Not The Best Subject

[smoke665]

Thanks @Derrel appreciate the comments. Yes it's especially difficult when you don't like being photographed. Maybe that comes from all the years of not being in family photos because I was the one behind the camera. LOL Comments noted, and filed for inclusion in the future.

Other than the posture/positioning, are there other things that could help move it up a notch. I noticed after the fact that the color of the background didn't seem to help the skin tone, and there's a variance in the background tint from side to side, caused by lighting placement.

 

[Derrel]

I don't mind the background's color/density fade all that much. The plus is the light side of the backdrop coordinates with the light side of the face, and the dark with the dark side of the face. I dunno about "improving it"; it is what it is, it's in a style some would call hyperrealism. The pores show, the chest hair shows, everything shows up as "REAL". Not all retouched.

It is what it is.It is a type of photo portrait. You could add more light to the eyes by lighting it differently if you want, maybe bounce another strobe off of a panel in front of the subject or off of a wall, to get a bigger catchlight, but on a selfie...eyeglasses reflection control could be tedious (easier to be behind the camera to handle the eyeglass reflections). Any changes made would change the type of shot you'd wind up with.

Many people these days retouch and edit and perfect skin and details to the nnnth degree...I seldom do that. B&W conversions in Lightroom, using the Blue, Blue H-C, Green, and Red, Orange filters, and the Outdoors B&W and All-Purose B&W presets can change a shot like this quite a bit. Adding a huge amount of clarity could make this better, to some people (not to the Dragon Effect degree) who like a high-contrast, hard-edges portrait.

I think maybe that's an issue some might have: this has warm tones, but a rugged face and expression. Maybe it needs a harder-edged look to it to match pose/expression to the finished image toning? maybe a hard-edge B&W rendering would move the meter needle upward a bit?

 

[smoke665]

I don't mind the background's color/density fade all that much. The plus is the light side of the backdrop coordinates with the light side of the face, and the dark with the dark side of the face. I dunno about "improving it"; it is what it is, it's in a style some would call hyperrealism. The pores show, the chest hair shows, everything shows up as "REAL". Not all retouched.

It is what it is.It is a type of photo portrait. You could add more light to the eyes by lighting it differently if you want, maybe bounce another strobe off of a panel in front of the subject or off of a wall, to get a bigger catchlight, but on a selfie...eyeglasses reflection control could be tedious (easier to be behind the camera to handle the eyeglass reflections). Any changes made would change the type of shot you'd wind up with.

Many people these days retouch and edit and perfect skin and details to the nnnth degree...I seldom do that. B&W conversions in Lightroom, using the Blue, Blue H-C, Green, and Red, Orange filters, and the Outdoors B&W and All-Purose B&W presets can change a shot like this quite a bit. Adding a huge amount of clarity could make this better, to some people (not to the Dragon Effect degree) who like a high-contrast, hard-edges portrait.

I think maybe that's an issue some might have: this has warm tones, but a rugged face and expression. Maybe it needs a harder-edged look to it to match pose/expression to the finished image toning? maybe a hard-edge B&W rendering would move the meter needle upward a bit?

Just a personal artistic opinion, but I prefer the, hyperrealism/hard look on males, softer skin, and sharp eyes on females and children. Maybe it's an age thing - grew up in a different time.

Interesting side note just for you - raw files were imported, processed, and adjusted all within LR. No PS edits were used at any time. The temptation was great but I resisted!

Here's a B&W conversion in LR. Used a LR preset then adjusted to this. Not sure if the contrast is up enough, but I tried more and didn't seem to help the image. Afterward, brought the exposure up +.36

View attachment 132303

 

[loonatic45414]

You've got excellent features to make a great Winston Churchill portrait.

Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk

 

[Derrel]

Print it. Frame it. Save it for the grandkids.

Looks pretty good as a B&W selfie! The thing about portraits is this: the longer you look at a print of one, the more you notice. This has a number of small, nuanced details. Like, for example, the exact, precise litle bits of space on the left margin, and the lower left corner (brilliant!). And the highlights on the skin in a few places.

Come back to this image in some time, like a month, and see if you still like it. I bet you will.

Moving from color to B&W ups the ruggedness factor about 10-fold.

Glad to hear this was edited in an all-Lightroom, politically-correct, environmentally safe, sustainable environment.

 

[smoke665]

@Derrel, can't promise I won't slip back over to the "dark side" occasionally, but the last few days I've learned a lot about LR, such that it will be a part of the workflow.

@loonatic45414 Not sure about the Churchill thing. LOL

 

[loonatic45414]

If I were the artist and you were the subject, I think the old corporate portrait look like they used to hang in the smoky executive boardroom - possibly R. L. Farthington III, Founder - at the bottom. That's the look I get from the stern face anyway. Maybe a quote about the value of a man being tied to the number of calluses on his hands. Just having fun!

Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk

 

[smoke665]

@loonatic45414 Actually it probably resembles the first face my OTR drivers saw when the fleet manger kicked them up to me for a talk. It usually preceded an old fashion A**Chewing, termination, or both. My Mother always told me to not make faces or my face would freeze that way. After 25 yrs and a LOT of talks, I guess Mom was right!

 

[loonatic45414]

I think we all need a good old-fashioned a** chewing as a part of learning about life and gaining wisdom. Probably not enough goes on anymore. I hope I've given you something to think about from an unbiased perspective. Just don't ever get ME in front of the lens and we're cool. Haha

Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk

 

[zombiesniper114 13]

Not knowing much about portraiture, I think these are great shots. I do like the B&W better.

Great first attempt.

P.S. Don't be so harsh on the model. Everyones face gets experience, only the smart ones learn from it.

 

[Derrel]

I thought the eye camera right needed more light, so I dodged it in LR, and burned down the shirt's brighter areas, then lightened the entirety of your head. This is two LR B&W presets, combined. Total edit time, less than one minute. Unsharpened, and from a JPEG, the file worked pretty easily.

I went from the color file to this rugged, masculine, strong-contrast type image which I think looks good for the pose, subject, and the clothing being worn.

 

[smoke665]

I went from the color file to this rugged, masculine, strong-contrast type image which I think looks good for the pose, subject, and the clothing being worn.

Don't know Derrel, maybe a little too intense???? I had worked the image to a "darker" level earlier then pulled back.

 

[Derrel]

I went from the color file to this rugged, masculine, strong-contrast type image which I think looks good for the pose, subject, and the clothing being worn.

Don't know Derrel, maybe a little too intense???? I had worked the image to a "darker" level earlier then pulled back.

Yes maybe it is a little bit intense but I think it would make a fine print on a glossy surface paper. It looks just super here on this screen. Of course this is just one guy's interpretation of how this should be done. There is no one right answer, but yes it is a high contrast look for sure.

My Philosophy on editing pictures is never to go with that day's opinion on any image. I always like to come back to an image of a day or two or three or 30 days later to see how it holds up. For various reasons I think it's unwise to judge how an image should be on day one. Yeah this could be scaled back a bit but I think it looks pretty good this way.

 

[Rick50]

I like the B&W version. Yes, Derrel went a tad strong but his lighting adjustments helped.

 

[photo1x1.com]

I think your lighting is pretty good, especially for a first try and a "more than real" look, showing more contrast in a face than there usually is, which is one possible style. This style I hardly ever use for clients, but rather with friends and self portraits for the fun of it. People tend to not like this kind of lighting (especially not of themselves). Almost everybody says: oh, look at all those wrinkles, please retouch them. The interesting thing is: photographers seem to like that kind of look much more than other people.
That´s why with portraits I do prefer a more friendly look. So I tried to brighten up some parts of the face, reduced the contrast in the face and reduced the lighting a bit on everything but the face. This could have been done by changing the ratio of the light and/or placing them differently (move them towards the camera in z-axis and more towards the face in x-axis), but I guess you know that anyway.

Well, and then, I would have tried a little smile .
Most of my clients enter the door saying - it´s gonna be hard work because I don´t like to be in front of the camera at all, and btw: I look really bad on images. In fact around 80% of them are having fun, 10% don´t really care and mainly want their image quickly and only 10% of them are really hard to shoot.
Not everybody has to like being in front of a camera, but most of those who don´t just take themselves and everything they do a little too serious. Making fun of yourself and your little shortcommings (if they are even there!!!) goes a long way. Luckily I have quite good attributes for that - I have a bald head, skew teeth, and a long crooked nose. I am allowed to tell people not to care about their teeth when they refuse to smile in front of the camera, and I tell them that other people looking at their images will be attracted by their smile rather than their teeth, or by their eyes becoming smaller when they smile. The vast majority would never do that in public, so why should they look like that on their portraits?
I just recently shot a series of images of myself - just for the fun of it. Here is a comparison of two - which one do you think people (NOT PHOTOGRAPHERS!!!) liked best and which one do I like best? I think I look best not smiling - people usually think the exact oposite (except some photographers ).

To cut the long words short: don´t be afraid to smile, people will like it!