Waterfall portrait

[in2thewild]

Hi,
Just wondering what you think? Constructive criticism please .

Thanks

 

[rlemert]

My biggest question would be "why bother?" Most of the frame is filled with the waterfall, but it's out of focus and the model is looking away from it. There's nothing to draw our eye to it - other than the sheer expanse it covers.

I think the concept is reasonable and could lead to a good portrait, but this would require the fall to have a reason for being there. Having the model look at it would help, as would having it more in focus.

 

[in2thewild]

My biggest question would be "why bother?" Most of the frame is filled with the waterfall, but it's out of focus and the model is looking away from it. There's nothing to draw our eye to it - other than the sheer expanse it covers.

I think the concept is reasonable and could lead to a good portrait, but this would require the fall to have a reason for being there. Having the model look at it would help, as would having it more in focus.

OK, thanks. Good point and useful tips. I'll keep them in mind next time!

 

[Stradawhovious]

If you're going to blow out the waterfall, it would be nice to see your subject fill more of the frame.

My opinion.

 

[Derrel]

A few things come to mind. First is that with almost any zoom lens that is being shot wide-open, the far edge of the frame has inferior imaging performance, and it shows in this shot. You would have been miles ahead to have stopped down to f/4.8 or f/5.6 and elevated the ISO level from the 100 that you used to 250 or 320 or so. The man is just simply not rendered crisply, and it shows.

Second...he is looking out of the frame, and he is positioned far off to the side of the frame. He is literally looking up and out of the frame, which adds tension. Additionally, there is a large, light-colored stone formation above his head, and since it is shown contrasting strongly with the much darker rock that fills the left side of the frame, it is really a very distracting background element.

I dunno...you've got the far left eye about 1/6 of the way in from the left; the right hand side has top-to-bottom white waterfall water, and then the upper left quadrant has that secondary white rock distraction. I get that you were trying to "do something" with this composition, but frankly, the degree of visual tension by placing the subject only 1/6 of thew way into the frame doesn't succeed very well.

This is the biggest problems when shooting from close-in with a wide-angle lens: you have a HUGE angular field of view BEHIND the subject, and at the time of making the shots, it is often difficult to gauge the relative drawing power of objects as they will be seen 20 to 40 to 100 times LARGER on-screen or in-print than when you're looking at the image through a viewfinder. The little bit of white higher up on the cliff--probably did not seem like that big a distraction when you made the shot..but here...on-screen, it becomes much larger, and much more of an eye-draw, away from the man. This shot could be said to lack balance. There are many composition theories and practices, but let's say that this portrait has major issues with the balance of multiple elements. The size of the man, the size of the waterfall, and the placement of everything within the frame, it is all not put together with a pleasing sense of balance.

The last thing: that lens at that focal length and f/'stop on that type of subject has unpleasant, "hashy" or "nervous" bokeh quality...the water seems to "oscillate"..this is becoming a problem with newer, super-corrected lenses. The man looks flat, and the background is "hashy". This would have been a better image shot with a 25 year-old Canon 35 f/2 prime. It would have been very different with a 50mm or an 85mm as well.

The issues are: bad off-axis rendering due to f/2.8 far out on the frame, harsh bokeh, a BIG white area, a big dark area with a white distraction in it, and a huge amount of out-of-the-frame line of sight on the subject. His line of gaze hurts this image.

 

[in2thewild]

A few things come to mind. First is that with almost any zoom lens that is being shot wide-open, the far edge of the frame has inferior imaging performance, and it shows in this shot. You would have been miles ahead to have stopped down to f/4.8 or f/5.6 and elevated the ISO level from the 100 that you used to 250 or 320 or so. The man is just simply not rendered crisply, and it shows.

Second...he is looking out of the frame, and he is positioned far off to the side of the frame. He is literally looking up and out of the frame, which adds tension. Additionally, there is a large, light-colored stone formation above his head, and since it is shown contrasting strongly with the much darker rock that fills the left side of the frame, it is really a very distracting background element.

I dunno...you've got the far left eye about 1/6 of the way in from the left; the right hand side has top-to-bottom white waterfall water, and then the upper left quadrant has that secondary white rock distraction. I get that you were trying to "do something" with this composition, but frankly, the degree of visual tension by placing the subject only 1/6 of thew way into the frame doesn't succeed very well.

This is the biggest problems when shooting from close-in with a wide-angle lens: you have a HUGE angular field of view BEHIND the subject, and at the time of making the shots, it is often difficult to gauge the relative drawing power of objects as they will be seen 20 to 40 to 100 times LARGER on-screen or in-print than when you're looking at the image through a viewfinder. The little bit of white higher up on the cliff--probably did not seem like that big a distraction when you made the shot..but here...on-screen, it becomes much larger, and much more of an eye-draw, away from the man. This shot could be said to lack balance. There are many composition theories and practices, but let's say that this portrait has major issues with the balance of multiple elements. The size of the man, the size of the waterfall, and the placement of everything within the frame, it is all not put together with a pleasing sense of balance.

The last thing: that lens at that focal length and f/'stop on that type of subject has unpleasant, "hashy" or "nervous" bokeh quality...the water seems to "oscillate"..this is becoming a problem with newer, super-corrected lenses. The man looks flat, and the background is "hashy". This would have been a better image shot with a 25 year-old Canon 35 f/2 prime. It would have been very different with a 50mm or an 85mm as well.

The issues are: bad off-axis rendering due to f/2.8 far out on the frame, harsh bokeh, a BIG white area, a big dark area with a white distraction in it, and a huge amount of out-of-the-frame line of sight on the subject. His line of gaze hurts this image.

Wow, thanks for taking the time to reply in such depth. I didn't know that (any of it ). Thanks for mentioning about the lens because I didn't think that the lens could alter the shot like that.

Yes, I know the composition isn't good. The reason I posted this photo is to pinpoint what's OK/not OK and I'll remember in all my future shots. I'll have to read your post again and digest it.

Again, thanks .

 

[in2thewild]

If you're going to blow out the waterfall, it would be nice to see your subject fill more of the frame.

My opinion.

OK! Thanks

 

[in2thewild]

A few things come to mind. First is that with almost any zoom lens that is being shot wide-open, the far edge of the frame has inferior imaging performance, and it shows in this shot. You would have been miles ahead to have stopped down to f/4.8 or f/5.6 and elevated the ISO level from the 100 that you used to 250 or 320 or so. The man is just simply not rendered crisply, and it shows.

Second...he is looking out of the frame, and he is positioned far off to the side of the frame. He is literally looking up and out of the frame, which adds tension. Additionally, there is a large, light-colored stone formation above his head, and since it is shown contrasting strongly with the much darker rock that fills the left side of the frame, it is really a very distracting background element.

I dunno...you've got the far left eye about 1/6 of the way in from the left; the right hand side has top-to-bottom white waterfall water, and then the upper left quadrant has that secondary white rock distraction. I get that you were trying to "do something" with this composition, but frankly, the degree of visual tension by placing the subject only 1/6 of thew way into the frame doesn't succeed very well.

This is the biggest problems when shooting from close-in with a wide-angle lens: you have a HUGE angular field of view BEHIND the subject, and at the time of making the shots, it is often difficult to gauge the relative drawing power of objects as they will be seen 20 to 40 to 100 times LARGER on-screen or in-print than when you're looking at the image through a viewfinder. The little bit of white higher up on the cliff--probably did not seem like that big a distraction when you made the shot..but here...on-screen, it becomes much larger, and much more of an eye-draw, away from the man. This shot could be said to lack balance. There are many composition theories and practices, but let's say that this portrait has major issues with the balance of multiple elements. The size of the man, the size of the waterfall, and the placement of everything within the frame, it is all not put together with a pleasing sense of balance.

The last thing: that lens at that focal length and f/'stop on that type of subject has unpleasant, "hashy" or "nervous" bokeh quality...the water seems to "oscillate"..this is becoming a problem with newer, super-corrected lenses. The man looks flat, and the background is "hashy". This would have been a better image shot with a 25 year-old Canon 35 f/2 prime. It would have been very different with a 50mm or an 85mm as well.

The issues are: bad off-axis rendering due to f/2.8 far out on the frame, harsh bokeh, a BIG white area, a big dark area with a white distraction in it, and a huge amount of out-of-the-frame line of sight on the subject. His line of gaze hurts this image.

In general, I find it difficult to get the eyes sharp in my subjects. Even when I hold down the shutter button half way on the eye and then adjust the position of the camera, I still sometimes miss the shot. I use the autofocus on my lens. Is it better to use manual?

 

[Stradawhovious]

In general, I find it difficult to get the eyes sharp in my subjects. Even when I hold down the shutter button half way on the eye and then adjust the position of the camera, I still sometimes miss the shot. I use the autofocus on my lens. Is it better to use manual?

According to your EXIF data you were shooting at f/2.8. If you are employing the old "focus first then recompose the picture" method when shooting with that shallow of a DOF you will almost always miss focus, since the focus plane changes the moment you move that camera.

My recommendation would be to compose FIRST, then adjust the focus point, then focus... or if there isn't a focus point available where you want your subject, focus manually. Another thing I would recommend is to avoid shooting wide open like that unless it's absolutely necessary. Your lens will be sharper at smaller apertures, and shooting at 1/640 s you have plenty of room to close down the iris a bit and increase your DOF. Two sharpness birds with one stone.

Just a thought.

 

[in2thewild]

In general, I find it difficult to get the eyes sharp in my subjects. Even when I hold down the shutter button half way on the eye and then adjust the position of the camera, I still sometimes miss the shot. I use the autofocus on my lens. Is it better to use manual?

According to your EXIF data you were shooting at f/2.8. If you are employing the old "focus first then recompose the picture" method when shooting with that shallow of a DOF you will almost always miss focus, since the focus plane changes the moment you move that camera.

My recommendation would be to compose FIRST, then adjust the focus point, then focus... or if there isn't a focus point available where you want your subject, focus manually. Another thing I would recommend is to avoid shooting wide open like that unless it's absolutely necessary. Your lens will be sharper at smaller apertures, and shooting at 1/640 s you have plenty of room to close down the iris a bit and increase your DOF. Two sharpness birds with one stone.

Just a thought.

OK, thanks. So, when I'm outdoors and there's lots of light, I can afford to use smaller apertures and it'll help me get sharper photos? That helps because I never get the eyes sharp and it's been annoying me. I'll try this. Thanks!

 

[Stradawhovious]

OK, thanks. So, when I'm outdoors and there's lots of light, I can afford to use smaller apertures and it'll help me get sharper photos? That helps because I never get the eyes sharp and it's been annoying me. I'll try this. Thanks!

Yes, for two reasons. First, the smaller the aperture the deeper the DOF. Focus missed shooting at f/2.8 may not be missed shooting at f/5.6. Second, most glass has a "sweet spot" that you will find somewhere between f/5.6 and f/11. I would take some test shots from a tripod and controlled lighting to see where your lens is sharpest. You do lose a bit of the blurring of the background the more you close up that aperture, but I'd rather nail the focus than miss it and get the perfectly blurred backdrop.

I use a $2 bill for my sharpness tests, anything with fine patterns or detail will be fine, but I'd stick with 2 dimensional objects for the sake of simplicity. set up the shot, make sure it's dead on focus, and take a picture at each partial stop from wide open to completely stopped down, and you will see a kind of "sharpness curve". Remember to refocus between shots.

It's important to have a good understanding of how your equipment works, knowing your lens' sweet spot, IMHO, is part of that.

 

[in2thewild]

OK, thanks. So, when I'm outdoors and there's lots of light, I can afford to use smaller apertures and it'll help me get sharper photos? That helps because I never get the eyes sharp and it's been annoying me. I'll try this. Thanks!

Yes, for two reasons. First, the smaller the aperture the deeper the DOF. Focus missed shooting at f/2.8 may not be missed shooting at f/5.6. Second, most glass has a "sweet spot" that you will find somewhere between f/5.6 and f/11. I would take some test shots from a tripod and controlled lighting to see where your lens is sharpest. You do lose a bit of the blurring of the background the more you close up that aperture, but I'd rather nail the focus than miss it and get the perfectly blurred backdrop.

I use a $2 bill for my sharpness tests, anything with fine patterns or detail will be fine, but I'd stick with 2 dimensional objects for the sake of simplicity. set up the shot, make sure it's dead on focus, and take a picture at each partial stop from wide open to completely stopped down, and you will see a kind of "sharpness curve". Remember to refocus between shots.

It's important to have a good understanding of how your equipment works, knowing your lens' sweet spot, IMHO, is part of that.

OK, great. I'll try that.Thanks.