My first portrait session - C+C if you please

Hiho fellow boardsies,


A friend was shooting a girl today and asked if I wanted to pop along. I've been itching to try some portraiture for a while, so jumped at the chance to take some shots of her.

I just thought I'd make a thread to throw them here to see if anyone could offer constructive criticism or advice for future such shoots.


I was using a Sigma 70-200 at 2.8 for every shot (trying to get used to it as it's still new to me), except the one where I'm looking down on her, which was with the Canon 17-85 at 17mm and f/4.


Maybe it's the lens or body (doubtful) or maybe it's me (highly likely), but I was struggling to get an accurate focus with her, and when I was getting it spot on, one eye was in focus and the other wasn't. Now, I use a 20D and the screen on the back doesn't really allow you ample opportunity to see such minor details, so I just kinda went with it.

My big questionis; is f/2.8 at such focal lengths (70-200, mostly at or near 200) just too narrow a field for portraiture? Should i generally be staying at f/4.0 or f/5.6 or that general area? or is that then too small an aperture?


I used a flash gun, usually at it's lowest setting when up close and at 1/64 or 1/32 when a little further back, to light her up, but I don't know if that was wise or not. The white dot catchlights in her eyes from the flash aren't exactly attractive in my opinion, but you probably wouldn't notice them unless you went looking for them. The flash had a diffuser on it.


Anyway, the photographs;



1.



2.



3.



4.



5.



6.






Personally, I think my favourite is number 5, and I think, as much as number 3 looked amazing in my head, it should probably be scrapped and used only on a super model with lots of make-up? Seems it can highlight freckles and spots and such?

I was just trying anything that came into my head..


Cheers guys

pixbyjohn

My favorite is number 6. Thank you for posting, I cannot offer any Critique, I am still learning too.
Very nice model

FoxT

Hi there,

I use a 40D myself with a canon 70-200 f/2.8L. (non-IS) Based on my (limited, I only have the lens a few months) experience with it , I would say

- The pictures look quite sharp. All the eyeballs are good

- Your exif suggests you are running at 1/200, f/2.8, ISO 100. I find it worthwhile to go to ISO 200, and 1/400. I think 1/200 is a bit marginal on a crop sensor (it is for me anyway, but I am an unfit office jockey..)

I have never shot a model myself, so take below FWIW...

I like the last one best, I think. 1,2,3 are posed, 4 is quite nice/natural looking, 5 doesnt work for me, but the 6th one is a lovely, natural smile - the model seems completely relaxed & at ease - and at her most attractive.

Nice work!

- FoxT

condra

Having only been doing this stuff a few months, I'm not qualified to dish out advice, so please take my waffle with a pinch of salt.

My favourite is also number 6.

Probably because it looks like a natural pose. She looks comfortable and happy. She has lovely teeth and looks more attractive when she shows them off.

I reckon the bench is a good prop to work with. It gives the impression she's out and about doing stuff, and not just posing in the middle of a field.

Technically, I think number 6 also has good focus and dof seems about right. Nice colours, exposure etc.

Thanks for the comment PixByJohn

FoxT, I'm surprised you say 5 doesn't work for you at all. Along with yourself and John, i do like number 6, but I find I prefer number 5 for some reason. Differest strokes, I suppose.


Every shot was posed, but personally I do think that, when I look at it again, number 2 looks painfully posed. She was moving about and having a laugh, a genuinely nice girl (I hadn't met her before), but I do think that looking at number 2, she looks stiff as a board or something.


One other thing, also in relation to number 2, a touchy subject, does anyone have any tips on where it's appropriate to crop off a female? I cropped the bottom of that image as the zip on her jacket pushed outwards just under it, and it made her look a bit tubby, which she isn't.

I thought that cropping there, would make her look thinner/bustier than allowing the image to drop any further, but also felt that I shouldn't crop any higher, whilst her bust is still protruding, as it could give the impression that she's enormous (not just bust-wise, but just in general)?


Is it best to just always leave the stomache in the frame?

shamrock55

i aint no expert but no 5 looks like your shining a torch in her face;)

CabanSail

As presented here, number 6 is the only shot which works. Nice natural pose and the background is well chosen. She may not like her double chin though.

#5 has the skin tones overexposed, though they should be able to be recovered from your RAW file and could make an interesting shot.

I take it that you have not done much (any?) Post Production on these shots yet? Shot #3 could come up quite nicely once you have applied some PP. You need to get rid of that hair across her eye. Then with some skin smoothing and reduction of the red blood vessels it could be quite nice.

Thecageyone

# 6 is a lovely portrait, she'd be pleased with that one I reckon. #5 is a bit rabbit in the headlights. You were way too strong with the flash there I reckon. That perspective can look odd too, makes people look really short with big heads. I'm only learning as I go too, but find that perspective works best on children.

shamrock55

shamrock55 wrote: »

i aint no expert but no 5 looks like your shining a torch in her face;)

She is a bit bright in the face alright, but it's actually just the flash gun (diffused and on it's lowest setting). It was too dark without it, and too bright with it

Thecageyone

Deleted User wrote: »

It was too dark without it, and too bright with it

Soft box/brolly

Thecageyone

Thecageyone wrote: »

Soft box/brolly

Only useful when you have them with you, unfortunately

I reckon, had I been thinking at the time, if I took off the diffuser and used the built-in, pull-out diffuser, and then put the normal diffuser back on, i probably could've made it a slight bit darker again, but sure.. Wasn't thinking.


That said, in spite of the shadow crossing her left shoulder (our right) I still like the photo quite a lot for some reason.

May aswell get them all out of my system. Here are the only other three that I kept;


7.




8.



9.




I like the one on the bench, but I think the other two will see the recycle bin fairly soon.

CabanSail

Are these shot as Jpeg or Raw?

What PP are you doing?

That's weird, Caban. Your post, from 2.26am, wasn't there last night. I only seen it now.


I shot RAW, and I don't really do much in the area of post processing to be honest. A bit of "recovery", "fill light", Contrast boost and exposure adjustment (all inside Adobe Camera RAW).

I'm still very, very new to photoshop, and generally don't like PP'ing the life out of my imgaes, so I've been avoiding using it. Outside of Sharpen, burn, dodge, spot heal and clone, I don't really know anything else in it.

CabanSail

This is Photo 3 with some general PP and skin smoothing.

Hope you don't mind the reworking.

Thecageyone

I tend to Smoothen blemished skin and remove spots and sometimes give eyes a lift if they're dark. Nobody ever seems to mind being touched up a little (ooh er) so long as it brings out their best. Most people who have a spot or two ask for it to be done.

Cabansail, I'm not sure if I prefer the before or after, to be honest. I think your edit is a little too sharp (for a woman, anyway), though it is great to see how other people would approach the same photo. I'll have to get rid of that hair from the eye.


That said, ultimately, despite the few problems I've encountered, I'm still pleased with the photographs overall, as a starting point for me.


EDIT; Cagey, I'm not sure where I stand on that issue, to be honest. Nothing was really said about getting rid of freckles, spots or third legs or anything, so I didn't want to go there. I'm a fat, ugly prick. I think I'd be annoyed if someone took photographs of me, and without so much as consulting me,thinned me down, got rid of my six chins and removed any spots I had.

I realise everyone will have a different opinion on this kinda thing, but personally, I wouldn't do that sorta stuff without someone specifically asking me to.

AnCatDubh

Usual disclaimer on any such C&C review - the following aint fact or direction, just an opinion on what I see before me on a non colour corrected or graphically optimised monitor. Take what you can/what makes sense from it, and file the rest of it under "B" for bin as the opinion of a rambling wannabe

In general;

Very nice stuff so well done to you. Cute young lady to photograph which is well suited to producing aesthetically pleasing results. There are plenty of alternate crops in there if you want to experiment - crop with existing ratio or alternate format such as a square crop perhaps. Another suggestion is to consider is whether you need face looking directly at the camera for every shot? She has a very pretty face but sometimes you can get very nice results from a partial face being visible controlled by angle/position of camera (just remember to watch out for eyes being visible at alternate angles). Many of those presented (1, 2, 4 for instance) have quite extreme out of focus backgrounds. Might have been better shutting the aperture a little just to bring some detail back into it. I suspect the ambient lighting wasn't wonderful on the day so you were fighting this element to start with. Try a bit of magical black and white which may neutralise some of this - that said, it may suit a more candid / moody style.

A bit more detail/thoughts on the individual shots;

#1
nice pose.
lighting appears a little imbalanced
don't like catchlights
her lip gloss also catching the light is not particularly pleasing
shooting from slightly above the subject would have give a slightly better aesthetic to it.

#2
pose idea is ok, though I wonder should she be slightly turned around a little more - side profile is fine, just other arm being more than implied might be better (suggestion)
catchlights again look a bit odd and the flash back off the lip gloss is a little distracting.
again, as in #1, raise yourself up - shoot slightly from above.

#3
i'm not into this at all. I've seen lots of great images like this but i think it can be really difficult to get an appropriate crop.
Also there's almost too much detail visible - keep the eyes sharp and perhaps a gentle blur of the surrounds.
single hair across the eye becomes distracting.
that lip gloss was something else wasn't it

#4
reasonable pose but imho she's almost lurching into the pose a bit too much and could perhaps revert backwards just a little. Catchlights, yup - not warming to them here either.

#5
The idea is cool. I like it. But there is a great imbalance in the lighting which doesn't really work. Her face looks slightly overexposed, which is understandable given the orientation of her body to camera.
I do quite like it though.

#6
this is nice. The frame of the subject turned into a triangular shape is usually something that works. A wee bit of stretching of the chin upwards (just a little) would have worked wonders.

#7
The pose starts out ok, but I think the elbow if positioned a little nearer to her knee would have produced a better result.

#8
chin up (a little) and raise your shooting angle higher
cutting off midway through the hand is kind of a no no

#9
quite nice pose but facial expression is a bit forced. perhaps again raise your shooting angle.

Hope that's of use/help - if not, then file it all under "B"

You did good.

sineadw

On a flying read here, but one thing I will say - I have the sigma 24-70 2.8 and I would *never* shoot it at 2.8. It's just not a good enough piece of kit, and especially especially not at either end of the zoom. You'll find most zooms are soft on either end (waits for inevitable barrage of "no they're not!"s). I shot with a 50 grand digital hassie last week, with a stunner of a Zeiss lens, and the fecker was *still* soft at 2.8..

Recommend shooting at 2 stops from maximum aperture if you can - so 5.6. And not at the end of the zoom. Or better still - buy a prime

condra

I'm picking up some nice tips on this thread, fair play all.

kelly1

I like 4 and 6 best. I think the on-camera flash is a bit flat and the catch lights would look better off centre and a bit larger. But very nice shots!

I agree with SindeadW, I wouldn't use f/2.8 unless you're shooting babies with a sharp prime lens.

The other problem with wide aperture in bright ambient light is the max sync speed, which would be restricted to 1/200 or 1/250. Ideally you'd want to be using 1/200. So to work at this shutter speed, you'd want to be shooting in the morning or evening when it's not too bright. Or you can use high-speed sync but this eats batteries. Or use an ND filter.

Thecageyone

Deleted User wrote: »

EDIT; Cagey, I'm not sure where I stand on that issue, to be honest. Nothing was really said about getting rid of freckles, spots or third legs or anything, so I didn't want to go there. I'm a fat, ugly prick. I think I'd be annoyed if someone took photographs of me, and without so much as consulting me,thinned me down, got rid of my six chins and removed any spots I had.

I realise everyone will have a different opinion on this kinda thing, but personally, I wouldn't do that sorta stuff without someone specifically asking me to.

Heh, nothing that severe. I've never had one complaint from anyone after removing a spot, I never thin them down or change any features whatsoever. Just Acne and spots that might not always be there. the ladies seem to like a slight smoothening too, and I mean very light. I like a natural look, but as I said, it's just enhancing what it already there. I've seen the smiles when they see how they look in the shots. They never mention the spots/or lack of. They secretly enjoy looking that little bit fresher. But, I'm sure there are people who wouldn't like it at all. I just judge by their response when I ask how they'd like them processed. You get some who'll hint at a little touching up, but wont outright say it. And I'll never suggest it, of course.