence if anyone would like to differ). You got the answers you needed from other members -- don't be discouraged from posting because of a single voice. There's a lot to be learned and shared here.

 

[Designer]

Most people who are genuinely interested in learning something will read the comments and take that information into consideration for the next time. They weigh the pros and cons, try to understand the concepts, have another critical look at their own work, and decide how to use the new information.

When I mentioned that your subject's hair, ears, neck, and shoulders were out of focus, you did not acknowledge that fact, but instead questioned why I would expect them to be in focus. That does not seem like a thoughtful and considered response on your part, but more argumentative in tone.

If your preferred response is to argue every comment, maybe you aren't really looking for a critique after all. If that is the case, and you really don't want any comments, just post "no C&C, please" along with your photograph, and we will oblige.