What do you think.....

[Ashworth]

could help these portraits or make them better? TIA

1-

2-

3-

4-

 

[CSR Studio]

Nice shots but not really portraits.

 

[JayClark79]

Nice shots, and i didnt even notice your water mark until the third shot... nice!

 

[c.cloudwalker]

I'm not sure what CSR means. The only one that I don't see as a portrait is #2.

That said, #2 does not do anything for me. A kiss is supposed to be somewhat romantic but a chain link fence and poles growing out of his head are not.

Very much like 1 and 3. #4, sorry, level your horizon. The tilted horizon does not add anything to the image.

 

[CSR Studio]

I'm not sure what CSR means. The only one that I don't see as a portrait is #2.

That said, #2 does not do anything for me. A kiss is supposed to be somewhat romantic but a chain link fence and poles growing out of his head are not.

Very much like 1 and 3. #4, sorry, level your horizon. The tilted horizon does not add anything to the image.

You must have a wide definition of a portrait. It is a photograph of people, there is a difference.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Maybe I do. But a photograph of people is a portrait unless it has some other commercial reason to be or the people are not recognizable.

Also, I am not god nor do I know everything. So I am interested in why you think those are not portraits.

 

[CSR Studio]

Maybe I do. But a photograph of people is a portrait unless it has some other commercial reason to be or the people are not recognizable.

Also, I am not god nor do I know everything. So I am interested in why you think those are not portraits.

Your reply didn't sound as if you were interested in my reasoning.

But I will tell you why I think they aren't portraits. I believe a portrait is a study of the person's face, it can be full length but it is about their expression, their eyes. It is more intimate. These are great shots but I don't consider them portraits. And I was taught that a portrait was about the face.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Apology for my response. It was a response to you and someone else here a while back and, yes, you are not necessarily able to get it.

But I am interested. Interest is the only way I know to grow my understanding of things.

But I will disagree with your response. To me a person is way more than his/her face. Body language is/can be as telling (or more) as anything else. And I will take Mickey Rourke (the actor) as an example. When he showed up in Hollywood and got famous he had an angel kind of face. But when you added his body (or parts of) to the photos, he became something else altogether.

Do you know what I'm saying?

 

[CSR Studio]

Apology for my response. It was a response to you and someone else here a while back and, yes, you are not necessarily able to get it.

I don't understand what you mean by that.

But I am interested. Interest is the only way I know to grow my understanding of things.

But I will disagree with your response. To me a person is way more than his/her face. Body language is/can be as telling (or more) as anything else. And I will take Mickey Rourke (the actor) as an example. When he showed up in Hollywood and got famous he had an angel kind of face. But when you added his body (or parts of) to the photos, he became something else altogether.

Do you know what I'm saying?

I do know what you are saying but we are not talking about a person we are talking about a portrait. And I do think that a portrait can be full length but it is more intimate and closer than these. It is about the person not the landscape.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

If a portrait is not a person, what is it?

 

[Anelle]

Hi there

I think you have some lovely interaction there and you have a good eye for special moments. For me taking photos of people/portraiture is all about interaction: either between the subject and the viewer (through the photographer), which usually means eye contact; or interaction between the subject and the environment. Obviously, there is the odd photo with someone staring "wistfully at the past" or whatever, but those are exceptions, IMO.

Kudos for posting for cc, it is such a great way to learn.

I'll give you my cc on each photo (I'm pretty nitpicky, because that is how I like other people to cc my photos)...

1. I think your subjects are too centred. Use the rule of thirds to achiever stronger images. I know they aren't quite in the middle, but close. Also, there is actually just too much background.
The railway tracks are blown out and it is distracting. It is best to try and achieve perfect results in camera, but for this image, now, I would burn them slightly to make it less obvious.
The railway line is running through the little girl's head. Try avoiding this.
I would have loved to have seen this with a shallower depth of field and a nicer b&w conversion. How did you convert?
I think it would have looked lovely if they held hands, but with little children....

2. This looks like a snapshot to me. The flowers in the front are really distracting, the red are super-saturated (I assume in post-processing) and their faces look a bit blown/overexposed. I think the chain-linked fence could look great in this kind of shot, if you have a particular kind of subject.... someone who is less "suburban" looking, KWIM? Once again I think they are too centred and I wish I could see their feet. It looks like the focus fell on the flowers and not on the couple.

3. I like this one, I think with the right post-processing an a stronger crop it could be a strong image.... Try taking some off the left and the top, to place the two little girls image left top 1/3 and see the difference it makes.... Wish you had a shallower depth of field so that your subjects stood out more. I know you don't want people to play with your images, but my hands are itching with this one.....

4. It is a sweet sibling moment. Subjects are too centred, IMO and the photo looks a bit soft. What was your shutter speed?

HTH
Anelle

 

[CSR Studio]

If a portrait is not a person, what is it?

Are you saying that any photograph with a person in it is a portrait?

 

[c.cloudwalker]

^^^^^^

No. The kissing couple is not one to me. And any photo in which the person is not recognizable is not either.

But I do not limit my definition of portrait as a face either. The 3 photos of the kids are portraits in my book.

 

[Derrel]

1-Two girls on railroad grade. I would have dropped the camera level just a few inches, which would have made the head of the girl on the right overlap the railroad track, which would have given a huge boost to the 3-D effect via the overlap of the head What yuo have now is a vanishing point that is over the heads of both children, and which pulls the eye to the background. As it is, you are shooting well over the heads of the children, looking down on them. The POV is too high for children.

2-Kissing couple. Telephone pole growing out of the man's head, plus the overexposed, bald sky,and all those high-tension electric wires...the background here is bad. The background could have been blown out by using a 300mm lens set to a wide aperture, or by moving up to a FF camera and using a 200mm focal length setting at f/3.5 or so. There's imply too much depth of field here.

3-Two girls sitting on rail. Okay I guess. Perhaps framing a bit more tightly. The slight rim lighting they have is nice,and the overlap of the heads gives a nice feeling of depth and three dimensionality.

4-Two girls sitting on gravel roadbed. The backlighting is nice, but the tilted horizon line looks bad to me. The middle telephone pole is also sort of growing out of the head of the older child. In this shot, the out of focus mountain range gives a nice, scene-defining background,and actually looks pretty good,as contrasted with shot #2, where you also have OOF mountaintops and an overexposed sky.

Overall, I think your logotype is awfully big, spanning virtually the entire width of the frame. The logo really interferes with the enjoyment of the images, to me at least.