Reading mode: Light Dark

Portraits with 5dmkIII - C&C welcome

Go to last post
T

talico

Leading Member
Messages
615
Reaction score
58
Location
IL, US
I am loving this camera. AF is great, love the quiet shutter. I recently took a few portraits of my children. I know it is similar to shooting household pets. Hopefully the yawn factor isn't too high.

I would really like C&C. As nit-picky as you like. Really, I can take it. They aren't perfect, and I know that. I would like to see a few photos which I really like from an outsider's perspective. If you have photos which demonstrate a concept, or show an alternative style, please share.











Thanks in advance.


Tom



Feel free to C&C my website too.
My photos http://www.alicoatephotography.com
 

Attachments

  • 2692181.jpg
    2692181.jpg
    649.3 KB · Views: 0
I am sorry to say in my opinion as a professional photographer, both images leave a great deal to be desired. Please forgive me. You chopped off both heads, and the first image appears VERY out of focus or soft on my monitor. Good luck.

Canon Person
 
Last edited:
It's difficult to comment on technique since you only specify the camera body.

From my iPad these images look very soft.

Artistically they have a tendency towards mugshots or school photos I think due to the non-descript background.

I would suggest you play a little with light and shadow. Try to avoid flattening out the face with such even lighting.

The fact that you got these two teens to sit still for a for a formal portrait is commendable.
 
Your exif data is gone, so we have no idea what lens and settings you used, however:

As the others have said, your images are soft, but I'll go one step further and say that the DoF is too shallow as well. The girl's nose is out of focus and by the time you look at her left eyebrow the focus is gone too. The eyes and lips are pretty sharp, but they're on a roughly equal plane of focus. Basically, I would have liked to see this stopped down a little bit to get some real sharpness going.

Composition wise, they're nice. Contrary to the previous statement saying that you screwed up cutting off both heads, I rather like the emphasis on the faces. On the second shot, however, I would like to see the guy's forehead brought forward a bit and/or the camera raised a little higher. You've got a slight double chin going on and it isn't flattering.

Backgrounds? The backgrounds are boring. On the first shot it emphasizes your subject because she takes up the majority of the frame. On the second shot there's just too much of it showing. They also look... noisy? Something's up there.

Overall, I like em. Definitely the first shot more than the second. You did ask for nitpicking, however :P.
 
#1 Too close, flat lighting and the background is dull.

#2 The blank stare of the young man is bothersome.
 
Your children are very attractive. I'll echo what the others have said and add don't use auto white balance. The perspective (focal length, composition, angle) on your son is better. You're either too wide or too close to your daughter.

But the good news is you're open to feedback and as result your photos will get better and better. Keep going!
 
For an amateur I think these are pretty good. I don't mind the cut-off heads. It is a common look in magazines these days, and besides, Scott Kelby says it is OK, so that's good enough for me.

The main thing is you got some nice expressions from the kids, even the boy. Everyone doesn't have to smile.
--
- Bill
 
Matt Bev said:
Matt Bev wrote:

I prefer the first one, simply because I don't like those mottled backgrounds. But both are very nice!
Click to expand...
Matt,

Thank you. I use the mottled background sometimes because if you take portraits for 150 students, and you shoot on paper, they all look exactly the same. I don't love them either, Not sure what a better answer is though.

Thanks for the response.


Tom
My photos http://www.alicoatephotography.com
 
Dimitris Mitrovgenis said:
Dimitris Mitrovgenis wrote:

I like them a lot.Please your lighting setup and lens.
Click to expand...
Dimitris,

Thank you. I used a Alien Bee 800 on a large softbox I think it is 30x50. It was turned down pretty low and I had it positioned very close to the kids. I had tungsten track lighting on in the background, it had very little effect.

Kathleen was with a 50mm 1.4 at f3.5, and Michael was an 85 1.8 at f4


Tom
My photos http://www.alicoatephotography.com
 
canon person said:
canon person wrote:

I am sorry to say in my opinion as a professional photographer, both images leave a great deal to be desired. Please forgive me. You chopped off both heads, and the first image appears VERY out of focus or soft on my monitor. Good luck.

Canon Person
Click to expand...
I find no problem with the crop, but agree with the un-sharpness of the girl.

Yehuda
 
canon person said:
canon person wrote:

I am sorry to say in my opinion as a professional photographer, both images leave a great deal to be desired. Please forgive me. You chopped off both heads, and the first image appears VERY out of focus or soft on my monitor. Good luck.

Canon Person
Click to expand...
Thank you for the criticism. I guess the type of portrait that I was going for has a shallower depth of field than the ones you prefer. It is a little more whimsical/ethereal in my mind. In this case, I went for focus on the better lit eye. I uploaded a higher resolution image, that you could look at in more detail. The far eye is not tack sharp, but I felt it was acceptable. What are your guidelines for taking portraits? What must each photo have to be considered good at a professional level?

Thank you for your response.





Kathleen right eye(on the left in the photo) was the focus point.


Tom
My photos http://www.alicoatephotography.com
 

Attachments

  • 2693793.jpg
    2693793.jpg
    2.8 MB · Views: 0
wazu said:
wazu wrote:

It's difficult to comment on technique since you only specify the camera body.

From my iPad these images look very soft.

Artistically they have a tendency towards mugshots or school photos I think due to the non-descript background.

I would suggest you play a little with light and shadow. Try to avoid flattening out the face with such even lighting.

The fact that you got these two teens to sit still for a for a formal portrait is commendable.

--
There is a crack in everything That's how the light gets in. - Leonard Cohen
Click to expand...
Thank you for your comments. The photo of my daughter was 50mm 1.4 at f3.5. My son was 85 1.8 at f4. In my daughters photo there is a very shallow depth of field because I am so close to her. I have posted the image at higher resolution One eye is sharp, but it is very thin DOF. With such even lighting it should have been more important to get both in focus. My son's is just a wee bit soft. There is enough definition in his eye for me to consider it acceptable.

Artistically they were both meant to be pretty simple. I can't say I am excited to hear the terms mugshot and school photo used to describe them. In your opinion, would any non-distracting setting be better than a made-for-photography background? It is an interesting idea. I'm not sure I disagree with you. A gray background doesn't draw your attention away though. Of course finding unique places with decent lighting is significantly more labor intensive and sometimes more expensive.







Thanks again for your comments.


Tom
My photos http://www.alicoatephotography.com
 
I like them Tom. Their expressions bring smile on my face. Kathleen has a very sweet smile and it feels it is so easy for her to do so. On the other hand Michael probably is typical of boys of his age, smiles don't come that easy. :) Their expressions have given personalities to the portraits, something I like in this kind of photography.

I don't mind Kathleen's crop and shallow DOF. Its contrast is soft though, if that's what you were after then no problems. But I think a little more contrast will accentuate the detail on the ares in focus. It also has excessive yellow tinge for my liking. I would try to remove it as much as possible.

Michael's background and left shoulder show noise and banding. I wonder if pushed shadows excessively here. What was the ISO?

One more thing. His expression is begging for a different kind of processing, a more dramatic one. If you let me, I can give it a go. :)
 
Clyzm said:
Clyzm wrote:

Your exif data is gone, so we have no idea what lens and settings you used, however:

As the others have said, your images are soft, but I'll go one step further and say that the DoF is too shallow as well. The girl's nose is out of focus and by the time you look at her left eyebrow the focus is gone too. The eyes and lips are pretty sharp, but they're on a roughly equal plane of focus. Basically, I would have liked to see this stopped down a little bit to get some real sharpness going.

Composition wise, they're nice. Contrary to the previous statement saying that you screwed up cutting off both heads, I rather like the emphasis on the faces. On the second shot, however, I would like to see the guy's forehead brought forward a bit and/or the camera raised a little higher. You've got a slight double chin going on and it isn't flattering.

Backgrounds? The backgrounds are boring. On the first shot it emphasizes your subject because she takes up the majority of the frame. On the second shot there's just too much of it showing. They also look... noisy? Something's up there.

Overall, I like em. Definitely the first shot more than the second. You did ask for nitpicking, however :P.
Click to expand...
This is great, thank you. My daughter's photo was at f3.5 on a 50mm 1.4. I was close, and I thought I would have enough for both eyes at f3.5. I posted a higher resolution image in a couple of the earlier responses. Looking at it, what is distracting to me most is the eyebrows. The nose being out doesn't bother me, but they eyebrows being both in and out of focus is not to my liking.

I didn't catch the double chin. It is there and I will watch for that in the future.

What would you suggest for backgrounds? Any examples that I could look at? This seems to be a common criticism.

I had my display brightness on my camera set too bright. This caused me to adjust my exposure and make it too dark. The noise is real. I should keep the histogram up and shoot to the right. This is especially deceptive when shooting video in darker environments.

Thanks again for your comments,


Tom
My photos http://www.alicoatephotography.com
 
Member said:
aftab wrote:

I like them Tom. Their expressions bring smile on my face. Kathleen has a very sweet smile and it feels it is so easy for her to do so. On the other hand Michael probably is typical of boys of his age, smiles don't come that easy. :) Their expressions have given personalities to the portraits, something I like in this kind of photography.

I don't mind Kathleen's crop and shallow DOF. Its contrast is soft though, if that's what you were after then no problems. But I think a little more contrast will accentuate the detail on the ares in focus. It also has excessive yellow tinge for my liking. I would try to remove it as much as possible.

Michael's background and left shoulder show noise and banding. I wonder if pushed shadows excessively here. What was the ISO?

One more thing. His expression is begging for a different kind of processing, a more dramatic one. If you let me, I can give it a go. :)

--
Life is short.
Travel with passion.
Catch45
Click to expand...
Aftab,

Thank you very much for your response. Kathleen is very photogenic and smiles are easy for her. Michael has braces, and it is all or nothing with him. It is either a big cheesy smile or a serious pose. I can catch him sometimes in true laughter and it is magic, but that doesn't come on queue. Here I just asked him to relax.

I agree on the yellow tinge, and Michael's processing. The noise was from my accidentally underexposing it like you mentioned.

I would love it if you gave it a try. Here is a higher resolution photo, where it is a little more saturated. There is maybe a little too much magenta in it, but it is closer to what he really looks like.




Michael

Here is another similar portrait that I tried to up the drama on. It was in my opinion too dark in his right eye, and the white background(a window) was distracting. The photo that I posted earlier was an attempt to right the wrongs of the following photo. I don't think I succeeded.







Thanks for the response!


Tom
My photos http://www.alicoatephotography.com
 

Attachments

  • 2693989.jpg
    2693989.jpg
    3.1 MB · Views: 0
24Peter said:
24Peter wrote:

Your children are very attractive. I'll echo what the others have said and add don't use auto white balance. The perspective (focal length, composition, angle) on your son is better. You're either too wide or too close to your daughter.

But the good news is you're open to feedback and as result your photos will get better and better. Keep going!
Click to expand...
 
[No message]
 
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