Portrait : Holly

Hi all,

TFP Shoot in the early autumn last year in the city arboretum. (I can't wait until c19 lets us all out to play again)

Canon m50, 35mm f2 (54mm @ f3.2 equiv). On camera flash through stofen diffuser.

I usually balance ambient + flash, but I like this specifically because the flash light pulls her off the background "HSS Look" style.

C+C always welcome.


Holly

Nicely executed, though it seems a little "static" to me. I recently saw some advice that straight-on full-face portraits should be avoided. I had not heard that before. I know I have many of that type. :-D

--
DS

I think the lighting works.

Composition wise, I think the centered composition leaves too much space above Holly's head, and there's too much background and too little Holly.

Holly looks nice and her expression is really good.

When I crop in this (with a 100% in viewer) it is much, much more effective. There is far too much unneeded background in this. Her image is very nice, and should be shown to highlight both your work and her beauty.

Wide and centred is difficult to pull off well. If you have someone's face dead in the centre of a wide photo it will look naive... that's not to say it can't work well, but rarely does.

Depending on how important the location is (in which case the background needs to be a touch brighter) I'd have gone tall with a 4:3 crop (red) or 2:3 crop (blue). Conventional, but doesn't ask any awkward questions.

Your light source is nice and soft, though I'm no fan of straight on light.

jkjond said:

Wide and centred is difficult to pull off well. If you have someone's face dead in the centre of a wide photo it will look naive... that's not to say it can't work well, but rarely does.

Depending on how important the location is (in which case the background needs to be a touch brighter) I'd have gone tall with a 4:3 crop (red) or 2:3 crop (blue). Conventional, but doesn't ask any awkward questions.

Your light source is nice and soft, though I'm no fan of straight on light.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'll probably crop down into a tighter landscape format then, a few have mentioned the crop - This is why c+c is so important, sometimes you fall in love with aspects of am image and don't see the big picture.

I would always prefer to use at the least a shoot through umbrella with an off camera flash but this is not always possible when shooting in the field.

I do agonise over whether on camera flash is good enough. I think it generally is as long as it gives decent fill (and the stofen diffuser seems good enough in a pinch) and a client probably won't notice the difference.

Usually my flash and ambient are balanced when shooting outside, but this is one instance where I kicked the flash power up specifically - I think it has worked - I think I will fix the crop however....

The lighting and pose are uninspiring.

Something a little more dramatic might flatter her better.

Tedolph

Very nice.

PhotosByHall said:

jkjond said:

Wide and centred is difficult to pull off well. If you have someone's face dead in the centre of a wide photo it will look naive... that's not to say it can't work well, but rarely does.

Depending on how important the location is (in which case the background needs to be a touch brighter) I'd have gone tall with a 4:3 crop (red) or 2:3 crop (blue). Conventional, but doesn't ask any awkward questions.

Your light source is nice and soft, though I'm no fan of straight on light.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'll probably crop down into a tighter landscape format then, a few have mentioned the crop - This is why c+c is so important, sometimes you fall in love with aspects of am image and don't see the big picture.

I would always prefer to use at the least a shoot through umbrella with an off camera flash but this is not always possible when shooting in the field.

I do agonise over whether on camera flash is good enough. I think it generally is as long as it gives decent fill (and the stofen diffuser seems good enough in a pinch) and a client probably won't notice the difference.

Usually my flash and ambient are balanced when shooting outside, but this is one instance where I kicked the flash power up specifically - I think it has worked - I think I will fix the crop however....

Click to expand...

She is lovely,but I agree, it needs to be cropped. Seems like I saw a portrait guy on Youtube say the eyes should be on the upper 3rd line. I would crop this and put her eyes up to the upper 3rd and over to the camera right 3rd. That will get in tighter and show off her pretty face as well, you'll knock off two birds with one stone.

Why is it I can look at other folks photos and yet I can't seem to see what I should see when it's me needing to see it in the moment? I find myself going to flicker and going through hundreds of photos and asking myself how I would change the shots hoping this will get my mind used to what I should be looking for.

This shot can be made fine with just a better crop, so good job.

Darrell Spreen said:

Nicely executed, though it seems a little "static" to me. I recently saw some advice that straight-on full-face portraits should be avoided. I had not heard that before. I know I have many of that type. :-D

Click to expand...

Straight on full face portraits have a mug shot quality, which is why they are not recommended unless the picture is for an ID or maybe a head shot for a corporate web site "staff members" gallery. This is a fine picture, per se, but I wonder why 35mm was chosen. 85mm or even 50mm would be a better choice.

SteveinLouisville said:

Darrell Spreen said:

Nicely executed, though it seems a little "static" to me. I recently saw some advice that straight-on full-face portraits should be avoided. I had not heard that before. I know I have many of that type. :-D

Click to expand...

Straight on full face portraits have a mug shot quality, which is why they are not recommended unless the picture is for an ID or maybe a head shot for a corporate web site "staff members" gallery. This is a fine picture, per se, but I wonder why 35mm was chosen. 85mm or even 50mm would be a better choice.

Click to expand...

It's on a APSC crop camera, so it's a 56mm f3.2 equivalent.

I've got 85mm and 135mm for portraits now, just waiting for us to actually be able to leave the house and shoot again.

PhotosByHall said:

SteveinLouisville said:

Darrell Spreen said:

Nicely executed, though it seems a little "static" to me. I recently saw some advice that straight-on full-face portraits should be avoided. I had not heard that before. I know I have many of that type. :-D

Click to expand...

Straight on full face portraits have a mug shot quality, which is why they are not recommended unless the picture is for an ID or maybe a head shot for a corporate web site "staff members" gallery. This is a fine picture, per se, but I wonder why 35mm was chosen. 85mm or even 50mm would be a better choice.

Click to expand...

It's on a APSC crop camera, so it's a 56mm f3.2 equivalent.

I've got 85mm and 135mm for portraits now, just waiting for us to actually be able to leave the house and shoot again.

Click to expand...

OK, APSC sensor, got it.

One thing to remember, though, is that the crop reflects the FOV of the lens, which doesn't change regardless of the sensor size. 35mm FOV is what it is. Cropping with the smaller sensor is the same as taking the picture on a FF, then cropping it in software. A 56mm lens, with it's specific FOV is more accurate for portraits, as there is less inherent distortion and greater magnification of the image.

Cropping isn't the same as magnification of the image. Think of it this way: an image taken with a 35mm lens can be cropped (either with a small sensor or in software) to have the FOV equivalence of a 200mm lens. The 200mm lens is far, far superior in image quality, however, because it inherently has a tighter FOV and the magnification of the image is greater.

The picture of Holly is fine, but the FOV is too wide to properly work for this kind of portrait. I use mine (on a FF camera) for environment portraits, not head shots.

Although, I have to admit, 35mm can sometimes work for head shots. See photo below, of my partner, wearing her mask. If you use 35mm for a shot like this, get in close, shoot wide open or close to it, to blur out the background. The issue is usually the "big nose" syndrome, where the nose of the subject is larger in the photo than it is in reality. Since she had a mask on, that wasn't a problem for this shot. With a telephoto the image is less distorted and the proportions of the face are more accurate. I included one of her taken with an 85mm for comparison.


Wear your mask!!

SteveinLouisville said:

One thing to remember, though, is that the crop reflects the FOV of the lens, which doesn't change regardless of the sensor size. 35mm FOV is what it is. Cropping with the smaller sensor is the same as taking the picture on a FF, then cropping it in software. A 56mm lens, with it's specific FOV is more accurate for portraits, as there is less inherent distortion and greater magnification of the image.

Cropping isn't the same as magnification of the image. Think of it this way: an image taken with a 35mm lens can be cropped (either with a small sensor or in software) to have the FOV equivalence of a 200mm lens. The 200mm lens is far, far superior in image quality, however, because it inherently has a tighter FOV and the magnification of the image is greater.

The picture of Holly is fine, but the FOV is too wide to properly work for this kind of portrait. I use mine (on a FF camera) for environment portraits, not head shots.

Although, I have to admit, 35mm can sometimes work for head shots. See photo below, of my partner, wearing her mask. If you use 35mm for a shot like this, get in close, shoot wide open or close to it, to blur out the background. The issue is usually the "big nose" syndrome, where the nose of the subject is larger in the photo than it is in reality. Since she had a mask on, that wasn't a problem for this shot. With a telephoto the image is less distorted and the proportions of the face are more accurate. I included one of her taken with an 85mm for comparison.

Click to expand...

Thanks for this - I am aware of the issue , that's why I wrote "equivalent". A 35mm is a 35mm, no matter what you mount it on.

I believe as someone said put it best on one of the subforums with "the equivalence wars rage on".

I've got 85mm and 135mm lenses for portraits going forwards, just waiting for an actual chance to use them again. It's freezing cold and we are on lockdown in the UK at the minute, so it's quite depressing.

PhotosByHall said:

Thanks for this - I am aware of the issue , that's why I wrote "equivalent". A 35mm is a 35mm, no matter what you mount it on.

Click to expand...

I apologize if I sounded like I was talking down to you. A lot of people genuinely don't understand the crop issue. I was one of them for a long time.

Good luck with your photos. Both the 85 and 135 are sweet portrait lenses. When I did a lot of concert photography, the 135mm f2.0 was my go-to lens. Here are a couple of examples: terrible light, high ISO (for 15 years ago) but still got the shots.




Singer




Guitar and drums




Cage dancer

SteveinLouisville said:

SteveinLouisville said:

Thanks for this - I am aware of the issue , that's why I wrote "equivalent". A 35mm is a 35mm, no matter what you mount it on.

Click to expand...

I apologize if I sounded like I was talking down to you. A lot of people genuinely don't understand the crop issue. I was one of them for a long time.

Good luck with your photos. Both the 85 and 135 are sweet portrait lenses. When I did a lot of concert photography, the 135mm f2.0 was my go-to lens. Here are a couple of examples: terrible light, high ISO (for 15 years ago) but still got the shots.

Click to expand...

I didn't think that at all - it's all good.

Like you said - it can be a touch confusing and a lot of people do struggle with it.

Nice concert photos dude. I LOVE shooting gigs, looking forward to getting back to it whenever all this c19 malarkey is over.

PhotosByHall said:

Nice concert photos dude. I LOVE shooting gigs, looking forward to getting back to it whenever all this c19 malarkey is over.

Click to expand...

The 135mm f2.0 is da BOMB for concert photos. Notice how slow my shutter speed was on those photos, hand held, no IS, at ISO 400! Still, the photos were either nice and sharp or the blur was so tiny and colorful that the photo itself was enhanced by it. I loved, loved, loved that lens. I would buy another one but I doubt I will be hitting any concerts anymore. At least, um, like that one.




singer




MC's

tedolf said:

The lighting and pose are uninspiring.

Something a little more dramatic might flatter her better.

Tedolph

Click to expand...

I agree. Flash to background ratio seems kind of blah. Frontal flash a bit flat. Nonetheless. Take heart and good tidings in your after C19 images. It is chilly here too and low energy as well.

PS. Check out f stoppers for swell array of portrait styles, good peopl photo experiments and learning ops. aloha nui.

Gerry Siegel said:

tedolf said:

The lighting and pose are uninspiring.

Something a little more dramatic might flatter her better.

Tedolph

Click to expand...

I agree. Flash to background ratio seems kind of blah. Frontal flash a bit flat. Nonetheless. Take heart and good tidings in your after C19 images. It is chilly here too and low energy as well.

PS. Check out f stoppers for swell array of portrait styles, good peopl photo experiments and learning ops. aloha nui.

Click to expand...

Frontal flash is always a bit boring.

We got some shots in the loop lighting pattern later on with an umbrella. All I've done over c19 is read lighting theory and watch youtube videos. As you said, just waiting for c19 to do one now.

Lovely skin tones, and I really like the contrast with the background.

-Charles