DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Individual Photograph Discussion >> Tried some portraits...critique, anybody?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 9 of 9, (reverse)
AuthorThread
12/26/2010 12:57:54 AM · #1
I ventured out of my box and did my first portrait shooting with a friend of mine, and was curious if anybody had input for me. Anything and everything appreciated.
Thanks for taking a look.

Dylan portraits

ETA: some of them are purposefully silly poses and ones that I went ahead an processed for laughs.

Message edited by author 2010-12-26 01:17:01.
12/26/2010 01:15:05 AM · #2
I am not that experienced, but here are my first impressions.
The sharpness and lighting of the portraits all seem really good to me. The lighting especially is beautifully soft, and I really don't see problem with any technicals.
The main thing that strikes me is that the vast majority of the shots are taken at eye level, include head and shoulders, with the individual looking into the camera and facing it directly. I would try to add some more variety if I were you. Yes there are some variations but the most are very similar to each other. I especially think you should experiment with taking somewhat wider shots. There should be at least a few picture with full body shots where the person does not take up half of the screen or more. My advice for improvement would be to take some steps back sometimes, include both close and farther shots, right now it is all pretty close.

Also, make sure to pay attention more with how the background is working with the individual. The subject is so beautifully photographed, but then there are these tiny compositional errors that bring the photo down, and it appears that these errors are occuring mainly due to inattention.
For instance in this image the sidewalk line is running through his head, which is distracting to me.
My main advice for that is to just really take your time while taking these pictures to look at all elements of the photograph.

I think these images are a great first start. And as said, I am no portrait photographer, so you can ignore me if you wish :-)

Message edited by author 2010-12-26 01:19:28.
12/26/2010 01:20:08 AM · #3
Originally posted by Fiora:


I especially think you should experiment with taking somewhat wider shots. There should be at least a few picture with full body shots where the person does not take up half of the screen or more. My advice for improvement would be to take some steps back sometimes, include both close and farther shots, right now it is all pretty close.


Thanks for the feedback. I do actually have some wider shots of him that I went ahead and did, and some of these are cropped a bit as well, but this is because that's more what he was looking for. I should have explained earlier that he wanted some headshots specifically, as well as some general portraits. I agree about the variety overall though, and the shooting level is a good thing to note. I was left wishing I had brought a small stool to stand upon more than once.
12/26/2010 01:36:01 AM · #4
To be honest, I'm not a big fan of the on-camera flash that was used. It just makes for boring lighting. I'm getting an overall static feeling to the shots. Nothing dynamic at all. Technically, the shots are ok, but nothing I'd write home about.
12/26/2010 02:11:53 AM · #5
I am an aspiring portraitist as well, and for me the main thing I try to capture in my subjects is their personality. Something that makes them THEM. Anyone can capture a likeness, but when people who know them say I've caught something uniquely them, then it's a successful portrait. Headshots are slightly different. It is more important that they convey the likeness, with something unique about them secondary.

I was in the "biz" for MANY years, and headshots are a very specific animal. If you plan to do more of them, you should search the portfolios of top photographers to see what they're looking for. Remember, these days, casting directors use electronic submissions and they look at about 50 images per page, about the size of our thumbnails on DPC. The image has to show as much of the face as is attractively possible. The bg is largely irrelevant. Dylan's headshots are ok, but lack a variety of expression (mugging doesn't count), and almost all their backgrounds are, as Fiora pointed out, distracting.

As for the portraits, they don't tell me enough about this person. He seems very uptight in most of them, and mugging in others. In many cases, the hardest part of the session is to get the subject to relax and "be themselves" and project that to the camera. That is also part of a portraitists job.

This one is the closest of the lot for me



although he still seems rather self-aware. But the bg works well with the wardrobe, and there are no bright spots or odd angles or texture changes that draw our eye away from him. I think this was a very successful first session for you to see what works and what doesn't. I hope this helps, and doesn't come across as too critical.
12/26/2010 02:34:14 AM · #6
As a casual impression I see a couple of things (and I pretty much only shoot portraits, so I'm probably biased and crochety and set in my ways, so take comments with a grain of salt). First off, it's clear you've got the technicals of your gear figured out. The photos you posted are sharp, exposure is solid, dof is shallow when appropriate and deep when it fit. The composition on average is ok, but for the most part I find the crops to be a bit loose. 9196 and 9199 for example could easily be cropped 30-40% tighter - don't be afraid to crop off the tops of heads or even the odd ear or two.

Using common rule-of-thirds logic we're taught to put the subject on one of the top two 1/3 intersections. The most common mistake I see (and again this is just my opinion) is that most people don't really know what their subject is. In my mind if you're making a portrait the main focus isn't the face, it's the eyes. So if you apply the rule of thirds to the eyes rather than the whole face, it's kind of irrelevant if you cut off hair or ears or any other extraneous appendages.

9002 and 9055 are two examples of looser crops that I think work quite nicely. 9231 is a perfect example of what I'm referring to. I don't love his expression in that photo, but it's a very natural looking portrait and it's very comfortable to look at. I don't know if that makes any sense or not, but some photos just feel right. Our eyes/brain naturally lead us in certain directions and for whatever reason the above formula just seems to work for me. it instantly seems to flow and my eye can connect to it. 9148 and 9155 somehow just feel like they're either too close or too far - they don't flow like some of the others.

I've had the great fortune to shoot with a number of painfully talented artists, and the thing that strikes me about all of them, is that nothing happens by accident. If they get close...they're awkwardly close. if they're shooting loosely, it's because there's something in the environment that they feel will enhance the portrait in some way. It's rare that I see one of them taking a step back just in case they might miss something.

It's cool that you have friends you can do this sort of shoot with. With friends you're allowed to experiment and eff up while doing so. At worst it's a failed experiment, and at best you learn some stuff (good or bad) that you can use down the road.

keep having fun with it, brother. no point doing it if you aren't :)

P-ness
12/29/2010 11:32:26 PM · #7
Thanks for the additional feedback guys, it's very useful.
I certainly agree about the crops not being super close... and part of that was definitely because I'm not used to shooting for a specific format (8X10) like that, and this was partly an exercise in doing just that. I felt that only a few hit the mark for interesting yet close cropped shots.

As for lighting, there is on camera fill but all but three or 4 of the shots were lit using at least one other light always off camera; the vast majority of the light was provided by me, as it was dusk for most of the shots. But, my real question about lighting is this- As tanguera said, headshots are their own thing, and all the ones I looked at had boring lighting. Hell, a huge portion of them were just a giant softbox 45 degrees camera right, and this was for headshots of A list people so it wasn't just some jerk with a flickr account. What this brings me to is this: Not really having done much in portraiture, I'm not sure if I'm missing things but to me there is a huge gulf between portrait photography for photography sake and portrait photography for portrait sake. How and why do you draw the line where you do about dramatic and dynamic lighting? I don't think the two are exclusive, but there seems to be a big gulf and I'm wondering where you all stand on it.
Also, I'm atrocious at coaching subjects, which is why I did this with a friend. Any tips on getting better at coaching/directing people? I think part of it is that I'm still thinking a lot about how I want things instead of just doing them, so it isn't subconscious really. I'm normally pretty personable and gregarious, though, so I should be able to get a bit of a rapport going...
12/30/2010 01:01:29 AM · #8
Noticed you used F/1.8 and 2.0 a lot. I guess you did so in order to get a nice a bokeh in the background, which you acheived. However F1.8 is very unforgiving in terms of focus. Only needs a slight movement towards/away from the camera/subject and you'll end up with focus probs. In one of you pics it seems as if you have one side of the face in focus and the other not. I'd probably be inclined to use slightly smaller apertures in the future. Just my 2 cents.
12/30/2010 02:45:36 AM · #9
I'm not sure I understand your question, but if you think of headshots as a tool for actors, and not as an artistic effort from the photographer, it'll help make the distinction. Casting directors want the most accurate representation of the actor. As a director, one of my biggest pet peeves was to call in an actor based on their headshot, only to have someone who looked completely different walk in the door. Also, very artsy lighting and props were distracting and not appreciated.

In portraiture, the photographer has a greater role in capturing what s/he feels/sees is the essence of the person. Using lighting to sculpt, mold, alter the environment is essential. For headshots, yes, it's boring lighting because you want it to be even and not call attention to itself.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 01:11:42 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 01:11:42 PM EDT.