More Portraits

[Kreapen]

Hey guys,

I'm getting repetitive ain't I

[Mitchell]

I think there are a few things you can do to improve these.

The first is very overexposed. Her hair has lost lots of detail and so has the background.
The head angle is quite nice although I would be tempted to straighten the vertical lines in the background - having 2 oblique lines seems too much.

In the second, the out of focus area on the left doesn't add much interest, and I feel like something is missing from the right...

Cheers

[sirhc55]

I will comment on the 2nd pic as I feel this has more to offer in improvement.

I agree re the OOF left hand side being too prominent and would have preferred to see a bit more on the right hand side.

The major problem as I see it is the arm. The perspective has made the arm to be as large as the young ladies head - not a good look.

As I was scrolling down to reply there came a point where my screen cut off the pic and I looked at this crop and thought ”wow”.

Crop to panorama just above her left eyebrow from the top and up to the shoulder from the bottom for a much better shot IMO

[shakey]

To my mind the first is definitely the best, despite the blown highlights. Nice reflective pose with a bit of a dreamlike ambience. I think the blown highlights are from harsh lighting. If this is natural light (ie the sun) then a different time of day or a cheap softbox (clouds) might be helpful.

I like the shallow DOF on the first, where the blur is behind the subject. On the second the nearly 50% of the frame OOF stuff in the foreground on the left of the shot doesn't work for me.

I'm also guessing that you used a short focal length lens for these shots. This can distort proportions when used close to the subject. I may be referring to the size of the model's upper arm in #2. Might be an effective techinique when posing and photographing a boxer. OK ...I see you are from the 'Gong....there are female boxers down there. I better shut up before someone from the 'Gong threatens to rip my bloody arms off.

[gstark]

I'm also guessing that you used a short focal length lens for these shots.

While your comments wrt short lenses are correct, I suspect that at least the second shot was made with a longer lens than you suspect. There is significant foreshortening within this image (where are her shoulders?) that suggests to me a longer, rather than a shorter, focal length.

I do agree with the comments about the OOF area on the left in this image. As it has been presented, this adds nothing to the image, and the way that the lady has been cut-off on the rh side leaves one with the feeling that something is missing there.

I'd like to take Chris's suggested crop as a starting point, but rather than a pano crop, I'd go square, keeping only a little but of the tree on the lh side of the image.

My final comments refer to the first image, and has been mentioned by others, but to me comes down to a failure of technique. Please, look through your viewfinder before making the image. Cast your eye around the viewfinder, and examine the elements that are contained within it. Had this been done, then the necessary 5 or so degrees of horizontal correction in post probably would not be needed. Look at the angle of the tree - compare it with the edge of the frame. Look at what appears to be perhaps a window or door frame, OOF, in the background on the rh side. Both the vertical and horizontal lines are skewed at an angle, and absent any compositional creativeness in the image, this appears to be a problem at the time the image was made.

And then there's the exposure. The exposure control. Did you really want her hand (as well as her hair) to be so totally blown? What techniques were you using to make this image?

Let's see if we can remake this image, but make it better.

[robert]

Hi Krepean,
I had a little play with the first- i can remove if you dont like it or not happy that i edited it.

All i did was check levels and bring the left slider in to increase blacks, and middle slider a bit to increase conrast. Tried to 'burn' (darken) her hair and didnt get anyware. Then just cropped and ran through noise reduction.



Robert

[Kreapen]

Nah i like the edit Robert, Thanks.

Gstark, Main focus was set to the left eye (Her right) so that could explain why the right side of the photo is blown out (Literally 3rd outdoor portrait attempt). Should i have set the main focal point to the blown out hair to allow for the natural light?

The background in the first image i didn't take into consideration the vertical lines in the background and like you said does come down to inexperience but thank you all for letting me know this so that i can take this into consideration in the future.

The 2nd photo i had aperture on about f2.4 from memory and tucked into wall. LCD showed the front of wall in focus but apparently not. Would this have worked better to increase the focal distance and include more to the right hand side or is this shot just a waste of memory on my computer?

Look forward to more feedback as it really does help

Jay

[Kreapen]

Does this work?

Basicly started from raw again.



edit: Err realised i put a colour over it. added that back in.

[gstark]

Hi Jay,

Should i have set the main focal point to the blown out hair to allow for the natural light?

Probably not. The issue is that you need to learn and understand how all of the different parts and features of your camera work.

There's a number of points that need to be considered here, and a large part of that is only gained through making some fundamental errors, and learning from them.

For instance, you are working within the premise that your focal point also sets your exposure, and this is usually, and typically, the case. I this instance, had you set the focal point in this image to the hair, your outcome might have been that the exposure (on the hair) might have been more appropriate ( for the whole image - I don't think so, and I'll explain why below) but your point of focus might also have been the hair, resulting in the face and eyes of your subject being out of focus.

I'm not convinced that this would have been a better outcome.

Rather, let's look at a couple of things about this image, and photographic techniques in general, and see where that discussion takes you in your learning process.

What we have, obviously, is a brightly lit area on this lady's hair. Perhaps it may have been possible to hold something, above the lady, but out of the camera's view, that might have provided some shade? A simple white round reflector, or perhaps something as simple as a sheet, might have been able to provide you with this "service". That might have presented you with much more even light over your subject, thus making the metering of the exposure a less difficult task for the camera to complete.

Similarly, and given time and experience, you will learn to see this situation, and identify it through your viewfinder. Once you know of this and can identify it, then you'll be able to read your camera's suggested exposure (that's what you should generally regard it as) values, and make whatever adjustments that you deem to be appropriate for the image that you're taking.

A third option might have been to use fill flash. This helps by adding light to your subject, and hopefully balancing the extreme contrast range that you've experienced.

As I noted above, moving your exposure point probably wouldn't have helped all that much. This is an area where RTFM applies, but your camera will have a number of different metering modes - perhaps matrix, perhaps centre-weighted, perhaps matrix. Do you know which was in use for this image? Regardless, the underlying goal of your camera's meter is to present you with an image that is grey.

As an average of all of the tones etc embodied within the image.

Where an image contains a large bright area, then the camera's meter can and usually tries to compensate for that, and will make its exposure darker as a result. That's NOT what's happened in this case, but it's what might have happened had you changed your focus/exposure point.

What has happened is actually the opposite of what I've just described. Your model's face was in shadow, and the camera has tried to compensate the other way, opening the exposure and thus making the image too light. With the bright area in the image already too bright and on the edge of the contrast range that your camera can deal with ... opening up the exposure even more only helps to exacerbate the problem.

If that's not making sense to you, then please say so: we do want to help, and this is an important part of learning how to use your camera.

The background in the first image i didn't take into consideration the vertical lines in the background and like you said does come down to inexperience

Exactly. It's a fundamental error, and one that I, too, still commit way too often.

The 2nd photo i had aperture on about f2.4 from memory and tucked into wall.

f/2.4? What lens? Your EXIF should have this detail; no need to rely upon memory.

LCD showed the front of wall in focus but apparently not.

Also, what camera, and were you perhaps shooting in live view mode?

Would this have worked better to increase the focal distance and include more to the right hand side or is this shot just a waste of memory on my computer?

Disk space is cheap, so, no, it's not a waste of storage. Play with the crops as suggested, and yes, had you included more from the rh side, and less from the lh, I suspect that would have been a better image. With the suggested crops, the intent is to come in very close and tight on the face. As it stands now, you have "crowded" the subject (by not leaving any space on the right as we view the image) but have not provided us with anything to compensate for that.

[gstark]

Does this work?

I'm going to ask you the same question.

What do you think?

That is the bottom line here, btw. These are your images, and what we think about them .... is merely what we think about them.

What's really important here is what YOU think about them: do YOU feel that these are better treatments?

If so, why? If not, same question.

[Kreapen]

Thanks Gstark, You replies really do carry insight and honestly are helping me a lot.

f/2.4? What lens? Your EXIF should have this detail; no need to rely upon memory.

Sorry. It was a Canon 50mm f1.8 lens (bought last week so was keen to try out) but the aperture was set to 2.8 with 1/2500.

Also, what camera, and were you perhaps shooting in live view mode?

I have a Canon EOS 40D. Wasn't in live viewing mode was referring to the LCD review.

What do you think?

Thats a good question. I prefer the 2nd reposted photo now that i have corrected the background lines to be vertical as well as attempted to repair the over exposure on the hair and hand, but would have much preferred to have not burnt the image to start with.

A simple white round reflector,

Ordered one from HK supplies (Ebay store) last week just awaiting for it to arrive.

A third option might have been to use fill flash

The only flash i have is the pop up on the camera at the moment and I'm not sure how to adjust the strength if it can even be adjusted so i find the flash just blows everything right out still even when i close the aperture out.


Sorry for putting all those answer's majorly out of order..

One question is you spoke about metering and the different types. Is their something i can read that will help me with this?

[gstark]

Thanks Gstark, You replies really do carry insight and honestly are helping me a lot.

Great. That's why we're here.

And somebody mentioned something about some alcohol last week too.

f/2.4? What lens? Your EXIF should have this detail; no need to rely upon memory.

Sorry. It was a Canon 50mm f1.8 lens (bought last week so was keen to try out) but the aperture was set to 2.8 with 1/2500.

Excellent. That is a good lens, and exceptional value. I have a 30D with the same lens ... but mostly use my Nikons.

What you should try to do is to reshoot the same image, but use a variety of settings. Put the camera into Av mode, and start at f/1.8, then f/2.8, f5.6, f/8, f/11 .... you get the idea. Let the camera set the exposure and choose the shutter speed. Pull them all onto your computer, and then look firstly at the first and last shots ... then examine each of the intermediate images.

Please post some, and do tell us what you observe from those images.

I have a Canon EOS 40D. Wasn't in live viewing mode was referring to the LCD review.

Ok, cool.

In looking at the LCD, a couple of points to note. It's useful for reviewing focus (or in my case, focus errors) but for determining exposure, unless you also use the histogram, it's not all that good. It's essentially an uncalibrated monitor, so learn to understand the histogram and then the display will become a good friend.

What do you think?

Thats a good question.

I thought so, too.

I prefer the 2nd reposted photo now that i have corrected the background lines to be vertical as well as attempted to repair the over exposure on the hair and hand, but would have much preferred to have not burnt the image to start with.

Now you're preaching to the choir. Mind you, I cannot sing.

The key here is learning to see where the errors occurred, and understanding how they occurred, and how you can take steps to avoid making the same errors in the future.

But don't worry: once you overcome this one, there's plenty of new errors for you to commit, and lots and lots of different errors to share amongst everyone here.

A simple white round reflector,

Ordered one from HK supplies (Ebay store) last week just awaiting for it to arrive.

Ok, excellent. Zoe was on vacation last week, and Poon was in China over the weekend. If it's not yet shipped, it shouldn't be too far away.

A third option might have been to use fill flash

The only flash i have is the pop up on the camera at the moment and I'm not sure how to adjust the strength if it can even be adjusted so i find the flash just blows everything right out still even when i close the aperture out.

There should be a power setting. I've not used this on my 30D, but think in terms of setting into a manual mode, then dialing down the power. When in doubt, RTFM.

Don't worry about your sequencing of the answers.

estion is you spoke about metering and the different types. Is their something i can read that will help me with this?

The first port of call is your camera's manual, which will detail what's available to you. I think you have a matrix mode (but I'm not sure what it's called in Canonese - evaluative seems to ring a bell), plus center weighted, and spot.

Spot is easy: it meters off a small section within the viewfinder, typically (but not always) your focus point, or the centre. It's a very narrow and small metering region, but it's very accurate, provided you're accurate in selecting it.

Center weighted is similar, but uses a larger area in a central circle from within the VF, but weights the reading from what's within that central area against what's in the rest of the VF.

In Nikonese, matrix tries to assess what you are seeing, and tries to match what it "sees" with other images in its database, and it tries to match that sort of a scene, setting exposure accordingly.

Use Google to learn more about how these work in a more generic sense, and then read your manual to understand how these apply in the more specific instance with your 40D.