The wife

[shinycard255]

Took a photo of my wife at the wedding we were at on Friday. Would like some C&C please

 

[tirediron]

C&C per req: The exposure isn't bad; maybe just slightly hot on the left side, but nothing that a minor Lightroom tweak wouldn't correct. Remember when shooting portraits that the vertical or portrait orientation of your camera often produces more pleasing results, eliminating the empty space image left, and also allowing a more pleasing crop at the bottom. Cropping a woman through her breasts isn't generally ideal.

Just my $00.02 worth - your mileage may vary.

~John

 

[shinycard255]

I could tone the exposure down a bit. I didn't think it was too hot, but I see what you mean. I've started playing around with horizontal and vertical orientations of portraits and I know that vertical is the go to way, but have been on a horizontal kick for some reason. I don't have any extra room on the bottom of the frame, unfortunately. I will watch out for cropping through breasts in the future

 

[Rockman]

I like the negative space on the left side of the image. I like the pose and smile as well. It would be good to have catch lights in her eyes.

Mike

 

[shinycard255]

Agreed on the catchlights comment. Figured the overcast sky would help, but really didn't help that much at all.

 

[Derrel]

The contrast seems just a bit too steep; the darker tones on the right side of her plug up, and the transition from the shadows on her dimples, to the highlights on her cheeks and nose are very quick transitions; her forehead looks overly bright; I'd prefer a look more like Kodak Portra NC, not Portra VC; the contrast is just a bit too high. As for the cropping comments Tirediron made above, I agree. The framing is not ideal for showing "her", her physical body; what the framing does is shows us her placed in front of a reddish, aluminum-sided building, with some nice purple blooming ground cover, and some plants with yellow flowers. Then there she is, in the shot. The background is defocused enough to hint of the setting, but not enough so that the setting dominates. But then there she is, up close, and crowding the top edge of the frame, but amputated at the bust. It's neither an environmental portrait, nor a portrait of HER (as in mostly HER). She is "placed in front of" the background; she is not really however "shown within the SCENE", and thus this is not an environmental portrait, but a portrait with a building and flowers as backdrop.

If the framing were more-encompassing of the scene, and had a bit deeper depth of field that literally "showed" the flowers and the red wall, then this would be a so-called "environmental portrait". But she, by her greater lightness in the frame follows the old rule: "Light advances, dark recedes." By virtue of her brightness, combined with the vignette on the back wall, she comes zipping right to the forefront of the frame. And she's cropped off at the bosom...which is traditionally a key component of the human form in classic portraiture,dating back hundreds of years. She's wearing a very fancy dress, with amazing neckline detail, which is very attention-getting, but the visual trope visually sophisticated viewers are expecting to see is her, shown in her full womanly glory. So, as a rendering of "her", this just misses.

I went into this much detail because over the last few years, I've been flicked a lot of crap for emphasizing the vertical for portraits, and a lot of newbies have a negative reaction to it, but there are many reasons why horizontal crops either work, or fail. If the shot is "environmental", chances are a horizontal composition can be made, or found. I felt that this was a good example to really go through, and explain some of the reasons that go into portraiture's traditions, and longstanding ideas underlying how to compose portraits.

 

[Ilovemycam]

It is OK. Nice family snapshot.

 

[shinycard255]

The contrast seems just a bit too steep; the darker tones on the right side of her plug up, and the transition from the shadows on her dimples, to the highlights on her cheeks and nose are very quick transitions; her forehead looks overly bright; I'd prefer a look more like Kodak Portra NC, not Portra VC; the contrast is just a bit too high. As for the cropping comments Tirediron made above, I agree. The framing is not ideal for showing "her", her physical body; what the framing does is shows us her placed in front of a reddish, aluminum-sided building, with some nice purple blooming ground cover, and some plants with yellow flowers. Then there she is, in the shot. The background is defocused enough to hint of the setting, but not enough so that the setting dominates. But then there she is, up close, and crowding the top edge of the frame, but amputated at the bust. It's neither an environmental portrait, nor a portrait of HER (as in mostly HER). She is "placed in front of" the background; she is not really however "shown within the SCENE", and thus this is not an environmental portrait, but a portrait with a building and flowers as backdrop.

If the framing were more-encompassing of the scene, and had a bit deeper depth of field that literally "showed" the flowers and the red wall, then this would be a so-called "environmental portrait". But she, by her greater lightness in the frame follows the old rule: "Light advances, dark recedes." By virtue of her brightness, combined with the vignette on the back wall, she comes zipping right to the forefront of the frame. And she's cropped off at the bosom...which is traditionally a key component of the human form in classic portraiture,dating back hundreds of years. She's wearing a very fancy dress, with amazing neckline detail, which is very attention-getting, but the visual trope visually sophisticated viewers are expecting to see is her, shown in her full womanly glory. So, as a rendering of "her", this just misses.

I went into this much detail because over the last few years, I've been flicked a lot of crap for emphasizing the vertical for portraits, and a lot of newbies have a negative reaction to it, but there are many reasons why horizontal crops either work, or fail. If the shot is "environmental", chances are a horizontal composition can be made, or found. I felt that this was a good example to really go through, and explain some of the reasons that go into portraiture's traditions, and longstanding ideas underlying how to compose portraits.

Derrel, thank you for the detailed C&C of this photo. I'm still learning how to pose people and when to use what fstops. This photo was shot late in the evening so I was shooting wide open to get as much light through the lens to still be at 1/60th. Had to bring the exposure up in PP a little as well because it was still half stop too dark. I do like the look of shallow depth of field in portraits, but I know it's not meant for all shots. I'm still learning the ropes when it comes to portraits and what is considered "too much retouching".

Here is another photo of her shot in a portrait composition. I also toned back on the exposure a bit and didn't go as far with contrast on this one.

 

[sarah_19_nz]

I like it, however I like the second "portrait" orientation even better! Beautiful