Do I take bad portraits?

Paul P K said:

Very simple question: if they're portraits, and in particular of, and not in the last place, for the model, why are they shot in landscape mode?

Click to expand...

Portraits can be shot in landscape orientation. I prefer it for many portraits. Landscape and portrait orientation are terms not cardinal rules of photography.

freetiegui said:

Paul P K said:

Very simple question: if they're portraits, and in particular of, and not in the last place, for the model, why are they shot in landscape mode?

Click to expand...

Portraits can be shot in landscape orientation. I prefer it for many portraits. Landscape and portrait orientation are terms not cardinal rules of photography.

Click to expand...

Indeed ... the "portrait" does not have a required shape ... for an environmental portrait it should be what ever the environment dictates. However, it is up to the photographer to choose the environment.

Maybe, for this type of work, you chose an environment that is too structurally busy ... almost as though the background is more important than the model. It might be worthwhile to revisit how you segregate the environment to better represent the model.

freetiegui said:

Paul P K said:

Very simple question: if they're portraits, and in particular of, and not in the last place, for the model, why are they shot in landscape mode?

Click to expand...

Portraits can be shot in landscape orientation. I prefer it for many portraits. Landscape and portrait orientation are terms not cardinal rules of photography.

Click to expand...

If you shoot for the model, and not for yourself, the taste of the model is the cardinal rule to follow.

And that as a rule is that he emphasis has to be on the model, and bringing a lot of distracting surroundings/details in it is exactly what should be avoided.

To parafrase the last remark in my earlier post, you can of course shoot a portrait in landscape model, leaving aside the discussion over personal taste. But when you should for the model, as the OP did, the pictures should focus on her, and she understandably will not be pleased with pictures photographers may like, and don't put the attention/flatter her.

--
all in a day's work
http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/

Hi

I only did my first formal studio shoot with a model yesterday, so I am hardly an expert, but I have been taking photos for many years.

I think you did really well, and you do have a certain style which I like. I do think that some discussion with the model beforehand, and perhaps going through some examples on the net with her would have helped you.

Then you could have made sure you covered her expectations, and then shot some with more of your own agenda. Did you do any chimping with her during the shoot to get some feedback?

Have another go at it with her.

I think you should be quite pleased with yourself!

--
Berni29
EM-10, GM1 + Pana 12-32mm, 35-100mm f2.8, 20mm f1.7, Voight 17.5mm f0.95, Oly 45mm, 50mm F2 macro, (prev EM5, GH1, E30, E510, E1, E300, LX3)

Image #1 makes her look strange. She's clearly looking at something in front of her, but we can't see it. She looks like she's poppin' out of her shirt at the mid-section.

Image #2 looks like it was shot 1/2 second too early. If she had just taken a step and half more then she would be blocking the two vertical rails. In the picture, all that vertical metal is dominating the image. The result is that she just looks like someone on the street, rather than the model photograph it could have been.

Image #3 is pretty good. There are some minor issues, but it's a good starting point for sure.

Image #4 is the same thing. Now she needs to be in front of the vertical post just to her left.

Image #5 is pretty good. Yeah I like that one.

-

Lighting is a pain. Especially on a cloudy day. I always like models to have a little sunlight on them. If you don't have that, then you have to invent it. Real light looks amazing on people, so reflectors are typically used outside where lights and batteries would be a pain. But I would still try to light the face and body; perhaps with a bounce flash into an umbrella that a nice assistant was holding.

rxb dc said:

I personally like #1 and #4. The model is very pretty and you seem to bring out a certain character which is very nice.

However, as others have said, the key is who is the portrait for? If it is for the subject, then you have to think about what they would like to do with it and how they would feel about it.

The basic issue I think is that your photo has an urban, gritty feel whereas the subject probably wanted a light, bubbly feel.

Some aspects to consider:

• the lighting is moody, almost ominous, what one might see in a movie right before the bad guys come. That leaves one with an underlying disquiet.
  My experience is that most portraits are better with light, airy, bright mood - imagine your model in a field of flowers.
• Composition - in some, what you have is almost an environmental portrait. It succeeds in that regard but if the intent was to highlight the model, you may need tighter composition
• You have to touch up the skin, at least a little. At least the zit on the forehead and maybe even soften the freckles a little bit.
• she has very nice eyes - a catch light and little brightening would be great
• you can do light PP to improve contrast
• In most portraits, you are better off with the subject brighter than the background unless you aiming for a high key effect.

Here is some (very quick and dirty) rework of your photo. I hope you don't mind.



--
Safety Warning: Bad taste unmitigated by moderate skill

Click to expand...

I think your advice is spot on... much less your post processing which IMHO has ruined the photo

--
Ciao!
Roberto
My photos: http://rdmfashionphoto.com/

>> think your advice is spot on... much less your post processing which IMHO has ruined the photo

There is a good reason why consultants stay away from the messy business of implementation! Your observation is probably correct.

Btw, very nice photos on your site - I seem to recall you may have posted a few here some time back. Very creative. Professional or personal?
--
Safety Warning: Bad taste unmitigated by moderate skill

rxb dc said:

>> think your advice is spot on... much less your post processing which IMHO has ruined the photo

There is a good reason why consultants stay away from the messy business of implementation!

Click to expand...

Yes I can relate to that

rxb dc said:

Your observation is probably correct.

Btw, very nice photos on your site - I seem to recall you may have posted a few here some time back. Very creative. Professional or personal?

Click to expand...

Strictly personal (hobbyist) although I do treat my shoots as professionally as I can and I do like to think that my passion for it comes through

And thanks!

rxb dc said:

--
Safety Warning: Bad taste unmitigated by moderate skill

Click to expand...

ThawTar said:

I came to this community with the hopes of learning from the experience of its members. To be quite honest, I'm new to photography as a whole. I take mostly street photography, night photography and urban landscape photos. But recently I've been intrigued by the art of portraiture. So last weekend, I did my very first photo-shoot for a "friend" I know on Instagram. Long story short...she didn't seem to like the pictures. So I'm hoping to get feedback from everyone here at DPReview to see what is fundamentally wrong with the pictures and maybe shine a light on why my client didn't like it. Do I take bad portraits? Thanks in advance.

Click to expand...

No you don't take bad photos at all. They are not exactly portraits as others have said.

I do like the location a lot. Where is it?

As for why she does not like them, no idea apart from the fact that they are not exactly portrait, apart perhaps from the 5th. Also, as other have mentioned she may be sensitive to her body shape and there are poses and angles that would slim her down a bit. Also using a longer focal length could help (if you have the room). While I also agree that the background is a bit distracting, as someone interested in editorial photography I do not find it objectionable (mostly).

Now for the specific photos:

Number 1 is my favourite I think that the background creates a sort of natural framing around her that really works. I would crop the bottom a bit to remove that lighter bit of pavement on the right side (or darken it in post to make it uniform with the rest)

ThawTar said:

Click to expand...

Second one: love (love!) the background but the pose makes her look tick-ish and the lightning on her face is not good. a diffuser would have helped I think. Her eyes should not disappear. Also I would have framed with her nearer to the right side.

ThawTar said:

Click to expand...

Third one: the pose doesn't do many favours to her belly. I like her head and expression but it is a bit too dark compared to the rest of her body.

ThawTar said:

Click to expand...

4th: she works well for me but the rest of the background is too bright relatively speaking. A bit of fill flash from the left side would have helped methinks

ThawTar said:

Click to expand...

Last one is the weakest IMHO. She looks great but the bridge sprouting from her head doesn't work for me at all. Pity the rest is spot on.

ThawTar said:

Click to expand...

--
Ciao!
Roberto
My photos: http://rdmfashionphoto.com/

No - You don't. Simple.

c h u n k said:

No - You don't. Simple.

Click to expand...

Excellent feedback! This is my first exposure to this forum on dpreview and I'm very impressed! The comments are informative, insightful and cordial.

I like your style a lot and think you succeeded masterfully in most of the shots. I do think that you stumbled into an eternal dilemma which is the how to reconcile the desires of the subject vs. the desires of the photographer, as well as the target audience beyond the subject.

These shots are artistically beautiful, IMHO, but would not work for a model or actress wanting primary headshots for their auditions or web site - just to choose an extreme counter-example. They might work well for a model or actress as secondary shots on their web site.

One of my photographer friends - when creating photographs for a subject - shows the potential subject various photographs prior to the shoot in order to get an understanding of their taste. OTOH, if the photographer is using a model for her own purposes (artistic or commercial), she still shows the subject some sample photographs prior to the shoot, but she does this to communicate what she, the photographer, wants the model to achieve.

Funny how quickly the human communications dwarf the issues of light and technology!

I think that you have an outstanding eye and when viewing these photographs I think that you have an excellent rapport with the subject.

What you may be lacking is the technical side, perhaps a good course in location lighting and use of natural light and the tools for improving it.

As far as the model liking the photograph, without speaking it out with her you will just run around in circles. She is very pretty and has class (my opinion), but she is a bit overweight by this century's standards, still very pretty. If she felt that she should look thinner, no matter how perfect the lighting, position, location...it won't go up on her Facebook page and she would probably never tell you why.

Move on, but in my opinion, move on in this direction. Your DPR gallery does not show set up, posed shots like these. Your use of the model and the environment works extremely well. Do a lot more of this type of thing - set up, loosely posed, environmental portraiture. Work on your post processing. Work on the technical side of the set up and the exposure. I like your use of locations. No.1 is outstanding. I am absolutely certain that you will produce great photography.

Wishing you the best,
Mo Kwart

I think for your first session these are pretty good. One thing I've learned is Models/women in general can be particularly sensitive about very specific things. Keep practicing and be careful using some of the wider focal lengths. I look forward to seeing your work a year from now. I think you have a good eye.

Actually, these are excellent for a beginner. The first one is very good.

Now for the bad news:

the client is always right, even when she is wrong. I too, often experience that the shots I like the best are not the ones the model likes the best. Almost never. I recently did a photo study of an old friend (can't post, don't have model release). The four shots I like the best were the ones she liked the least. They were technically very good and captured aspects of her personality that I found admirable.

And that I think is the problem. If you take a good portrait photo, it will reveal something about the model's personality. If she knows what she is doing, she can project what she wants and you simply capture it. If she is not an experienced model, you may capture something about herself she isn't totally comfortable with or doesn't want to project publically. You will often see this when shooting young adults. You will take a shot the father/mother loves, but the daughter hates!

So, don't take the model/subject's opinions too personally. Just take a broad range of poses, lighting set ups, etc. and let the client pick out what she likes. You really should take at least 36-40 acceptable shots, and out of that get 3 or 4 that you like, and 3 or 4 that she likes.

Get a model release and use the ones you like for promotion, and sell the others to her.

TEdolph

Tedolph