Natural lighting Portraits C&C

Thecageyone

trying out the nifty-fifty with some simple B&W portrait shots, only natural light was used. The second shot here is just the kit lens, which explains why it's a little darker, it was also hand-held but I like how natural it turned out. I could have brightened it up, but I actually preferred it darker,

For the 2 more posed shots I placed a chair directly across from the back patio doors, the sun was just dipping down at the time so I caught some nice soft, yet vivid light. there's also a skylight directly above where I placed the chair, which allowed more light down on the subjects [inc myself, I'm the guy in the first shot ]

I set the cam up on a tripod and used a wireless shutter release, handy for the shot with myself included, and in the last shot I held up a satin bed-spread as back drop behind the kids, again used the wireless remote to trigger.

Thoughts?

pixbyjohn

Nice shots, in the last one I would have had the camera lower so as the girls wouldn't have to look up. I like all three though

Borderfox

1 and 3 are nice, I would crop the top of the first and third one too.

Fenster

Cluttered, busy and uninteresting. Would love to see the colour originals of this. Children's photos need colour.

magicbastarder

beg to differ on the last statement. but i would say it'd be good to pull back on the subjects slightly - the frame is a bit too full.

Thecageyone

I get the uninteresting comment, I mean, most portraits I see of other people's kids are uninteresting to me too. but cluttered how?

I thought the B&W made them less cluttered, and more timeless perhaps - Though I do like some of the colour versions too -



This one I hadn't posted, it's only in colour -

http://lookpic.com/i/940/yu6HUCgy.jpeg

Colour version of number 3 - [the vignette shows up more]

http://lookpic.com/i/620/RObYI1U.jpeg


Thanks for all comments. See what you mean about cropping, no idea whay I left Barron space at the top of the 2 vertical ones

Miguel_Sanchez

Thecageyone wrote: »

Colour version of number 3 - [the vignette shows up more]

http://lookpic.com/i/620/RObYI1U.jpeg

I definitely prefer the colour version of that one.

gbee

Technically your images may not be correctly adjusted, on my monitor they look somewhat solarised, unless this is an effect, it's a fault.

As a fault it is very common with monochrome conversions from colour. Tip, shoot in monochrome RAW.

For all of that they are reasonable images, I would take account of the comments made as they will help you from an already good position.

Fenster

You have cropped right in on their heads/faces; this leaves parts spilling out beyond the frame. You need to give them a little bit of breathing room.

dudara

There's something quite captivating about the pictures and I think that real personality is being expressed - I love the expression on the younger child's face in No 3.

Fenster

Thecageyone wrote: »

I get the uninteresting comment, I mean, most portraits I see of other people's kids are uninteresting to me too. but cluttered how?

I thought the B&W made them less cluttered, and more timeless perhaps - Though I do like some of the colour versions too -



This one I hadn't posted, it's only in colour -

http://lookpic.com/i/940/yu6HUCgy.jpeg

Colour version of number 3 - [the vignette shows up more]

http://lookpic.com/i/620/RObYI1U.jpeg


Thanks for all comments. See what you mean about cropping, no idea whay I left Barron space at the top of the 2 vertical ones

Much nicer. #3: You have the left side of the child's head entirely out of the frame and you have centered the image on their faces. For the portrait you may have gone for a landscape crop and placed their heads higher in the scene.

Ballyman

gbee wrote: »

Tip, shoot in monochrome RAW.

I'd think he would be better advised to learn how to convert to monochrome correctly from colour than doing this so he will always have the option of colour if the B&W doesn't look too good.

AnimalRights

Not read replies yet but just ur original post, the male is OOF and the female is in!

AnimalRights

Read replies and no 1 else noticed this?
This is what I posted in a different thread about how hard it is to get 2 people into focus in 1 shot, planes trains and automobiles etc

magicbastarder

sometimes digital can be a bit too sharp, and it's in portraiture that i'd usually level that accusation - it can be unflattering on skin. if you're not averse to PP, try a subtle film grain effect to see if it has a beneficial effect?

VisionaryP

gbee wrote: »

Tip, shoot in monochrome RAW.

There is no such thing.

Thecageyone

There is B&W RAW on Sony dslrs. I gave it a go today, might work for me as I can see right off on the LCD how it might look on screen.

I've been post processing pretty much since I started getting into this photography thing, just a year back really. I found I had to process the hell out of images from my old bridge cam because they always came out washy and soft. I guess old habits die hard.

Taking all suggestions on board, thanks for all advice.

Re the closeness, The camera was only a few feet back, being a 50mm lens I had no wide-angle room. Should have tried some more with the kit lens but it was the 50mm I wanted to really test for portraits. next time I'll make sure to have more room. Not only that But they were shot in landscape mode but I cropped to Portrait in LR. I haven't figured out proper cropping in LR, should do that in Cs4 maybe.

The focus thing, yeah, I think I messed up there, I had the camera set on local area AF from earlier macro shots, when I was using the macro filter. D'oh!

I pretty much process by eye, I do every image individually, no presets or set way of doing it. The brighter light on # 3 turned out that way because ofa break in the clouds and more sunlight tbh, I liked what it did to the eyes, but tried to tone down the whiteout on the faces with recovery in LR.

So it is best to shoot in colour RAW, then convert? [which is what I did with all of these, probably should have mentioned these are my first RAW shot processes] or shoot in B&W RAW?

Thecageyone

dudara wrote: »

There's something quite captivating about the pictures and I think that real personality is being expressed - I love the expression on the younger child's face in No 3.

Cheers for that, it is what I was aiming for, capturing some of their personalities. The wee one is actually bit of a nutter though, it's hard to get her to sit still for a minute, and fast shutter speeds are usually required to catch her anyway at all, this was a rarity, because she's not well

magicbastarder

just pulled the last one into photoshop - brightened it a bit (just pulled up the highlights a bit) and applied a minor bit of film grain, and i think it's better for it.

DK32

I like all three of them.

Such a pity about the light in the second one. I also think that you might have gone a bit overboard on some of the processing.
I don't think the images needed to have as much PP. An example is the teeth look too white, in all three pictures it's the first thing I see rather than the whole image.

I think their natural look speaks for itself, that's why I think the 2nd picture is the best out of them.

Thecageyone

I'll tell her she has a blinding smile

Thanks though, I know for sure there's improvements to be made, which is why I posted them here. I knew I'd get honesty :cool:

I don't mind constructive criticism, so long as it's not merely criticism for the sake of it like on some sites, you feel, just because they see the letters C&C.

Going to try again this weekend, take in all the advice and see what i come up with

RE*AC*TOR

Not sure if it's just me, but in #1 the girl seems perfectly sharp (look at the eyes), but the guy seems less so.

On a positive note, I like the natural unstaged feel of #2. Looks genuine.

#3 the pattern on the girl's jumper keeps drawing my eye

I don't think kids portraits necessarily need colour. My favourite portrait of my son is B&W.

Thecageyone

The guy is me And I think i know the main reason this happened, besides the AF mode being set wrong.

I was over and back to the camera, adjusting exp/aperture/etc .. I might have focused for the shot with just my daughter in the frame, then jumped in myself and used the remote shutter to fire.

VisionaryP

Thecageyone wrote: »

I don't mind constructive criticism, so long as it's not merely criticism for the sake of it like on some sites, you feel, just because they see the letters C&C.

I'm afraid you'll get a lot of that here, you'll learn to filter out the nonsense pretty quick though. Some good advice on this thread however, and I'd definitely pay heed to what DK32 said regarding overdoing the PP. Overall, they are very, very good photos, and with couple of changes as suggested on here, they'd be excellent.

AnimalRights

RE*AC*TOR wrote: »

Not sure if it's just me, but in #1 the girl seems perfectly sharp (look at the eyes), but the guy seems less so.

How can it just be you when I said this in post #13!!!

AnCatDubh

Re; the original postings - I like em generally.

I think they are a little grey - yes, i know they are intended to be black and white etc.., but how did you do your b/w conversion? The conversion can make a world of a difference to give your images a little lift - a bit of punch as it were. Having said that, I love really high key portraits pushing the contrast to places that they shouldn't really be so its no wonder they look 'grey' to me. Did you decompose your image in post processing across the colour channels (red, green, and blue) or just hit a b/w option in post processing and take what it gave you?

Re: the b/w raw - that's an interesting one. I think both the opinions on this are valid (one that you should shoot this way and the other that you can't shoot this way ) I shoot black and white in camera sometimes. The "in camera filter" does a nice high contrast thing which I like. Then when I transfer it to pc, they show initially as black and white and then "magically" they are converted to colour - so I shoot raw plus jpeg - the jpeg preserves the in camera black and white.

Re: getting in there close to the subject - absolutely - some of the most stunning portraits of a non classical variety will be really close and with half the forehead cropped out, so imho, get in there as close as you feel works for you.

Re: Shooting from above, I like it and it is a common model pose that you'll see in fashion shoots. If anything in that one (3rd?) i'd say the elder of the two has her chin cocked a little too far into her chest (if that makes sense). My suggestion is to watch for this and encourage her to lift her chin just a little - too much and it will look just wrong too little and it can give the slimmest of characters a double chin that big daddy would be proud of.

In what we've seen so far have you sharpened much in the post processing? - at 100%, the look a bit too unnatural imho, but on the smaller versions it looks really sharp. I don't know if it would travel into a large format print though - could be problematic.

The second is nice - pity there's imho a little too much arms in front of the faces. Also careful when cropping portraits at joints. In this case at the elbows. Sometimes it can work but from a classical portrait stance its a no no.

Oh yeah, in the first of them i'd crop out yer man as he distracts from the pretty young lady - bit of a beauty and the beast theme going on In seriousness, the crop is a bit too tight on yourself imho - you may get away with cropping more or less but it is just a small bit unusual to my view where you have it. Probably best to go outside with the crop given your second subject is fully included.

Overall, like em. good job done imho.

sheesh

love the first one but the man's face is a bit soft still very happy pic so its really a minor niggle.

Second one: not great as you cannot see all of the faces so it does not work for me.

third one is fine. its a good portrait but nowhere near as good as number 1. Maybe if I had see it before I had seen it first i might be more gushing in praise.

AnCatDubh

the out of focus on the first - is that not just simply very narrow depth of field - you are shooting at f1.7, 50mm, and very close distance - assuming 10feet, all you will have according to dofmaster.com is;

Near limit 9.61 ft
Far limit 10.4 ft
Total 0.81 ft

In front of subject 0.39 ft (48%)
Behind subject 0.42 ft (52%)

That's a possibility i think.

Thecageyone

Cheers

Very valid points too, I think yer man is an ugly git too I haven't posed for a photo in years, I prefer the safer side of the camera.

I did sharpen, in Lightroom, I closed in on the eyes and used them as reference points in each of the pic's. Maybe I over sharpened and that had a knock on effect on the overall faces? I know my face doesn't look that rough! :P I just put it down to the 50mm's clarity and the fact I'm not used to dslr images coming straight from a bridge.

I converted to grey scale in lightroom, and I did adjust the colour channels. orange was being bit of trouble, I'm quite sallow, in fact 2 of the kids are too, but they seemed to come out much brighter than I did [must be the aging skin?] so any darkening or toning of shadows and contrast was making me look too dark. I did spend a bit of time on each, though i am pretty new to LR i have run a lot of shots through it and I feel I'm getting the hang of it, at least a little.

I have no flash gun yet, and I hate on board flash. I have gels that I might have a mess with next time, but mostly I prefer natural light.

Less processing, more attention to individual colour tones when processing grey-scale, sharper focus, more consideration for crops, less distracting clothing [i still don't get the cluttered comment on first page though?, it might have been referring to the wee one's top?] - all taken in.

I like a good portrait, and it's something I might like to delve deeper into. I'm sure I spotted portrait specific magazines in Easons or someplace. I've been buying the likes of Practical photography and they have some good advice and tips, but as they cover all areas the articles/guides on any specific area are never in-depth enough.

VisionaryP

Probably the best portrait book you can buy: http://www.bookdepository.co.uk/book/9782940378074/Photographing-People

RE*AC*TOR

AnimalRights wrote: »

How can it just be you when I said this in post #13!!!

I didn't really thoroughly read all the other replies. My bad.
Sometimes I skim.

Thecageyone

AnCatDubh wrote: »

the out of focus on the first - is that not just simply very narrow depth of field - you are shooting at f1.7, 50mm, and very close distance - assuming 10feet, all you will have according to dofmaster.com is;

Near limit 9.61 ft
Far limit 10.4 ft
Total 0.81 ft

In front of subject 0.39 ft (48%)
Behind subject 0.42 ft (52%)

That's a possibility i think.

The cam was less than 10 feet back I'd say, there's a skylight just inside the room, maybe 5/6ft in, and I thought placing the chair beneath that would give some extra light. The light from the patio doors was only good close up too. Initially I wanted to do them out in the garden but it was bloody freezing

I used the wide aperture because though I had daylight, it was the grey, dim kind. We're not having the best of springs!

I will definitely re-try on a better day in the same area, it's right here by the pc and I like to think of it as my own personal little studio Just wish there was no houses at the back of us o I'd get better sunlight.

smelltheglove

What I like about them is that the subjects seem completely at ease. I do like black and whites but wonder how you transferred to black and white? I use the Guy Gowan style mostly but sometimes when I think that is too much I will use the general black and white and then adjust the levels to suit.

Also, when doing portrait shots I often take them to suit an 8x10 proportion, this is the main size I sell in but I also think it is the most flattering proportion for a portrait. Of course you have to allow for them to be cropped to 4x6 or 5x7 also so taking a little wider than you need is quite useful, you then have the option to crop to whichever proportion required without the need to cut vital parts of the image.

My c&c would be basically that right now, to me, they seem a little flat, a little adjustment in levels should fix this.

Thecageyone

smelltheglove wrote: »

I do like black and whites but wonder how you transferred to black and white? I use the Guy Gowan style mostly

My c&c would be basically that right now, to me, they seem a little flat, a little adjustment in levels should fix this.

I simply converted the RAW colour file to grey scale in Lightroom, and developed from there.

Can you elaborate on this style?

I would prefer them to stand out a little more personally, any specific suggestions?

FoxT

In all photos the subjects are happy, at ease, they know they are posing, but are happy with it, and have a genuine affection for each other which really jumps out. Nice!

I am a beginner in portrait land myself, so - FWIW,

- all pics are nice, natural, clearly show a spirit of affection. If I took any of these I'd frame them & hang them on my wall with pride!

pic 1 - Male face is a little soft - I personally find this distracting but I am sure that may people may not.

pic 2 - Nice enough but missing 2 eyeballs

pic 3 - bingo!


- FoxT

Thecageyone

Thanks

I knew when I was uploading these that they were far from perfect, I mean - i'm happy enough with them as family shots, but photography-wise? Just needed some honesty. Think I definitely got that here and overall I'm pleased enough -

1. They're not ****e.
2. I have things to work on, which is great, as I'm always willing to learn

win, win for me really.

Only people keep saying my ugly head is out of focus ...

smelltheglove

Thecageyone wrote: »

I simply converted the RAW colour file to grey scale in Lightroom, and developed from there.

Can you elaborate on this style?

I would prefer them to stand out a little more personally, any specific suggestions?

Guy Gowan does workshops and teaches his specific style of editing which is very popular, it is a very roundabout way of editing but is made into an action where now all I do is press a button in photoshop and off we go.

Greyscale does pretty much what it says on the tin but I find when compared to real black and white it lacks a lot. Before doing the Guy Gowan workshop I used to greyscale and then adjust in levels ensuring that the arrow on the right was positioned at the nearest graph rise http://www.photoshopessentials.com/images/photo-editing/levels-curves/photoshop-levels-dialog-box.gif and the black arrow which is the left to the nearest rise on its side. So you will be changing the arrows from the above link to similar to this http://www.photoshopessentials.com/images/basics/adjustment-layers/photoshop-levels-adjustment-layer.gif

I am BRUTAL at explanations and I am sure someone else will correct me if Ive mis explained but this is how I would do it if not using Guy Gowans method.

Thecageyone

I am a n00b when it comes to those graphs, but I gathered that a spike on the far right was bad for over exposure at least I suppose I've never really considered metering other than that. I do all PP judging by eye, and that is very hit and miss I understand. But I cannot break away from that I find. This can be good and bad I guess. Will look more into that, thanks for the info.

HxGH

Improve on cropping...

However, good work with lighting and tone.

smelltheglove

Thecageyone wrote: »

I am a n00b when it comes to those graphs, but I gathered that a spike on the far right was bad for over exposure at least I suppose I've never really considered metering other than that. I do all PP judging by eye, and that is very hit and miss I understand. But I cannot break away from that I find. This can be good and bad I guess. Will look more into that, thanks for the info.

I go by my eye also but after time your eye will notice naturally when something is amiss and you know its time to go check the levels. If you open in camera raw this is the first thing you see anyway. You dont want a spike at either end nor do you want it all centered int he middle of the box, the graph should go from edge to edge so in effect when you greyscale you may notice more often than not that the white side isnt at the edge. A simple adjustment there should show you much better results.

Thecageyone

Thanks, I really must start pondering more on those graphs. I always know they're telling me one thing , but I push against if my eye is telling me different.

HxGH wrote: »

Improve on cropping...

However, good work with lighting and tone.

That's the toughest one , because some seem to like it tight in, others disagree. Its really hard to know from all that what is right, if there is a right?

personally I prefer portraits to be tight, I don't feel a need to see clarity in people's ears, but then I may be wrong. Is there really a right on this?

magicbastarder

Thecageyone wrote: »

Its really hard to know from all that what is right, if there is a right?

short answer, no.

squareballoon

In terms of cropping I often find it pleasing to cut off the top of the head in order to get the eye line in the top third. It's not something I'm concious of when shooting but often crop that way in pp.
I would also always try and get a shot of the subject looking up with the 50mm on a shoot. especially when shooting outdoors as it can make beautiful bokeh of the ground.
Today I was lucky enough to have my perfect indoor natural light shooting conditions. They are:
Upstairs (on a bed to get better light from west facing window)
Sun outside and shining on just a small bit of the white bedspread to create a pleasing upwards reflection
One semi willing child bribed into submission.
here's the shot

for Comments on your three...
no1 I like but would have used an aperture of maybe 2.8 because both faces aren't on the same plane. It doesn't really bother me that your ear is gone but your face is too close to the edge of the frame.
no.2 my favourite
no3. left girl is perfect, the girl on the right has too little contrast on her face.
With a nifty fifty don't worry about putting in a background in unless you want it very plain. Have them as far away from anything as possible so that you get interesting bokeh.

HxGH

Thecageyone wrote: »

personally I prefer portraits to be tight, I don't feel a need to see clarity in people's ears, but then I may be wrong. Is there really a right on this?

True, you don't NEED their ears..

But I preffer the complete picture..

Thecageyone

I think it's a matter of taste/opinion on that front. I've seen some beautiful portraits that were closed right in on the eye/nose/mouth/expression. Both can work I think.

HxGH

Thecageyone wrote: »

I think it's a matter of taste/opinion on that front. I've seen some beautiful portraits that were closed right in on the eye/nose/mouth/expression. Both can work I think.

I'll agree with you there

Thecageyone

I've been practicing a lot with B&W and Sepia after all the C&C in this thread, it has been very helpful.

I also found this neat tutorial for lightroom:

http://photoshopnews.com/stories/downloads/LRNgrayscale_STD2.mov

The HSL method is so much better than simply converting to greyscale. So much more control and much better Noise control too.

melekalikimaka

Thecageyone wrote: »

I've been practicing a lot with B&W and Sepia after all the C&C in this thread, it has been very helpful.

I also found this neat tutorial for lightroom:

http://photoshopnews.com/stories/downloads/LRNgrayscale_STD2.mov

The HSL method is so much better than simply converting to greyscale. So much more control and much better Noise control too.

tis channel mixer renamed

Thecageyone

Yup, but it works. I used to do similar on photoshop, but I'm a n00b when it comes to lightroom. Good to know I can do same in there as I prefer it's simplicity over cs4 [so much on that I never use]

sprinkles

Sorry if I repeat what has already been said - I haven't read all the replies yet.

I like all 3 but they all have their own problems.

#1 - You are out of focus and it's not your AF setting - I realise you are using the available light but for portraits, especially ones that have objects out of plane require a higher f/stop - f/8 - f/11 would be ideal and would also result in higher contrast, which is especially useful for B&W, although the available light probably dictated a need for as wide an aperture as possible. Try using a higher ISO and increasing the f/stop.

#2 - the light is an issue here although the pose is excellent, conveys real emotion. A better lens is needed to make but not much else.

#3 - As mentioned the crop is an issue and the girls top does distract. If the attention is on the face, which it should be, you should try dressing your subjects in plainer tops.

All 3 suffer from bad B&W conversion. They are all grey and thus look very flat.

Good set though!

Thecageyone

Thanks for the input. Looking back on them now I agree that they look flat and grey. I've since been dabbling in some higher contrast black and white, and converting to in other ways. Not just clicking greyscale and boosting clarity/blacks/sharpness anymore, basically.

Something like this:



Which has a bit more of a kick to it.

Still experimenting, but I am learning as I go along, which should be the way