Starting portrait (trying to at least). Critics needed.

[crevest]

Hi everyone, first publication in this category.



Thank you for your comments.

Cedric

 

[Rosy]

i see this out of focus

 

[crevest]

I agree. Thought it did not look too bad though (kind of softer) but maybe it is too much out of focus...

What about the one below:



Cedric

 

[Rosy]

this one is better but could have benefited from some fill flash
pretty model - wish you have one without her tongue sticking out

 

[Braineack]

no, it looks bad. The second is better in regards to the shutter speed, but there's something about it that still doesn't look tact sharp.

Second shot was better in general (although the first could be very interesting if done right), but the pose is bad/unflattering and I think the DOF is a little too shallow. I also don't like how tight it was shot so it's hard to read that it was taken in a pool, or so I assume.

 

[Derrel]

First one has an interestingly different look to it. It has slight motion blurring, and she has blue-tinged hair, and it's "different" than a normal shot. Second one is okay I guess...her tongue looks oddly pink in comparison to her skin tone...the water is a nice touch, and it does look like she's getting out of a pool. I dunno...these have more "feeling" than many peoples' shots. Not especially awesome, but still, these have "feeling". I looked at your pages--the shot of her eating the party favor off the colored toothpick also had a sense of "feeling". I think that while on the whole these might not be 100% technically successful, that you do show at least some talent for photographing people.

 

[crevest]

this one is better but could have benefited from some fill flash
pretty model - wish you have one without her tongue sticking out

I will ask her, she is my wife

 

[crevest]

First one has an interestingly different look to it. It has slight motion blurring, and she has blue-tinged hair, and it's "different" than a normal shot. Second one is okay I guess...her tongue looks oddly pink in comparison to her skin tone...the water is a nice touch, and it does look like she's getting out of a pool. I dunno...these have more "feeling" than many peoples' shots. Not especially awesome, but still, these have "feeling". I looked at your pages--the shot of her eating the party favor off the colored toothpick also had a sense of "feeling". I think that while on the whole these might not be 100% technically successful, that you do show at least some talent for photographing people.

Thank you Derrel,that's what I feel as well and why I think that even though out of focus the first shot remains nice.

The third one which you saw is blurred as well and it also adds emotion / softness (a bit like yours on pbase DSC_3769) :



I am trying to improve the technique while avoiding the clinical look that I see on some photos.
In terms of focal length, dof & speed (all handheld without stabilization):

1) 50mm f2.5 1/40
2) 75mm f5.6 1/60
3) 50mm f1.8 1/40

Cedric

 

[Braineack]

When I see blurred/softened photos like that, the only thing I think is that the shot was poorly captured and that was used to try to "save" the picture.

I would really like that shot if it was lit properly and sharp.

 

[Designer]

Ya, same here. There is a difference between "soft focus" and mostly out of focus. In #3 the model's nose appears to be in focus, but that is all, as I see it. Ordinarily, soft-focus portraits are done by another method.

#1 her eyes are out of focus, but here ears are in much better focus. Just strange.
#2 focus is better, but as pointed out above, the shot needs fill light. And perhaps don't crop her head.

 

[crevest]

Okay. To sum things up:
1) Out of focus (too much)
2) Fill light needed
3) Third one DOF too short.

On the good side, more "feeling" than many shots

Thank you all

Cedric

 

[Derrel]

SNIP>>>>

I am trying to improve the technique while avoiding the clinical look that I see on some photos.
In terms of focal length, dof & speed (all handheld without stabilization):

1) 50mm f2.5 1/40
2) 75mm f5.6 1/60
3) 50mm f1.8 1/40

Cedric

Yes, I understand what you were trying to do, and I have seen MANY very powerful photos over the years which had some slight blurriness, or camera shake, or subject movement, or rather heavy blurring due to deliberately long exposures. Many fine photos that have a lot of "feeling" or impact, have some technical weaknesses, but the overall photo transcends that. But you do need to consider depth of field and focus, as well as the time value used. Lots of room for artistic expression exists, so keep doing this I say, keep refining it. But maybe...think about f/4.5 once in a while...

A good example is the well-known photographer Ernst Haas, who back in the 1960's made some AMAZING photos by using rather long, slow hand-held exposures, in the 2 second to 1/3 second time range, using a Leicaflex 35mm SLR camera.

Google search on "Ernst Haas + blurry images", and these amazing images pop up. Ernst Haas + blurry images - Google Search

I think you might try going even slower on your speeds, and experimenting with moving the camera in very FAST movements, either rotating it, or shaking the camera back and forth, or whatnot, and experimenting, to see what happens. I agree that an overly-clinical look is often devoid of "feeling".

 

[Braineack]

and dont be afraid to back up or zoom out.

you're close, with #2 being the closest. Had you posed your wife and shot in vertical it might have turned out very well.

#1 and #3 could have been good as is, had they been shot a bit more technically correct. For example, you shot #1 at 1/40, and it's obviously blurred from the slow shutter speed, either due to camera shake or motion blur, or both. Had you shot it at 1/125-1/160 or so to freeze everything, leaving it a f/2.5, and let the ISO go higher, I think you would of had something, although ask her to smile next time instead of snapping a pic while she's talking

 

[frommrstomommy]

Definitely need a faster shutter speed.. Think MINIMUM 1/100 since she's an adult and going to set pretty still for you.. I usually shoot more in the 1/160 range for stationary people.. higher for kids.

 

[crevest]

Ok. I will try to rework on the third one because the original because the DOF is actually quite good on the original...

Here is a fourth one (old, taken in Benin in an hotel room with no other light than a cloudy sky):



130mm f7.1 1/40 handheld as well.
ISO is high (I think 1600) for a D70.

It might actually look better in B&W.

Cedric