My Fiance Stacey

[Tiller]

Hey guys, I ordered a flash and I'll be buying an umbrella/stand as well so I can do some proper portraits. But before I get them, I just wanted to try some with just regular light to see the difference when it all gets here. CC welcome. If you could advise me where the umbrella could be placed in these shots to create a better portrait, it would be appreciated and I'll try it when it all arrives. Thanks guys! :mrgreen:



IMG_4590 by tsmcdona, on Flickr



IMG_4578 by tsmcdona, on Flickr


Tyler

 

[binga63]

It would be well worth the investment if you buy a reflector as well
Beautiful Fiance btw

 

[Parker219]

I cant comment too much on the lighting, as I am still learning in that aspect.

However just keep in mind when you shoot portraits you want your subject to "be the star" so to speak. IN MY OPINION- the first shot would have worked a lot better with either of shallower DOF, as to make the background more blurry, or to compose the shot without the fence railing going through her head.

As for #2, her face looks a little dark to me, it also looks a lot more orange than her face looks in #1.

 

[Trever1t]

Well here's my 2 cents, ok? Light is light. I shoot outdoors with no modifiers, with modifiers, studio, outdoor with studio light. It's pretty much all the same except one thing; adding lighting is more complicated than just looking and recognizing the available light.

 

[Tiller]

I cant comment too much on the lighting, as I am still learning in that aspect.

However just keep in mind when you shoot portraits you want your subject to "be the star" so to speak. IN MY OPINION- the first shot would have worked a lot better with either of shallower DOF, as to make the background more blurry, or to compose the shot without the fence railing going through her head.

As for #2, her face looks a little dark to me, it also looks a lot more orange than her face looks in #1.

Yeah I thought about that for the first shot but my main goal was trying to get all of her in focus including her legs. When I was at f/2.5 something would always be blurry. Not sure how to get that right.

And for #2, yes I suppose it does. I guess I considered it a more intimate closeup, so I didn't mind playing with the saturation a little more. I'll work on it.

Thanks!

 

[Vtec44]

Beautiful fiance. You're a lucky man!

The skin tone in your 2nd picture is off. I enjoy environmental portrait myself, just make sure the environmental part adds something interesting to your portrait part.

 

[Derrel]

What these two shots lack most are 1) eye sparkle and 2) fill lighting. In each case, her eyes are a bit dark, and there is stronger light in other locations instead of on her and her face and body. SOme more light directed onto her face in the second shot would most likely have lightened up the face, and also given some of what I refer to as "eye sparkle". Some fill light, from say, a small speedlight flash located near the camera, would have significantly changed the second shot. The first shot would also have benefitted from some eye sparkle, from either a flash, or a reflector, or an umbrella with a flash firing through it or off of it.

You are correct, f/2.5 is a wide aperture, and does not allow for a lot of depth of field in most portrait type situations where a person is sitting with limbs extended toward or away from their face...the length of a human body is GREATER than the depth of field of a telephoto lens set to f/2.5 at "most" portrait-type distances. On longer-range shots, yes, f/2.5 might offer deep enough DOF, but at closer distances, like the one where she;'s at the table, fgeet up--you need to stop the lens down, OR, get her body angled so the legs are not coming straight AT the camera, but are instead, more at an angle to the width of the frame in a horizontal framed shot like #1 shown here.

Once you get the umbrella, you can start learning how it behaves!

 

[Tiller]

Beautiful fiance. You're a lucky man!

The skin tone in your 2nd picture is off. I enjoy environmental portrait myself, just make sure the environmental part adds something interesting to your portrait part.

Thank you! Yes I am for sure.

Here's an updated #2


IMG_4578 by tsmcdona, on Flickr

 

[Tiller]

What these two shots lack most are 1) eye sparkle and 2) fill lighting. In each case, her eyes are a bit dark, and there is stronger light in other locations instead of on her and her face and body. SOme more light directed onto her face in the second shot would most likely have lightened up the face, and also given some of what I refer to as "eye sparkle". Some fill light, from say, a small speedlight flash located near the camera, would have significantly changed the second shot. The first shot would also have benefitted from some eye sparkle, from either a flash, or a reflector, or an umbrella with a flash firing through it or off of it.

You are correct, f/2.5 is a wide aperture, and does not allow for a lot of depth of field in most portrait type situations where a person is sitting with limbs extended toward or away from their face...the length of a human body is GREATER than the depth of field of a telephoto lens set to f/2.5 at "most" portrait-type distances. On longer-range shots, yes, f/2.5 might offer deep enough DOF, but at closer distances, like the one where she;'s at the table, fgeet up--you need to stop the lens down, OR, get her body angled so the legs are not coming straight AT the camera, but are instead, more at an angle to the width of the frame in a horizontal framed shot like #1 shown here.

Once you get the umbrella, you can start learning how it behaves!

Thanks a lot! Yeah next time I'll definitely have her feet towards me so I can have a wide aperture to make her pop. And thanks for the advice for fill lighting I am pretty good at playing with new toys

 

[Tiller]

And I forgot to add, I just bought the 2x extender which will allow me to get 180mm at f/4, so ill test that and see what results it gives me at the long range.

 

[cgipson1]

Purty girl, there! Once you get it, start asking particular questions... we will help!

 

[cgipson1]

Beautiful fiance. You're a lucky man!

The skin tone in your 2nd picture is off. I enjoy environmental portrait myself, just make sure the environmental part adds something interesting to your portrait part.

Thank you! Yes I am for sure.

Here's an updated #2


IMG_4578 by tsmcdona, on Flickr

Got a reflector?.. if not, get one!

 

[Tiller]

Got a reflector?.. if not, get one!

Haha alrighty, will do!

 

[Qveon]

I would say stick the umbrella at 45 degrees camera right and 30 pointed down above her would be a good start. But i agree with everyone else, if you warmed her skin tones up it would be great or worst case warm the entire picture up to get her skin tones right.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Pretty! And deserving of proper lighting. At least a catch light or two in her eyes