recent portraits C/C please!
- Thread Starter Bellezzo
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2005
- Messages
- 45,747
- Reaction score
- 14,806
- Location
- Victoria, BC
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
- Moderator 🛠️
- #2
C&C per req:
1. Nice scene lighting, cute pose, good expression, but her face is desparately under-exposed. With some fill light and a crop off of the LH side to get her out of the middle of the frame, this would have been a gerat image.
2. Again, a great image that realllly suffers for lack of fill light; she's got a BAD case of raccoon-eyes! This should have been shot vertical, and with a little more foreground as it appears that a bit of her skirt is cropped.
3. Again, this would have been shot vertical (a crop would save it); remember, your camera will work if you turn it 90 degrees, really, it will!
The image needs to be level and it's probably 2/3 stop under-exposed overall.
4. Nice; great expression, but if you're going to shoot from down low, then have the subject tilt their head forward just a little more to avoid 'up the nose' shots ('though it's not bad here), and of course, it's significantly under-exposed.
Overall, you've got some nice images, but you need to add fill light to all of your images!
Just my $00.02 worth - your mileage may vary.
~John
1. Nice scene lighting, cute pose, good expression, but her face is desparately under-exposed. With some fill light and a crop off of the LH side to get her out of the middle of the frame, this would have been a gerat image.
2. Again, a great image that realllly suffers for lack of fill light; she's got a BAD case of raccoon-eyes! This should have been shot vertical, and with a little more foreground as it appears that a bit of her skirt is cropped.
3. Again, this would have been shot vertical (a crop would save it); remember, your camera will work if you turn it 90 degrees, really, it will!
The image needs to be level and it's probably 2/3 stop under-exposed overall.4. Nice; great expression, but if you're going to shoot from down low, then have the subject tilt their head forward just a little more to avoid 'up the nose' shots ('though it's not bad here), and of course, it's significantly under-exposed.
Overall, you've got some nice images, but you need to add fill light to all of your images!
Just my $00.02 worth - your mileage may vary.
~John
Thanasis_gs
TPF Noob!
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2012
- Messages
- 85
- Reaction score
- 8
- Location
- Greece
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
Well, from my amateur point of view...
1st, is good when it comes to lighting. I don't know what type of lens do you use, but I think that you should have a slightly more blurry background
2nd, my only objection is the shadows in the face (but on the other hand it gives a creepier look on the face, which combines well with the concept)
3rd, just straighten the horizon, other than that is really good
4rth, hm... Again the shadows in the eyes are a little too dark for my taste, but considering the environmental lighting, it is ok. Maybe you could shot from a little higher point of view. The angle is very good by the way.
Overall I really liked them all!!
1st, is good when it comes to lighting. I don't know what type of lens do you use, but I think that you should have a slightly more blurry background
2nd, my only objection is the shadows in the face (but on the other hand it gives a creepier look on the face, which combines well with the concept)
3rd, just straighten the horizon, other than that is really good
4rth, hm... Again the shadows in the eyes are a little too dark for my taste, but considering the environmental lighting, it is ok. Maybe you could shot from a little higher point of view. The angle is very good by the way.
Overall I really liked them all!!
Studio7Four
No longer a newbie, moving up!
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2010
- Messages
- 464
- Reaction score
- 62
- Location
- Boston, MA
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
My first thought with looking at this set was that they were all underexposed. At second glance I don't know if you're losing data in the shadows (and I'm not going to bother trying to figure that out on my work monitor) or if they are all just on the darker side which can work as an artistic choice.
Shot 1) I pretty much agree with all of tirediron's points, no need to rehash them.
Shot 2) I agree that she has a bad case of raccoon eyes - where I disagree is that this is always a bad thing. If you're going for a classic portrait, yes it is. If you meant for this image to tell a bit of a story, IMO it's acceptable to keep the raccoon eyes as the harsh shadows help convey the bright sunlight of the scene. Looking at the brightness of her dress and skin I think the exposure is pretty appropriate here. I also think this is fine in the landscape orientation, and with her square-to-the-camera, almost symmetric pose I don't mind that she's centered in the frame. I think it can do with less headroom, which is easy enough to crop down; I don't know if it needs more in the foreground or not. You did let the horizon cut through her head, but since the "horizon line" is basically three shades of blue coming together, and it's through her hair not, say, at eye level, I don't mind it too much. You may want to consider cloning out the bright dot on the right of the horizon.
Shot 3) This shot could work as a vertical, cropping down to make it more about her, but I also think it's just fine in this orientation, and she's appropriately placed to be looking into the frame. I think the perceived "tilt" on this one is unfortunate. The viewer's eye expects to see a level horizon, but sometimes what we're seeing is not a distant horizon line but is actually curved or tilted as a closer-than-expected shoreline meets the water. I suspect that if this shot were rotated clockwise to level the "horizon", her pose would seem uncomfortably vertical or even leaning to the right.
Shot 4) This is the one that I do feel would really benefit from better exposure / fill. It's a great capture of her expression and I like the way the wind is blowing her hair across her body without leaving distracting flyaways across her face. I really like the vertical positioning; I go back and forth on the horizontal positioning. Having her face horizontally centered here works for me, but there is an imbalance down at her torso, with relatively so much space on the left while her shoulder goes directly off the right side of the frame. I'm not saying that you need to have dead space on both sides (or crop into the arms on both sides), but perhaps leaving just enough on the right to see the should curve down would give a better feel to the extents of her body.
Shot 1) I pretty much agree with all of tirediron's points, no need to rehash them.
Shot 2) I agree that she has a bad case of raccoon eyes - where I disagree is that this is always a bad thing. If you're going for a classic portrait, yes it is. If you meant for this image to tell a bit of a story, IMO it's acceptable to keep the raccoon eyes as the harsh shadows help convey the bright sunlight of the scene. Looking at the brightness of her dress and skin I think the exposure is pretty appropriate here. I also think this is fine in the landscape orientation, and with her square-to-the-camera, almost symmetric pose I don't mind that she's centered in the frame. I think it can do with less headroom, which is easy enough to crop down; I don't know if it needs more in the foreground or not. You did let the horizon cut through her head, but since the "horizon line" is basically three shades of blue coming together, and it's through her hair not, say, at eye level, I don't mind it too much. You may want to consider cloning out the bright dot on the right of the horizon.
Shot 3) This shot could work as a vertical, cropping down to make it more about her, but I also think it's just fine in this orientation, and she's appropriately placed to be looking into the frame. I think the perceived "tilt" on this one is unfortunate. The viewer's eye expects to see a level horizon, but sometimes what we're seeing is not a distant horizon line but is actually curved or tilted as a closer-than-expected shoreline meets the water. I suspect that if this shot were rotated clockwise to level the "horizon", her pose would seem uncomfortably vertical or even leaning to the right.
Shot 4) This is the one that I do feel would really benefit from better exposure / fill. It's a great capture of her expression and I like the way the wind is blowing her hair across her body without leaving distracting flyaways across her face. I really like the vertical positioning; I go back and forth on the horizontal positioning. Having her face horizontally centered here works for me, but there is an imbalance down at her torso, with relatively so much space on the left while her shoulder goes directly off the right side of the frame. I'm not saying that you need to have dead space on both sides (or crop into the arms on both sides), but perhaps leaving just enough on the right to see the should curve down would give a better feel to the extents of her body.
Patrice
No longer a newbie, moving up!
Cute model.
To second Tirediron you really need a flash or some sort of reflector to lighten her face.
Also pay attention to your backgrounds. Photos 2 and 3 show a tilted horizon.
To second Tirediron you really need a flash or some sort of reflector to lighten her face.
Also pay attention to your backgrounds. Photos 2 and 3 show a tilted horizon.
Derrel
Mr. Rain Cloud
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2009
- Messages
- 48,225
- Reaction score
- 18,944
- Location
- USA
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
I'd agree...the exposures on these, and the processing, is not quite optimum. I took all four images and brought them into Lightroom, and adjusted them for slightly different "looks". I did some minor rotating and straightening of the horizons on two of the shots.
I rotated this one a few degrees, and went with sepia toning and a slight vignette.
I did nothing to this shot, except to 1)alter the blues and their intensity, and 2)made some skin tone alterations.
I cropped this slightly, lightened the blacks, and "dodged" her eye sockets a bit. This needed some "eye sparkle" from a reflector, or a tiny bit of fill-flash.
I thought the tree in the upper left, with the sky tones, was distracting, so I removed the tree and sky, to bring the emphasis DOWN, away from the tree-tops, and more to the young woman. I altered the color, and lowered the clarity, to give a more diffused and glowing look to the lens flare/backlighting.
I rotated this one a few degrees, and went with sepia toning and a slight vignette.
I did nothing to this shot, except to 1)alter the blues and their intensity, and 2)made some skin tone alterations.
I cropped this slightly, lightened the blacks, and "dodged" her eye sockets a bit. This needed some "eye sparkle" from a reflector, or a tiny bit of fill-flash.
I thought the tree in the upper left, with the sky tones, was distracting, so I removed the tree and sky, to bring the emphasis DOWN, away from the tree-tops, and more to the young woman. I altered the color, and lowered the clarity, to give a more diffused and glowing look to the lens flare/backlighting.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2013
- Messages
- 4,638
- Reaction score
- 4,289
- Location
- Planet Earth
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos NOT OK to edit
Of all of these edits, I think the sepia toned one is the only good one. The rest seem way too obviously edited, and I believe subtly goes 100 times further than a very obvious edit.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2013
- Messages
- 4,638
- Reaction score
- 4,289
- Location
- Planet Earth
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos NOT OK to edit
Bellezo, are you adjusting the curves at all in these shots? If not, I think a subtle "S" curve would really improve these in post processing. If you are adjusting curves, I would suggest bringing the highlights up just a little more. I enjoy the color tones you use, as well as the mood and use of light that you are capturing. As a few have already pointed out though, these all seem a tad bit underexposed to me, and I would practice with composition a little. Her placement in the photos seems too centered to me. I have this problem in my own photos often, but with a bit of practice I've been getting better at not always centering my models in every shot.
monoloco
TPF Noob!
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2013
- Messages
- 23
- Reaction score
- 8
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
The second one has potential, I would try a vertical shot from a lower angle, use a wider aperture, and try turning the model to get more light on her.
Bellezzo
TPF Noob!
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2012
- Messages
- 88
- Reaction score
- 6
- Location
- Denmark
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
- Thread Starter 🔹
- #10
hello everybody, thank you all very much. i see that they are underexposed. they just usually don't look that underexposed when they are bigger and that's usually how i see them on my screen, but i clearly see what you mean!
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/32/32159-cd588f68f116c390a4eaddec2380f1a6.jpg?1734161046)
