My first time attempting to do portraits and would like some C&C

[SashaT]

Last week my wife asked me if I would mind taking photos of her sister and her family. Never having done any type of portraits before, I was hesitant but agreed. I ended up shooting 120 photos with 86 that I felt were usable for them. Since this was my first attempt, I wanted to post some examples here for C&C as I would like to improve. All shots were taken with my only prime, a Nikon 60mm 2.8. I shot all of these in manual with the iso set to auto and I used no additional lighting or flashes for these.

 

[Braineack]

Any specific reason you chose not to utilize a lower f-stop for these given that you had the option? These are screaming for some seperation between the subject and background.

 

[SashaT]

Any specific reason you chose not to utilize a lower f-stop for these given that you had the option? These are screaming for some seperation between the subject and background.

When I asked my sister-in-law what she wanted. She told me that she would like to have the background in focus as well (her words). So I shot about a 70/30 mixture being 70% of the shots were at a higher f-stop and 30% were lower. I did shoot some of the photos at 2.8, however, due to some poor location choice on my part fpr those photos. They did not turn out well as the background was far too bright and the subjects were far too dark.

 

[jeroen]

That's a good lens for portrait photography. You just need to use its benefits.

For portraits you want a very low depth of field, like Braineack mentioned.

This might interest you:
Focusing Basics | Aperture and Depth of Field

 

[ronlane]

To me the first one could use some vignetting or burning of the background. (helps with the separation mentioned by Braineack).

 

[jeroen]

Sorry, posts cross fired.

 

[DougGrigg]

not bad, focus your attention to the composition though, first image seems far too wide shot whilst also having a branch out of the dudes head. you've definitely had a good go though, I hope they are happy with the images!

 

[robbins.photo]

To me the first one could use some vignetting or burning of the background. (helps with the separation mentioned by Braineack).

Ok, see now that would be a great picture. Little girl, sitting on the stump and smiling with a raging forest fire behind her.. lol

So.. hmm.. probably just me again right?

 

[D-B-J]

On the surface, these need some help. The biggest thing for me is the lack of separation of the subject from the background. Not only by utilizing a large aperture, but by darkening the background. In terms of the subjects themselves, they need a touch of fill lighting (to reduce the raccoon eyes).

Here's a quick edit of the first. I still feel the lighting is flat, but this is what I came up with. Just my 2 cents.





Jake

 

[SashaT]

First off, I want to thank everybody for taking the time to give me feedback. Now I have some things to think about before I try it again. Actually I am tempted to see if they want to try again on my next day I have free.

They did like the photos enough to get them printed and hung at their place. My wife said that her sister said she loved them. I asked if she was just being nice as I am family and my wife said no, she actually likes them a lot. I was a bit surprised as I personally didn't think they were that good. For myself, I wish to improve so I will do some more research on the subject, try the suggestions given to me here and try again.

 

[kundalini]

At all cost, do not pose a woman with the line from hip to knee in a horizontal fashion. Regardless of their body shape, this only emphasizes a larger than normal thigh. Similarly, with the knee facing the lens. Learn about flattering angles for posing. One thing you have done well here is having her sit on her hip rather than flat on her a$$. What say you about the guy though? Who gives a rat's a$$ how the lugs on his shoes look?

All that being said, it's the lines you create for your subjects and their body parts that either accentuate or deflate an image.

 

[Braineack]

i did this REALLY fast, but look how much more they pop with a little bokeh/blur:

 

[kundalini]

i did this REALLY fast, but look how much more they pop with a little bokeh/blur:

It looks fake.

 

[Derrel]

Yes, Braineack's quick attempt does look fake...but if that had been shot with say a 200mm f/2 Nikkor at f/2.5, it'd look sorta similar, but simply amazing...or with a 135mm lens at f/3.5, it's look sort of like that...but with a 60mm lens, not so much...too much depth of field for any foreground/background separation in that specific shooting situation. The whole flat-on-their-buttocks position is just not good; unless a person is a trained model, pulling off a ground-seated, flat-on-the buttocks seated shot is almost impossible. Standing, with weight on the back leg, kind booty out a bit, would make both him and her look better, more active, more dynamic. Even seated on the front EDGE of a tall bench or picnic table end would help add some literal physical muscle tension, which would come through as more dynamic, more implied movement. The need to get some "weight shift" in posed shots is one of the reasons apple boxes are used so often, to keep people from being seated flat-footed and all frumpy-looking. Anyway, back to Braineack's fake bokeh look...I dunno...yeah, it does look processed, it does look faked, but you know what? To some people, it might look good. In fact, to me, it sort of looks preferable to the original, deep DOF look; I think it looks "edited", and I think a lot of people like "edited pics" these days. Yes, it does look fake...but we've come to an era when "faked" can have a certain type of status value, a certain "imprint" that ,"Hey, this image was created by a shooter with...Photoshop skillz", with a 'z' on the end of skillz.

 

[ronlane]

I took a shot at it using gaussian blur and some vignetting.