impromptu Winter Formal shoot for my 16 yr old

[cdd29]

ok kids, stepping out of my element a little and trying some portraits Was really an impromptu shoot of my daughter & her friend for a formal tonight, so didn't have much time to set up or redo shots. Something isn't quite right about this and I can't quite put my finger on it. Color, white balance is a little off. Happy with her pose & the lighting (ring light above her and on my right). Sony A7R3 w/ 85/1.8. 1/60, f2.8, ISO160. I've been playing with colors for the last hour and don't feel like it's getting anywhere.. thoughts welcome.

 

[ac12]

First thing that hit me is, her NEAR eye is not in focus. It is her FAR eye that is in focus.

 

[cdd29]

and the camera was focused on the eyes... Only thing I can think of is this is a crop of my kid and her friend, but really didn't want the friend in this one. The camera indicated it was focused on their eyes.

 

[ivanz]

Nice shot cdd. How fast they grow up.

 

[ac12]

and the camera was focused on the eyes... Only thing I can think of is this is a crop of my kid and her friend, but really didn't want the friend in this one. The camera indicated it was focused on their eyes.

Yes, the camera indicated it focused on the eyeS.
I don't know how eye focus works with multiple eyes.
But if the DoF was not great enough, it can't focus on BOTH eyes.

The camera obviously selected ONE eye.
If the camera had selected both eyes, and calculated a focus point 1/3 behind the front eye, both eyes would be evenly out of focus.

You NEED more DoF at a close distance.

Today, you have to use a DoF calculator to determine the DoF.
In the old film day, the lens had a DoF scale on it. So I could determine the DoF by glancing down at the lens. It was easy.
And we used to plan and shoot using DoF.
Without that DoF scale on the lens, photographing by DoF has become a LOT harder.

 

[smoke665]

First of all these aren't bad, you have a beautiful young lady with an interesting smile. That automatically overrides any perceived errors.

Sony A7R3 w/ 85/1.8. 1/60, f2.8, ISO160

Something isn't right here, if you were shooting at these settings, with flash, either your flash is way under powered or you had it turned down to low. Any chance you were using one of the cheap LED ring lights? They can also cause color issues. Were you on manual, setting your flash with an incident meter or were you on a program mode letting the camera adjust? Learning how to meter for flash is not difficult.

Portraits shot wide open have a certain appeal, but it requires absolutely, positively nailing focus on both eyes. If you're close, with a razor thin DOF, it's impossible to catch both eyes if the head turns either way. Stopping down to f5.6- f8. or better will increase your chance of catching both eyes in focus. Since DOF is a function of distance to subject AND aperture, going to a longer focal length will also increase DOF without stopping down because you have to move further away to fill the frame the same. That's why you see all those expensive 200mm/f2.8 lenses out there.

As to the WB issue there's a couple things. First as I said earlier, if you're using an underpowered LED light you can expect WB issues. Sometimes you can correct it post if you took the time to shoot a target. Second, your camera records "reflected light" . Any light reflected off walls, ceilings, doors, rugs, even objects in the room will cast their respective hues on the subject, especially with a flash. Finally mixing flash with secondary room light causes issues, using a CTO or CTB Gel on the flash and appropriate in camera WB settings can correct the difference between the two.

 

[cdd29]

It wasn't a planned shoot, so I didn't have time to properly set it up. I grabbed a light and tried to set it up to minimize shadows and didn't have time to set up a back light (which would have mostly taken care of the shadows on the door.) It's also a crop of my kid and her friend. The AF said it was locked on their eyes, so not sure why it's out, unless it was actually focusing on the other girls' eyes. There was alot of red in the photo and the only way I could get it under any kind of control was to desaturate it. Kinda liked it at the time. It does closely match her hair color in real life. Should have had them stand a few more feet out. And yeah, the doors probably weren't the best choice but was the best thing available at the time and looking at the over all pic (which you can't since I didn't post it), worked with the dress colors and everything as a whole, though it doesn't work as good here given the tones are similar to her hair. Live and learn.

First of all these aren't bad, you have a beautiful young lady with an interesting smile. That automatically overrides any perceived errors.



Something isn't right here, if you were shooting at these settings, with flash, either your flash is way under powered or you had it turned down to low. Any chance you were using one of the cheap LED ring lights? They can also cause color issues. Were you on manual, setting your flash with an incident meter or were you on a program mode letting the camera adjust? Learning how to meter for flash is not difficult.

Portraits shot wide open have a certain appeal, but it requires absolutely, positively nailing focus on both eyes. If you're close, with a razor thin DOF, it's impossible to catch both eyes if the head turns either way. Stopping down to f5.6- f8. or better will increase your chance of catching both eyes in focus. Since DOF is a function of distance to subject AND aperture, going to a longer focal length will also increase DOF without stopping down because you have to move further away to fill the frame the same. That's why you see all those expensive 200mm/f2.8 lenses out there.

As to the WB issue there's a couple things. First as I said earlier, if you're using an underpowered LED light you can expect WB issues. Sometimes you can correct it post if you took the time to shoot a target. Second, your camera records "reflected light" . Any light reflected off walls, ceilings, doors, rugs, even objects in the room will cast their respective hues on the subject, especially with a flash. Finally mixing flash with secondary room light causes issues, using a CTO or CTB Gel on the flash and appropriate in camera WB settings can correct the difference between the two.

It's an inexpensive off camera 14" ring light. That was the only light source in the room other than light coming in from another room, but the ring light was closer to them, so I don't think the weak ambient light had much affect. The walls and carpet are pretty neutral tones. We figured the barn doors would make a decent backdrop given the rest of the room. The camera has missed focus before, though I don't think that's the case here (not trying to blame the equipment). I think the focus problem is both girls look like they were standing not perfectly in line with one another, in between what the camera was using as a focus plane and the camera did the best it could. Looking at the overall pic (this was a crop from the larger photo of the two of them), it was clearly focused on the other girl (one of her eyes is very sharp and other soft) and mine was slightly off the focus plane.

The big headache for me was trying to get the color right on this. Given her hair color, red tones in the door, and skin tones, color is hard on this. If I tried to use the eye dropper and select the white of her eye, it gave a weird green cast overall. I tried playing with the reds, yellows and magentas to try to fix the color from the very cool cast that was naturally in the photo but I just wasn't getting anywhere. So pulling down the vibrancy and saturation seemed to do the trick. The door looks about right, her hair is pretty close but the skin tone is still off.

I think the lessons for me are
1. plan out better, though I only had a few minutes and hadn't planned on any of this
2. Take more shots than what I did (this was originally just going to be a social media post of my kid going to formal, but thought I'd use the opportunity for some people practice, something that's not my norm but something I want to explore/expand with.
3. invest in better lighting
4. shoot them individually rather than a group
5. shutter speed & aperture used were more of a compromise than the ideal settings (I was already shooting lower than what I normally do)
like I said, live ad learn... reset the shoot for more DOF. Portraits/studio work isn't my forte and is new to me, so it's a learning experience.
4.Do need to play with the camera and see what it's limits are with multiple targets, as I wonder if it was doing some funky things (it has before but different situation).

 

[smoke665]

@cdd29 I wouldn't beat myself up over it, an image in hand trumps no image any day. Portraits aren't rocket science but they do require a little different skill set. First off I use either manual or single point focus, with back button focus lock, because "I" want to chose the exact focus point on a portrait. As AC12 noted above the "correct" focus point on the face is a combination of orientation of the focal plane and DOF. With focus you have an exact spherical focal plane that fades off to the front and rear of that plane. Sometimes you have to split the difference using all of your DOF to get both eyes within an acceptable sharpness. As noted DOF is a function of distance to the subject and aperture meaning you can adjust those parameters. At f/2.8 On an 85mm lens you have roughly 3/4" of an inch total DOF at 4ft from the subject. Increasing your distance to 8ft. with the same settings gets you roughly 31/2" total DOF. Or you can, stop down, with a corresponding increase in DOF. Using an online calculator like Online Depth of Field Calculator
will get you started, or there are apps for cell phones out there.

Inexpensive continuous lighting has been the bane of just about every photographer (myself included) just starting out with portraits. Even a cheap, used speedlight will outperform them. You can pick up a used incident light meter for less than $100. Or you can invest more in a speedlight that communicates with your camera TTL. I use both, but prefer full manual and meter when time permits.

If you saved the image as a RAW file you should be able to correct the color, but will likely require selective color grading to do so. The newest version of LR with masking should allow you to get close. There's several methods in PS to "steal" the color grading from another image, or to use known HSB settings to selectively adjust skin tones. I'd be happy to give it a shot if you want.

 

[adamhiram]

I wouldn't beat myself up over it, an image in hand trumps no image any day.

100% agreed! Printed out or posted to social media, most people won't notice the soft focus on the near eye. As others have said, next time try to get sharp focus on at least the near eye, and preferably both. If you want a shallow DoF, move the subject further from the background. Still a beautiful shot with saving.

If you saved the image as a RAW file you should be able to correct the color

I opened this in Photoshop to edit with Camera Raw, and the color actually looked pretty good once I boosted vibrance to 100%. The eyes looked very pink after boosting the color that much, but easy enough to correct with minimal processing.

 

[smoke665]

I opened this in Photoshop to edit with Camera Raw, and the color actually looked pretty good once I boosted vibrance to 100%.

Coincidentally, I was just looking at this. The OP has his profile set to "Not okay to edit", So I didn't do much other than look at what it needed. One thing to remember is that in the world of RGB, Hue, Saturation and Brightness are all dependent on each other. That's why it's important to adjust your exposure "before" you try to adjust WB. The image is underexposed by a 1/2 stop, bring that up, set the white and black in Levels, and the colors start to fall in line better. I use a standard for tone mapping Caucasian Skin of Hue=18-22 deg, Sat=30-40%, and Brightness=71-89% (with 77%% being a medium tan). Adding a Hue Saturation Adjustment layer with H+11, S+63, and B-7, brings both the face as sampled at the center of the bridge of the nose within standards for the skin color, and the hair back into what I would expect for a blonde shade of hair. Once you have the skin mapped a slight boost in Vibrance would be appropriate, but I think it's important to start at the bottom and work your way up.

 

[Designer]

ok kids, stepping out of my element a little and trying some portraits Was really an impromptu shoot of my daughter & her friend for a formal tonight, so didn't have much time to set up or redo shots. Something isn't quite right about this and I can't quite put my finger on it. Color, white balance is a little off. Happy with her pose & the lighting (ring light above her and on my right). Sony A7R3 w/ 85/1.8. 1/60, f2.8, ISO160. I've been playing with colors for the last hour and don't feel like it's getting anywhere.. thoughts welcome.View attachment 253041View attachment 253042

What I think what you've got here is a pair of monochrome images. I'm not seeing the "color" shot with any authentic color.

Model and pose o.k., but you should work on the stray strands of hair, and it wouldn't hurt if she would raise her chin some. If you're trying to get both eyes sharp, use a wider lens/aperture.

Background is too busy. As you increase the DOF, that busy background will be even more of a distraction, so try to find a non-figured backdrop. (Or stretch it WAY out, distance-wise.)

 

[Don Fischer]

Had to go back and look again and yes her near eye is a bit out of focus. Tell ya what, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. Great shot!

 

[Red Wolf]

I realize this is many months ago now but just seeing it.

I felt the same way when I saw the image, should be good but not quite hitting the mark. Here's my two-cents.

1. Depth of field: I was once told that that a rule of thumb is that depth of field in a portrait should hold everything in focus from the tip of the nose to the ears. Less than that and the a portrait does not look quite right. It may still be a lovely and artistically worthwhile image, but not following the rules of a good "portrait." Everyone keeps commenting that the close eye is soft and yeah that's true and yeah, that violates another rule of thumb, that focus should be on the closest eye (with some exceptions I've learned the hard way).

I don't think it's so much that focus was not on the close eye as that the DoF is so shallow it can't hold both eyes on a nearly identical focal plane.

I love shallow depth of field, especially in portraits, but this might be a bit too shallow.

2. Lighting: The other, and for me more signifigant issue is lighting. This is, to my eye, too flat . The nose shadow is almost horizontal, not falling slightly downward, and there is no sense of direction to the light. This is common with flash-on-camera and one reason I pretty much never photograph people with a flash as a key light on the camera. I will use a flash on camera outdoors, to fill in shadows from the sun, or if the person is backlit, but not as the primary key light inside. It's just not flattering.

Sorry so late, and so wordy, but those two things are what struck me about the image.