Reading mode: Light Dark

Critique on a recent portrait shoot

Go to last post
K

keithallenlaw

Senior Member
Messages
3,435
Reaction score
0
Location
perryville, USA, MO, US
I just recently shot these with the 5D and the nifty fifty (f/1.4)
and would like some input. Mostly shot with natural lighting.
A few are flashed with the 580ex and omni. These are outdoor
shots with a slight overcast. Thanks for looking.

http://www.pbase.com/keithallenlaw/dona

--
Logic is superior to emotion
BUT
Emotion is much more fun!

Come visit me at:
http://www.pbase.com/keithallenlaw
See my profile for what i shoot with.

 
Even though it was overcast, which helped the saturation a lot, there was enough light coming thru to throw a shadow under her hat across her face generally around her eyes.

I wonder if that would have been the case if the flash/dome were pointed directly at her?

It wasn't a really harsh shadow, due to the diffused lighting, but I think it would have added more to the impact if it were eliminated.

Cowboy hats and baseball caps are tough to deal with.

Good stuff.

--
Joe Sesto
 
Not sure I would call these "portraits"?

More like family snaps.

Why? Because there is really not much thought going into the
poses, framing, lighting or the way the cowgirl is reacting to the
camera.

Concentrate on telling a story, both in a single picture and as a
collection.

Pay attention to details, hands, posing and things that make the
person look good. I.e. not crotch shots and bulging tummy, toes
turned inward or framing that cuts off parts of the model.

So, basically, these are snapshots of your friend, not portraits.
keithallenlaw said:
I just recently shot these with the 5D and the nifty fifty (f/1.4)
and would like some input. Mostly shot with natural lighting.
A few are flashed with the 580ex and omni. These are outdoor
shots with a slight overcast. Thanks for looking.

http://www.pbase.com/keithallenlaw/dona
Click to expand...
 
not meaning to be harsh, just honest.
  • almost all shots are overexposed by at least 2/3 stops if not more. Highlights are blown out (e.g. Donna's hat and shirt in the first photo) and the red channel is also clipped on a number of shots (e.g. hands on IMG_1184a.jpg, face on IMG_1326.jpg, hands on IMG_1166a.jpg).
  • i would personally use more shallow dof for full body shots with distracting backgrounds, f2.5 and thereabouts. Examples of too busy background is IMG_1234.jpg, IMG_1326.jpg, IMG-1196.jpg)
  • the composition is a bit too central (again, for my taste), especially on those with dynamic content. Examples of this are IMG_1196.jpg and the coverpage. Try cropping a bit from the right for both shots. Similarly I would crop the left of IMG_1295.jpg
  • colors are a bit cold for the first 12 shots and warm for the last 4.
--
br
ZapE
 
Reshoot.

You have L glass, why not put it to good use? the 50 is a little off for most of these compositions in my opinion. Like AperturePro said, they seem snapshot-esque. If anything, you need to be using wider apertures with that lens. The branches of trees are sooo distracting. If you want full body shots, use your 17-40mm and get closer. You should definitely bust out that 300 2.8L, man I want one of those. You can get some really dramatic shots with that one. Use your 70-200L for portraits or your 85 if you want to be closer (I prefer the 70-200L myself, in order to not disturb a scene, but the 85 is good when you're talking to your subject. Basically what I think I'm saying is you should put away that 50mm. You have professional equipment and should be making it work for you!

I hope to see another run at this later on, there is a lot of potential.
--
-Ben Hunter

http://www.bchphoto.com
 
IMHO some shots look like someone allready said here like snap shots but having such a lovey subject helps a lol. The three shots with the guitar are the best and they would look even better in black and white.
 
Joe Sesto said:
Even though it was overcast, which helped the saturation a lot,
there was enough light coming thru to throw a shadow under her hat
across her face generally around her eyes.

I wonder if that would have been the case if the flash/dome were
pointed directly at her?
Click to expand...
I believe you are correct by the looks of my shots I used the flash
with. I would have used it more but I was having battery issues.
Joe Sesto said:
It wasn't a really harsh shadow, due to the diffused lighting, but
I think it would have added more to the impact if it were
eliminated.
Click to expand...
I agree.
Joe Sesto said:
Cowboy hats and baseball caps are tough to deal with.
Click to expand...
You ain't a kidding there.
Joe Sesto said:
Good stuff.
Click to expand...
Thanks!
Joe Sesto said:
--
Joe Sesto
Click to expand...
--
Logic is superior to emotion
BUT
Emotion is much more fun!

Come visit me at:
http://www.pbase.com/keithallenlaw
See my profile for what i shoot with.

 
AperturePro said:
Not sure I would call these "portraits"?
Click to expand...
Fair enough.
AperturePro said:
More like family snaps.

Why? Because there is really not much thought going into the
poses, framing, lighting or the way the cowgirl is reacting to the
camera.
Click to expand...
Yes, I need to work on my take charge of the situation
and stop and think about more details. There is a lot to think
about while doing this. Still learning and growing.
AperturePro said:
Concentrate on telling a story, both in a single picture and as a
collection.

Pay attention to details, hands, posing and things that make the
person look good. I.e. not crotch shots and bulging tummy, toes
turned inward or framing that cuts off parts of the model.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your critique, I asked for it and I got it.
AperturePro said:
So, basically, these are snapshots of your friend, not portraits.
Click to expand...
Actually a friend of a friend but I see how It looks like that.

--
Logic is superior to emotion
BUT
Emotion is much more fun!

Come visit me at:
http://www.pbase.com/keithallenlaw
See my profile for what i shoot with.

 
Yes Ben, you nailed it exactly. Why I decided to use that lens
I'll never know. Actually the last shot in that series was shot
with the 70-200 f/4, the one by the old rake. She initially told
me she wanted a lot of back ground to emphasize her life syle
but I think I over did it. Yes, I've always had good luck with the
70-200 doing portrait shots. Should have used it. LOL...my
300 f/2.8 would have scared her off. Thanks again for your
insight. Most grateful.
Ben Hunter said:
Reshoot.

You have L glass, why not put it to good use? the 50 is a little
off for most of these compositions in my opinion. Like AperturePro
said, they seem snapshot-esque. If anything, you need to be using
wider apertures with that lens. The branches of trees are sooo
distracting. If you want full body shots, use your 17-40mm and get
closer. You should definitely bust out that 300 2.8L, man I want
one of those. You can get some really dramatic shots with that
one. Use your 70-200L for portraits or your 85 if you want to be
closer (I prefer the 70-200L myself, in order to not disturb a
scene, but the 85 is good when you're talking to your subject.
Basically what I think I'm saying is you should put away that 50mm.
You have professional equipment and should be making it work for
you!

I hope to see another run at this later on, there is a lot of
potential.
--
-Ben Hunter

http://www.bchphoto.com
Click to expand...
--
Logic is superior to emotion
BUT
Emotion is much more fun!

Come visit me at:
http://www.pbase.com/keithallenlaw
See my profile for what i shoot with.

 
10-4 on the lovely subject. How could anyone notice anything
else, but they do and thats understandable. I will experiment
with b/w and sepia when I get a little time. Thanks for the visit!
mansito said:
IMHO some shots look like someone allready said here like snap
shots but having such a lovey subject helps a lol. The three shots
with the guitar are the best and they would look even better in
black and white.
Click to expand...
--
Logic is superior to emotion
BUT
Emotion is much more fun!

Come visit me at:
http://www.pbase.com/keithallenlaw
See my profile for what i shoot with.

 
On a so-called "FF" body, one can definitely get very convincing full-body (or upper-body) portraits with the 50 f/1.4, with the proper background blur to make the subject "pop", provided the chosen aperture is small enough and the distance short enough.

Moreover, I would not recommend the 17-40 because of distorsion.

But I second you on the telephoto part of your post: telephoto compression is often better looking than normal- or short focal lengths when taking portraits.

--
French guy writing in English - please be forgiving :)
Amateur photog doing the best he can - please be forgiving too :)
http://www.volige.com/photo.htm
 
You should definitely not give this up. I am sure it will work better the next time. If you have a chance to rerun the shoot, do it. The setting and the subject fit together so you have good possibility there.

Fortunately most of the issues can be corrected in PP, so even if you can't reshoot you can still make this series a lot better.

I know (from experience) that it is hard working in a rush, especially if you have just started shooting portraits. Perhaps you should occupy the husband next time. Give him a reflector to hold and use him as an assistant, that usually helps keeping relatives interested.

--
br
ZapE
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top