How are my portrait skills?

asheeants · Oct 20, 2010

So I'm pretty new to photography, only been shooting seriously for about a year now. I think I have a good eye but still have a lot to learn for sure! Here are a couple photos I took of my children. Any C&C would be appreciated.

This first one is my daughter Jillian. Caught her in the adorable little pose, and I think it came out pretty well. I set my camera on "a priority", I find myself using this mode most of the time. I just set it at 4.5 and shot using no flash, because of how much sun was coming through the window. I shot this at about 2 in the afternoon. I see it's a bit over exposed esp in the top portion of the photo. Any suggestions on how I could do this better?
1. http://i322.photobucket.com/albums/nn434/asheeant
/DSC_0226.jpg

This photo is my son Coleton. Again in "a priority" set at about 5.6 I believe. To me this just doesn't seem as sharp as it could be, and even with the use of a reflector his face doesn't seem to be filled out enough. I'm very new to photo shop so I'm sure there's a way to fix this but I haven't got that far yet. hah Other than that I really like the photo, but again how could I do it better?
2.

A friend of mine talked me into entering them both in the gap contest. These are the photos I used. If you think they are the least bit adorable you can vote at http://www.gapcastingcall.com/GapCastingCall /Gallery.html

Jillian is 694973 and Coleton is 695212.

asheeants · Oct 20, 2010

For some reason this didn't show up the first time.

tirediron · Oct 20, 2010

C&C per req:

1. There's potential in this photo, but I think it would be much stronger if the child was smiling. The expression really doesn't work IMO. There are also some exposure issues; your camera's meter was 'fooled' by the bright background, which is also somewhat distracting. An off-camera flash image right would have been the ideal way to illuminate this image. It's also soft around the face, it looks to me like the focus was on the stripes of his shirt near the waist.

2. This is a cute image, and I like the monochrome coversion, but again I think your focus was around the hands/waist rather than the face.

There doesn't seem to be any EXIF data appeneded to either image, so I can't give you much more input, other than to suggest learning more about depth of field. A calculator such as this one: Online Depth of Field Calculator can save you a lot of grief by allowing you to know exactly what aperture (a priority BTW is 'Aperture Priority'; you set the lens' aperture to what you want and the camera selects the shutter speed).

Just my $00.02 worth - your mileage may vary.

~John

Rosshole · Oct 20, 2010

#1, your White balance appears a little cool.

#2, I really like the composition on this one, but the cars in the background are ruining it for me...

Christie Photo · Oct 20, 2010

I think your portrait skills have potential. So much so, I was compelled to suggest a different approach in processing.

I like the soft tones in the portrait of your daughter, but thought you'd like to see a bit more contrast. I warmed the shot of your boy, cropped a bit of the bright background and added a vignette. I really like his expression.

Let me know if this helps.

-Pete

asheeants · Oct 20, 2010

tirediron said:
C&C per req:

1. There's potential in this photo, but I think it would be much stronger if the child was smiling. The expression really doesn't work IMO. There are also some exposure issues; your camera's meter was 'fooled' by the bright background, which is also somewhat distracting. An off-camera flash image right would have been the ideal way to illuminate this image. It's also soft around the face, it looks to me like the focus was on the stripes of his shirt near the waist.

2. This is a cute image, and I like the monochrome coversion, but again I think your focus was around the hands/waist rather than the face.

There doesn't seem to be any EXIF data appeneded to either image, so I can't give you much more input, other than to suggest learning more about depth of field. A calculator such as this one: Online Depth of Field Calculator can save you a lot of grief by allowing you to know exactly what aperture (a priority BTW is 'Aperture Priority'; you set the lens' aperture to what you want and the camera selects the shutter speed).

Just my $00.02 worth - your mileage may vary.

~John

Thanks for the tips. I am having a hard time getting the faces of my subjects in focus. When I'm taking the picture and I auto focus, to me it seems focused but when I get it uploaded I clearly see different. This should be obvious when I'm taking the shot but some how I'm not getting it, any advice there?

Oh and BTW I know what "aperture priority" is I just shorten the name in my post. I tend to use it because I have such a difficult time manually, I seem more focused on the depth and the background effects it gives rather than my shutter so it's been my favorite setting really the only setting I use unless I absolutely can't use it. I'm sure it isn't a good thing to use it all the time, but as a beginner it's helped me get some decent shots.

Thanks again I will def put your tips to use!

asheeants · Oct 20, 2010

Rosshole said:
#1, your White balance appears a little cool.

#2, I really like the composition on this one, but the cars in the background are ruining it for me...

I have to say, I am terrible about setting my white balance. That is usually the first thing people pick out when C&Cing my photos.

Yeah the cars are distracting aren't they.. I just got ps and slowing I'm learning the ends and outs. I need to look up how to edit things like that out. I have tried using the clone tool but I def need much more practice. I will try and be more conscious of my backgrounds, so I won't have to edit them. Thanks

asheeants · Oct 20, 2010

Christie Photo said:
I think your portrait skills have potential. So much so, I was compelled to suggest a different approach in processing.

I like the soft tones in the portrait of your daughter, but thought you'd like to see a bit more contrast. I warmed the shot of your boy, cropped a bit of the bright background and added a vignette. I really like his expression.

Let me know if this helps.

-Pete

Wow they look so much better! Adding more contrast to Jillian took the photo up a level. Good job editing the cars in the background as well, did you just use the clone tool for this? When I use it you can so tell that I've edited that area, it just sticks out like a sore thumb. Coleton's photo now looks the way I intended it to, I am just not as experienced with ps. I didn't even think about adding a vignette to this, it really improved that bright background. I will put all these tips to use and hopefully be back with improvements.

Thanks

Christie Photo · Oct 20, 2010

asheeants said:
Good job editing the cars in the background as well, did you just use the clone tool for this?

Yup. Just a quick clone of the window to the right. I did a slight rotate too to plumb the lines. Glad you like it.

-Pete

Derrel · Oct 20, 2010

Pete's re-processed images look better in how he cloned in a new background in the left window pane...but as historical portraits representing a time and place, I have a sort of resistance to cloning out vehicles...I know, I know...many people find cars and pickups annoying in backgrounds, but as this child grows up, the outlines of those "old" vehicles will be indicators of the era the photo was made in...I suspect the cars and trucks of the future will look rather different, much the way old 1920's and 1930's automobiles have a very different look than the cars of the 1950's, or the 2000's. Not a big deal, but just something to think about. There's no disputing that the new, cloned-in background looks cleaner and is less-distracting,and not every single picture has to represent reality accurately. And this is not a big deal, just an observation.

Infidel · Oct 20, 2010

Interesting point, Derrel. This is certainly something I've observed when looking through family snapshots. Things like clothing, glasses and hairstyles give these pictures a historical reference point. Would you approach this any differently if it were a paid professional portrait session vs. a portrait of a family member? Just appreciate your somewhat under-represented perspective on this matter and would be curious to read more opinions.

Derrel · Oct 20, 2010

Well, one of my absolute favorite photographers is a long-dead fellow named August Sander. A quick Google search of his work will show the way the actual,real backgrounds in portraiture can contribute a subtle, yet powerful part of the image. I think for a salon print, Pete's cloned-in background would win out,easily. It looks better. More perfect. Idyllic. Super-easy to do now that we are in the digital era. But as a documentary photo, the actual backdrop behind, the view through the window, the automobiles in the scene, convey the way things actually ARE.

Somebody a few years ago wrote an article that said digital photography is ruining historical photography because so many "real" and "imperfect" images are being deleted, and scenes are no longer being portrayed with honesty, but always being "improved upon". I know what he meant. But then again, August Sander is one of my heroes...I grew up idolizing this guy's work...

http://www.google.com/images?client...le&resnum=1&ved=0CDEQsAQwAA&biw=1776&bih=1124

Infidel · Oct 20, 2010

I think I know what you mean about digital "ruining" historical photography. I guess it depends to a large extent on what the goals of the photographer are. I personally have reservations about over-processing my own photographs. To me, part of what makes a great photograph so special is related to the convergence of all of the particular elements at the moment the photograph was captured, coupled with the ability of the photographer to recognize the moment and apply technique in order to render the image according to his or her vision. I understand that from this perspective, chance certainly plays a large role in one's success; as a hobbyist, that doesn't bother me. That said, I don't think "honesty" is a quality that all photographs are required to have, yet it's something that the medium is uniquely capable of delivering. It's part of what's special about photography.

Bad timing, bad composition, bad technique and frankly, bad luck can all be "corrected" to a certain extent in post-processing, and the resulting images can still be powerful. I certainly don't frown upon those who are skilled in post and use it to improve their images, rather it's a personal goal of mine to accomplish the best possible image in camera, and spend time doing a reshoot to correct mistakes...this is the process I enjoy, and how I learn to be better.

I apologize to the OP if I've taken this thread too far astray. That said, specifically regarding the second photograph of your son, in terms of contrast and sharpness, I actually prefer the unedited version. In relation to Derrel's observation, I'm not sure the cars add much in terms of documentary value as they're OOF. Taking that into consideration, I suppose I prefer the edit with them cloned out (also, the straightening helped a lot). Lastly, so long as the cars are going to be cloned out, you might also consider repairing the cracked window pane (in post).