New to Portrait Photography - Still experimenting

[hape]

Lacking a studio, photos were taken outsite against a wall
The one of Sally was merged into one with PhotoImpact
Did not want to make glamor images but wanted to leave the natural expression
Suggestions, tips, tricks, comments very welcome
Thanks
hape

Sally

and her sister
Britti

 

[Big Mike]

It is usually better to shoot from above your model, rather than below. This is especially evident in the first one, where we are looking up her nose.

The 2nd one is much stronger than the first.

 

[a5i736]

I agree the second one is a stonger photo, yet way underexposed

 

[Alpha]

I disagree about the exposure. I think it's fine, it's just that the lighting is poor.

 

[newrmdmike]

mike . . . wow we are on the same page, before i saw what you had written i was thinking the same thing. BRING A STEP LADDER.

do a better job merging them, i can see the transition. also the contrast should match in my opinion.



also i think its strange that she has an earing in one, but in the other shot she doesn't . . . i know its on the opposite side, but i still think she should have earings in.

these aren't way underexposed the lights not right.

the color changed alot between the two shots, if its a white wall . . . why is it beige in the first shot?

you should fix that i think

 

[hape]

Hallo,
the two images were taken on different days
Sally - cloudy and dull, poor light
Britti - bright sunshine, photos taken in the shade

The 'looking down' is intention
Here is one a bit different

 

[newrmdmike]

i don't think you understood . . . we meant you should be more above her and less below her.

if its intentional i will say that it doesn't work well here.
even if these were shot at different times things should be the same color.

the two of sally should match i think, or do a better job with the fade. i didn't mean the difference in contrast between the two different shots of different ladies.

the one of britti is nice, not too much to pick at, maybe you could have had more light on the underside of her face to lighten up the eyes.

but the composite shots of sally, and the latest one you posted i do not like.

the one you most recently posted is more like a candid, if this was posed or prompted or whatever then i think she should be looking at you, and somthing alot of ppl follow in portraiture is to make sure you can see the whites of the eyes on both sides (i don't always follow this myself, but it is somthing to think about)

 

[hape]

i don't think you understood . . . we meant you should be more above her and less below her.

if its intentional i will say that it doesn't work well here.
even if these were shot at different times things should be the same color.

the two of sally should match i think, or do a better job with the fade. i didn't mean the difference in contrast between the two different shots of different ladies.

the one of britti is nice, not too much to pick at, maybe you could have had more light on the underside of her face to lighten up the eyes.

but the composite shots of sally, and the latest one you posted i do not like.

the one you most recently posted is more like a candid, if this was posed or prompted or whatever then i think she should be looking at you, and somthing alot of ppl follow in portraiture is to make sure you can see the whites of the eyes on both sides (i don't always follow this myself, but it is somthing to think about)

Now I got it ;-)

Next chance I have I will use some additional light
Think I still have a 1000W light from my movie times. From a certain distance it should work to get the shadows gone and lighten the eyes better.

Britti is the one who poses
Sally is a burstling energy bundle keeping a pose for mybe 2 seconds ;-)

 

[EOS_JD]

"Shadows gone" would leave your subject looking flat. Shadows (placed correctly) are essential for great portraits in my opinion.

 

[newrmdmike]

agreed, however, some fill i think would be nice, even from a big white diffuser bouncing it up.