My first portrait shotModerators: Greg B, Nnnnsic, Geoff, Glen, gstark, Moderators
Forum rules
Please note that image critiquing is a matter of give and take: if you post images for critique, and you then expect to receive criticism, then it is also reasonable, fair and appropriate that, in return, you post your critique of the images of other members here as a matter of courtesy. So please do offer your critique of the images of others; your opinion is important, and will help everyone here enjoy their visit to far greater extent. Also please note that, unless you state something to the contrary, other members might attempt to repost your image with their own post processing applied. We see this as an acceptable form of critique, but should you prefer that others not modify your work, this is perfectly ok, and you should state this, either within your post, or within your signature. Images posted here should conform with the general forum guidelines. Image sizes should not exceed 950 pixels along the largest side (height or width) and typically no more than four images per post or thread. Please also ensure that you have a meaningful location included in your profile. Please refer to the FAQ for details of what "meaningful" is.
Previous topic • Next topic
17 posts
• Page 1 of 1
My first portrait shotHere's my first portrait shot - this is my office team for our Christmas card. I used my 85/1.8 stopped at 2.2 in hopes the photo would be sharper than shooting wide open. I'm far less than impressed with how sharp the image turned out. Is it a focusing thing? Too shallow DOF? Comments appreciated..
Oh, that's me on the far right with the IR remote in my hand! Doh.. Original: http://ScottVD.smugmug.com/photos/229340426-O.jpg `S Last edited by scottvd on Sat Dec 08, 2007 7:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
Scott,
as Glen says, it should still come out fine in a card. I suspect it is mainly due to the shallow DOF. Have a look here: http://www.dofmaster.com/doftable.html That will show you what your DOF was, so if you focused on the the front person, which is what it looks like, you will see that is what explains why the back row is not as sharp. When using a narrow DOF, it is also very important to have the people aligned with the plane of the "film", ie sensor. f5.6 probably would have given you enough DOF for the people while still blurring the trees in the background. I find the web site above very useful in calculating those things. HTH, André Photography, as a powerful medium of expression and communications, offers an infinite variety of perception, interpretation and execution. Ansel Adams
(misc Nikon stuff)
At f2.2, it's going to be hard to get everyone sharp for a group shot as Glen mentioned.
If you want the background to be OOF and have everyone sharp, then increase the distance b/ween the subject and the background more. Also everyone seems to be very pink? Might have to tweak the WB a bit more. Hassy, Leica, Nikon, iPhone
Come follow the rabbit hole...
Glen, yes this was mounted on a tripod, about 12 meters away. Andre, thanks for the link - that's really helpful. I'd agree that f5.6 or maybe even 4 would have been more appropriate. The chart seems very precise with all the camera make/models in there, although given the difference in sensor size I don't see why the D300 and D200 are in the same category? Odd? Huh, can you expand on this a bit? I think what you mean is if the camera was tipped down like / toward the subject that was straight like | then the in focus area would be very limited? Piro, thanks for the comment - I went back and moved that WB and tint around a bit. Thanks for the tip of moving the camera back some. (: Thanks for the comments.. `S
Scott, move the subjects as well and not just the camera
Hassy, Leica, Nikon, iPhone
Come follow the rabbit hole...
I think what Andre means is that if you draw a straight line which represents the sensor/"film" plane in the camera and then draw another straight line representing the group of people, the two lines will need to be parallel to ensure that none of the people fall outside of the range of sharp focus. I will try to illustrate: Good: ----------- far limit of sharp focus 88888888 good looking people }DOF ----------- near limit of sharp focus --^-- camera Bad: --------888 some people outside limit of focus ...888 some people in focus }DOF 88--------- some people too close to be in focus --^-- camera Hope that makes sense Regards, Patrick
Two or three lights, any lens on a light-tight box are sufficient for the realisation of the most convincing image. Man Ray 1935. Our mug is smug
Scott,
Sensor size on the D300 and D200 is the same physical size (or close enough), as is D80, ... I think he just groups the cameras that way, Pro, Semi-pro, ... If you look at the measurements, you will notice that they are the same for those cameras. However, you move to the D3 and the values change. It's to do with the circle of confusion that is quoted at the bottom of each chart.
Patrick (Reschsmooth) explained it well Cheers, André Photography, as a powerful medium of expression and communications, offers an infinite variety of perception, interpretation and execution. Ansel Adams
(misc Nikon stuff)
Hi Scott,
Your are off to a great start if this is only your first portrait image. My only suggestion is watch the background. I find the bright background at the bottom right of the picture a bit distracting, maybe a tighter crop would be in order. My 2 cents Mak Canonian
"The Reward is in the doing of it..!!" - Worlds Fastest Indian (2005) http://www.redbubble.com/people/makro
Whom, amongst us, is using a calibrated monitor? My initial impression was that the wb is pretty close. But as I looked at two people in particular - the tall gentleman, third from the left, and the lady in front of him, in the pink top, I do see a slight blue or cyan cast. Very slight, and blue is exactly what I'm expecting to see in this sort of situation - open shade on a sunny day. On the issue of DoF, you need to also be aware that the longer the lens, the less the DoF will be at a given distance/aperture setting. Perhaps a 50mm, or a 35mm would also have been a choice of lens for this image, but that also would have changed the perspective and DoF of the background. I think your choice of 85mm was the right one though, and bringing the lens down to about f/5.6 would probably have helped bring everyone into critical focus. That said, for a Christmas card, I think you're fine. All told, I think you've done very well with this image. g.
Gary Stark Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
Scott- I have a question for you - is the guy second from the left called Tony ?????
Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships! -Ansel Adams
http://www.redbubble.com/people/blacknstormy
Actually mine is (sypder 2) but in all honesty after some of the comments I did tweak the WB a little (very little) and the tint a bit - what you're seeing here is the second revision as I accidentally deleted the original. (: Wow, thanks for the compliments! (: From what I've read (http://photo.net/learn/portraits/) portraits are sometimes more flattering when a long lens is used - something about making the nose look flatter or something? So I choose the 85, although I have a 50mm wrapped up under the tree right now.. (: ? Close, Tom.. (: You know him? `S
Scott, in all honesty, for your first portrait shoot, I think you have done really well. It will look great on a card and I am sure your colleagues will love it.
Well done. Steve.
|D700| D2H | F5 | 70-200VR | 85 1.4 | 50 1.4 | 28-70 | 10.5 | 12-24 | SB800 | Website-> http://www.stevekilburn.com Leeds United for promotion in 2014 - Hurrah!!!
Previous topic • Next topic
17 posts
• Page 1 of 1
|