Portrait of a friend

[Fender5388]

i want to re shoot this and not cut off his head and chin. but as it is i like the way it turned out for now.

 

[RainyDay]

How wide was the aperture? Because the entire left hand side of the face is not focused on. Not a look you want to be going after....

 

[Fotofashion.no]

looks like a gradient blur done in post. Think it is somehow interesting look.

 

[Fender5388]

this was taken with a nikon 50mm 1.8. all done in camera, with the exception of some curve adjustment and raising the blacks in camera raw.

I got the blur by taking the lens off the camera and tilting it to the side. bluring the left and keeping the right in focus. its called free lensing and is exactly the look i was going for haha.

if it were because of a wide aperture then the blur would be on the same plane, here you see the wall is on the same plane but the right is sharp and the left is not.

 

[Derrel]

i want to re shoot this and not cut off his head and chin. >SNIP>

Flipping the camera to 'tall' might have taken as long as 1/2 second, but it would have given him back the top of his head, and the bottom of his chin.

 

[dakkon76]

So would backing up a bit... but clearly he thinks outside the box and doesn't believe that every head shot needs to be in the exact same orientation.

 

[Kerbouchard]

So would backing up a bit... but clearly he thinks outside the box and doesn't believe that every head shot needs to be in the exact same orientation.

Based on his description, his lens wasn't attached to his camera when he took this shot. I doubt the composition was intentional. For me, I don't get it, and I'm not sure why somebody would go after this effect, but to each his own.

 

[Fender5388]

Flipping the camera to 'tall' might have taken as long as 1/2 second, but it would have given him back the top of his head, and the bottom of his chin.

i'm not sure where the tall button is haha

but i already admitted to my mistake of head chopping, well fix it next time

 

[Fender5388]

So would backing up a bit... but clearly he thinks outside the box and doesn't believe that every head shot needs to be in the exact same orientation.

Based on his description, his lens wasn't attached to his camera when he took this shot. I doubt the composition was intentional. For me, I don't get it, and I'm not sure why somebody would go after this effect, but to each his own.

it was a quick picture, of which he was half forced to pose for.
im in a state of experimentation this semester. i would like to eventually shoot bmx photos for a magazine, but i realized making my photos look like what i see isn't enough. i've been trying new things, and failing a lot, but im learning a lot in the process.



as for the jab at "thinking outside the box" i like to try new things, some of it works, some does not. and as already stated i realize i should have shot in portrait orientation, but i made a rushed decision.

 

[dakkon76]

That wasn't a jab at you at all; it was aimed at Derrel. I think about 1/3 of his post count is a result of him voicing his distaste for anything but portrait orientation when a person is involved. I've seen a great deal of excellent "portraits" that were not in "the correct" orientation.

 

[Fender5388]

That wasn't a jab at you at all; it was aimed at Derrel. I think about 1/3 of his post count is a result of him voicing his distaste for anything but portrait orientation when a person is involved. I've seen a great deal of excellent "portraits" that were not in "the correct" orientation.

well alright ha, sorry i read that the wrong way, and thanks!

 

[Derrel]

That wasn't a jab at you at all; it was aimed at Derrel. I think about 1/3 of his post count is a result of him voicing his distaste for anything but portrait orientation when a person is involved. I've seen a great deal of excellent "portraits" that were not in "the correct" orientation.

Get a clue dacron67...if the subject is TALLER than it is wide, then the proper orientation is vertical; if the subject is wider than it is tall, then the proper orientation is horizontal; if you want to wrongly describe your own thoughts, feel free to do so, but please do not pejoratively describe my posts with your idiotic exaggerations and gross misstatements. In other words dacron67, GAFC, and stop being a douchebag. The photo as-shown looks like a child framed it...or, a grownup who has never even studied composition....oh, wait...there's that awful word...composition!!! Yikes!!!

 

[dakkon76]

Those are big words, Darrel. Followed by insulting my name the way a teenager would. Such duality, such cerebral range you have! I will add this hard and fast rule to the short list of absolute certainties I have collected over the years.

Oh, I couldn't help but notice a few images on your site that may need to be re-cropped. While it's clear that you may have intended to capture this sunset, I'm afraid it breaks this newly-illuminated law and is thus has no hopes for being visually appealing. Press on with your crusade, the world needs you! We've been so naive, so lax, so... dare I say... clueless. (I smell more irony here somewhere...)

 

[Fender5388]

the intended focal point of this was the the eye wear, not his face. the relationship between goggles and the shapes in the background. maybe i different crop would show this better. but no this wasn't meant to be a standard portrait of any kind.

I don't appreciate the child comment; don't be rude, even though it's oh so easy to do over the internet.

 

[DAKK]

I love this. And at the same time I hate when people refer to "rules" in any form of art. Art has NO rules