So having never taken pictures of actual people..

KevinPutman · May 2, 2011

from a photo-graphical/artistic standpoint, where would I begin.
This was a picture I took yesterday, with no real artistic thoughts in mind, just a snapshot before prom.
But how would it compare with an actual photo shoot quality picture?

Comments?

jritz · May 2, 2011

Its ok, it looks very posed, and the flat lighting makes her blend in with the background. Also, the eyes are a very prominent part of a portrait and hers are pretty lifeless. A flash fill, or even a reflector would help with many of these issues.

spacefuzz · May 2, 2011

The white balance looks a bit funny too, although beautiful dress

Nirvalica · May 2, 2011

I agree with the guy above. It seems like you could use some different lighting. She does blend in with the background too much.

Seems a little grainy as well, especially on the right side. I don't know if that has to do with the ISO level the picture was taken at or just the camera you used. Some more light might help with that.

iNick · May 2, 2011

very noisy and the focus seems off, not to mention the WB seems off as well. she should also loose the bracelet.

Derrel · May 2, 2011

Technical quality of the image seems low: grainy/noisy/low resolution/poor acutance/flat lighting/poor use of the frame's space. Why the big,empty area on the left? Why are her feet cropped off? Perhaps if you worked with "virtual" people instead of "actual" people, these kinds of issues would not crop up. But, the "actual" world is pretty tough...

colinisawesome11 · May 2, 2011

I would have done a darker wall, but otherwise i think it's a great looking photo!

KevinPutman · May 2, 2011

working mah magic... how's this look?
I don't know how to get rid of the graininess...Noise reduction in PS just seems to kind of mess things up, idk I've never used that tool.

Also @ Derrel,
where is the grain/low resolution stuff coming from?
I was only on 200 ISO, so not sure if it would be from there.

colinisawesome11 · May 2, 2011

Whoa! that definitely makes a difference. i'm a fan of original non-edited photos but this looks really good. Here eyes look a little messed up but thats the only downside i notice. I think you had a successful first photo of a actual person.

Derrel · May 2, 2011

KevinPutman said:
Also @ Derrel,
where is the grain/low resolution stuff coming from?
I was only on 200 ISO, so not sure if it would be from there.

Kevin,
I am not sure why, but her face looks noisy/grainy, and there's just not much detail visible for the size of image file you put up. Many point and shoot cameras noise up pretty badly by ISO 200...the image is simply quite noisy, and her face looks mushy.

Click to expand...

KevinPutman · May 2, 2011

@Colin, There's nothing wrong with an edited photo if you can't tell it's been edited.^-^

Hmm. It makes me sad to think that my camera puts off that quality on such a low ISO. You'd think that since it's considered a "bridge" camera that it would give better quality?
All the pictures I took on 100 came out great, so I guess that must be the reason..
but then again, this one was taken on 200 and there'snot as much grain compared to the first. Could that be from the zoom level?
(Ignore the lighting on that one, I just uploaded it to show the lack of grain, no PP, haha)

enzodm · May 2, 2011

Focus seems not on eyes, which is where it has to be. It seems more on..., ehm, were we males typically look at

. Are you using automatic focus point selection? If so, block it (in the center, or in some top point), focus by half-pressing, and recompose the scene.
Bridge, compact, etc all share small sensors that give more noise. However, I would take it as an unavoidable limit and work on the rest (lighting and composition mainly). There are guidelines also for portrait, including few classical modes of lighting, some typical compositions (you may also crop feets, but above knees - in Italy we call it "piano americano", not sure about international term).

KevinPutman · May 2, 2011

Yeah, my camera uses the center point focus. I wasn't really thinking when I took the picture (hence why I called it a snapshot =p) so focus was centered on, well, where males typically look haha.
Feet are cropped for the same reason, wasn't looking at the technical aspects of the picture, just a snapshot. But I definitely know what to look for now =p

Someone just buy me a dslr =/

enzodm · May 2, 2011

KevinPutman said:
Someone just buy me a dslr =/

no excuses: focusing in the right place, composing in a sensible way, lighting adequately, and choosing carefully background can be easily done with a camera like yours

.

Village Idiot · May 2, 2011

What camera do you own now? Does it have a manual mode?

You can get used DSLRs for $300, maybe even less. Look for Canon 20D's, 30D's, XT's, Rebel (300D rest of the world designation), Nikon D70, D50, D40, D80(probably a little bit more) or other DSLRs that are several generations old. It's not going to be the latest and greatest, but they're still more than capable.

20D w/ grip $300 OBO Canon Digital Photography Forums
30D w/ grip $350 Canon Digital Photography Forums
30D ex condition < 5K shutter actuations $350 negotiable Canon Digital Photography Forums
XT with 18-55 kit lens $245 shipped Canon Digital Photography Forums
XT 7800 actuations $220 Canon Digital Photography Forums
XT w/ 18-55 kit $225 shipped Canon Digital Photography Forums
300D w/ 30-85 f/4-5.6 $175 shipped http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=995063&highlight=300D

I'm a member on only one Nikon board, so I don't have very good resources like POTN for Nikon gear. But with the above listings, you should be able to get the point.