Portrait tips and questions - DPChallenge Forums

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

04/09/2003 01:51:57 PM · #1

I'd like to start working on my portrait skills. As you can see:
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=17727

They aren't great. Any tips, tricks, etc. anyone might offer would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

Shari

paganini

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

04/09/2003 09:04:18 PM · #2

Hardware wise:

100 mm is ideal with small aperature (F2.8 or so, but this is in 35 mm euiqvalent).

most consumer digicams are not great for portraits though because they lack the DOF to be very narrow (i.e. down to the point where if you aim it at the person's eyes, their face and nose will be SOFT, the eyes will be focus which is important) Generally, too sharp of an image is bad for portraits.

Originally posted by shareinnc:

JEM

Sony DSC-F707

04/09/2003 09:16:41 PM · #3

If your post-processing software provides it, try using Gaussian Blur to soften the portrait.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

04/09/2003 10:42:55 PM · #4

Also looks like you used on camera flash, this lighting tends to be bad for portraits. Try available window light or a more elaborate flash system with off camera flash and an umbrella bounce.
What lens did you use on your camera?

printer4u

Nikon D700

04/09/2003 10:52:33 PM · #5

Not sure if you can use filters on you camera but I took my first portrait las week and used a soft-filter with diffused lighting. Not perfect but acceptable for the 3rd shot. Still working on it.

Message edited by author 2003-04-09 22:57:41.

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

04/09/2003 11:00:19 PM · #6

Originally posted by Paige:

Actually, there was no flash for this pic...just a standing light with three 60 watt natural light bulbs in it.

The lens is the one that came with the camera. It has a UV filter on it right now.

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

04/09/2003 11:01:41 PM · #7

Originally posted by printer4u:

Not sure if you can use filters on you camera but I took my first portrait las week and used a soft-filter with diffused lighting. Not perfect but acceptable for the 3rd shot. Still working on it.

I've got a couple of filters on order right now. The only one on the camera now is a UV filter.

04/09/2003 11:05:18 PM · #8

Ok. The lighting seems a bit harsh. Have you tried available window light? Do you have photoshop? You can do alot of post proccessing filter effects without the filters, like on the shot you already took. What is the lens range on you camera, something like 35-100mm etc.?

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

04/09/2003 11:07:28 PM · #9

Originally posted by Paige:

I have no idea...where would I look for that information?

As for window light, nope, haven't tried it yet. Took that pic pretty late at night lol.

Shari

04/09/2003 11:19:16 PM · #10

That depends on your camera, mine says it on the side of the barrell. Your camera may have a fixed lens, it would be good to find out. Portraits are better shot with a 85mm length or more. Any thing below that can tend to distort and stretch faces. Not that your face looks distorted or anything :)
Also if you are using indoor lights for portraits it is good to use more then one, one light tends to cast harsh shadows (unless your looking for a dramatic harsh shadow type of portrait). One main light, with one or better yet two fill lights stratigically placed is much more flattering.
Another thing, your lips are blending in with your skin, how about some lipsick? to seperate them and accentuate them!
Have fun and keep clicking away!

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

04/09/2003 11:30:39 PM · #11

Originally posted by Paige:

Another thing, your lips are blending in with your skin, how about some lipsick? to seperate them and accentuate them!
Have fun and keep clicking away!

LOL you sound like my mother :) Guess I'll have to break down and buy some if I'm gonna continue to pose for myself ;)

04/10/2003 04:17:27 PM · #12

Originally posted by Paige:

Portraits are better shot with a 85mm length or more. Any thing below that can tend to distort and stretch faces.

What are you talking about when you say 85mm or more. Could you explain in depth what you mean. I don't even know what lense my camera has on it. ???

04/10/2003 04:30:42 PM · #13

Originally posted by Sonifo:

Originally posted by Paige:
Portraits are better shot with a 85mm length or more. Any thing below that can tend to distort and stretch faces.

What are you talking about when you say 85mm or more. Could you explain in depth what you mean. I don't even know what lense my camera has on it. ???

It varies by camera, mine shows the mm length on the side of the barrell, yours might say it on the inside/front of the lens, look there are there any numbers? Is your lens a fixed lens or does it zoom?
Digital cameras lens length numbers aren't the same as SLR's, there are equivelants.

04/10/2003 04:40:46 PM · #14

Paige~The numbers on the inside of my lens says:2/7-21. It is a Carl Zeiss lens.
It also has a 6 times precision digital zoom. which sucks by the way. Excuse my language! lol

Message edited by author 2003-04-10 16:43:17.

04/10/2003 04:50:23 PM · #15

Originally posted by Sonifo:

Paige~The numbers on the inside of my lens says:2/7-21. It is a Carl Zeiss lens.
It also has a 6 times precision digital zoom. which sucks by the way. Excuse my language! lol

those numbers don't seem to relate to lens length. Do you have a manual?
The distortion that can happen is mainly from getting too close, backing up and zooming in is better. Try to find out what your cameras lens length is, maybe other people on this site who have your camera can help if you don't have a manual.

magnetic9999

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

04/10/2003 05:54:55 PM · #16

heya, Sonja! those numbers Are in fact the lenses length! I know, the numbers sound too small, don't they Paige?

That's because digital cams have a smaller area to capture their image then film, so they can use little tiny lenses and get the same amount of magnification as 'real' cameras need big lenses to get, plus they're cheaper to make! That's why a little tiny camera that takes great pictures can cost only as much as a SINGLE LENS might cost (from a 35mm camera).

The difference in magnification is about a factor of 5. So if you multiply that by those numbers, it's equivalent to 35-105 mm (7x5 and 21x5) on a 35mm film camera. You with me so far?

So what does that mean in the real world? Means it zooms from fairly wide angle scenes to a little bit zoomed in - an amount that's pretty darn useable for quality portraits.

Hope that helps .. Kollin

Originally posted by Sonifo:

Paige~The numbers on the inside of my lens says:2/7-21. It is a Carl Zeiss lens.
It also has a 6 times precision digital zoom. which sucks by the way. Excuse my language! lol

paganini

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

04/10/2003 06:09:53 PM · #17

Unfortunately the depth of field on most digicam cameras are so huge (as its focal length is so small) that even at F2 at close focusing ranges, everything will be in focus compared to 35 mm format at the same F number.

Originally posted by magnetic9999:

04/10/2003 06:09:56 PM · #18

Thanks Kollin!
How can she tell ,when she's shooting, what lens length she's at? On my lens barrel there is a 35mm equivl.

Message edited by author 2003-04-10 18:14:03.

04/10/2003 06:42:57 PM · #19

Thanks Kollins!!! It is a big help. I guess my camera isn't that bad. Now I just need to figure out how far away to shoot for a decent photo without the distortion and keep the background in the photo at the same time. I did buy a backdrop that is actually a drop cloth for painting. I hope it works.

04/10/2003 06:46:02 PM · #20

[quote=paganini]Unfortunately the depth of field on most digicam cameras are so huge (as its focal length is so small) that even at F2 at close focusing ranges, everything will be in focus compared to 35 mm format at the same F number.quote]

This is what I have found that happens. I set it at f2 which is the smallest it goes and everything is in focus. Is there a digital camera that goes smaller then that? Am I saying this right? I am off to check my photo book again.

OneSweetSin

Nikon D3000

04/10/2003 07:10:27 PM · #21

I have had some sucess with portraits and my digital. Most of which have been outdoor photos with the f stop set at around 3.4 to 3.6. One of my favorite photos I have ever taken was this one of my little boy...
//dpchallenge.com/image.php/i/15722

It was taken using a tripod, sharp focus setting, at about 5 feet away, with my lens set around 90 to 100mm outside on a day that was sunny but late in the afternoon so not to get as harsh of shadows. Even now as I look at it I am still impressed not one person commented on the spot of light created by shadows along the side of the face.

But I would have to agree high f settings....and hey you are human and the subject is human USE A TRIPOD! Cause even if you have a study hand your subject may just twitch as you snap the shutter so try and use a tripod for portraits.

magnetic9999

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

04/10/2003 07:15:17 PM · #22

read what i wrote in the other portrait tips thread ...

Originally posted by Sonifo:

magnetic9999