Critique #36 *Portrait*-5 Participants

[sbug]

ampguy: Do I sense a bit of American Gothic here? I quite like that they are not both looking at the camera and her pose is fantastic. Very contemplative. That said, it would benefit from a less cluttered background and the lighting leaves it a bit flat. Give it a try again, you've got great subjects to work with.

wayne: great pose and a beautiful model. Her eyes make the picture work for me. Is this a scan of the negative or a print? I'd probably clean it up a bit either in Photoshop or with a better scan and I'd prefer to not miss the very top and right of her hair. That said, you've got the most important stuff about a portrait nailed here. Well done.

rncamero: I like the casual, non-posed look this has. It's got a very 'real' look to it. I do wish his hands were a bit lower and covered less of his face and the background on the left side can be a bit distracting. It's a great environmental portrait.

remrf: That's a beautiful expression you caught on her. I'd imagine she is quite happy with this shot as well. I do find myself continually tilting my head as I look at this one. I have difficulty 'seeing' her with the angle. Maybe that's just me though. I did save this one and added a bit of contrast and unsharp mask and that made a nice improvement in my eyes. No deal breakers here though. This one should be printed and on a wall.

 

[ampguy]

critiques

critiques

Wayne -- very nice. Clean black background and very sharp. I like the natural smile and the very close-up capturing the hair, eyes, and teeth details. It's kind of like "HD b&w", very sharp, and good contrast.

Rncamero -- very sharp. Looks like the guy is wearing a rolex daytona watch. I think it would be nice to have the left background blurred a bit more. very nice.

Remrf -- very nice, softer, warmer and less close-up than Wayne's above, but more traditional, and still in good focus. The exposure seems perfect, but the white vertical stripe at the far R side seems distracting at least on-screen. very nice smile.

Sbug -- very nice color, perfect framing, exposure, and OOF background. I especially like that the person is not centered, yet in the OOF parts, there is nothing distracting. I'll bet you used a very expensive lens for this, and maybe a tripod??

 

[remrf]

Sorry it took so long to respond to this thread. Work has been...."interesting" of late. Plus I wanted to think a bit about my reactions to the photos posted on the thread.


Ampguy: I don't know if you have read or looked at any of the other portrait threads I have participated in thus far. In them I have posted a Wikipedia definition of the word "portrait" and then gone on to add my own interpretation of the word. Your photo meets the basic definition of the term but falls outside my own. You had a daunting task to begin with in my opinion. Portraits of children can be the most difficult of any attempted. It is a lot like herding cats. Kids typically don't want their picture taken and don't understand why their elders want them to stand still for them. Their attention wanders quickly. This photo has more a the feel of a grab shot than a portrait. A lucky happenstance which could fall into the area of the "candid" portrait" to some but not to me.

First, the full frontal is a camera angle rarely used in potraiture and for good reason. It usually comes off somewhat flat. 3/4 profile is much more common and to my eye is more pleasing and complementary to the subject. I usually ask the subject to turn their body slightly one way or the other and then turn their head back toward the camera. Try it. I think you will like the results. In this photo had you pulled the sofa away from the wall and shot at a slight angle on either side I think the result would have been much more pleasing. It would also had gotten rid of the glare behind the subjects.
The same with the lighting. It appears that you used a flash on or very near the camera which also renders a harsh and flat light. And in this photo also causes a glare off the wood paneling behind the subjects. I personally NEVER use a flash on the camera except when I'm doing news/crime scene type photos. I have never liked the harsh sharp shadows it creates or the "deer in the headlights" look of the subjects.

A tighter crop would also help in this photo. There is too much additional "stuff" in the photo taking the eye away from the subjects. The young lady's posture was very nice but the young man is slouching which also detracts from the overall content.

Having said all that there is a quality to the shot that I do like. Especially the expression on the young lady's face. The young man however looks like he is plotting his revenge. 😉


Wayne: There isn't much not to like with this photo. Expertly placed lighting (either that or you are the luckiest sob on the planet in terms of available light 🙄 ) I say this because the lighting is very natual looking and does not scream PORTRAIT LIGHTING at the viewer.
Relaxed and pleasant expression on a very pretty face. I am curious about something though. While the crop works here very well I wonder why it was chosen? Is there a school of portrait thought that says cropping portions of the head are THE thing to do? This is not a criticism. I am truly curious.


rncamero: I agree with others on this thread. Too much of the face is hidden for this to be a portrait. But it is still a good photograph and I like it.
My first thought was that it needed to be cropped a bit on the left but the longer I look at it I am less sure this would improve this shot. As I mentally apply the crop at about where the left most leg of the table curves up to the table top it seems as if such a crop would "cramp" the subject. I think you had it right to begin with. Good shot.

sbug: A good shot well executed. Overcast day which evened the light and left no harsh shadows. Good background focus fall off to highlight the subject. My first impression was to crop the shot more traditionally and not have so much open space on the right side but again the longer I looked at your photo the less inclined I am to suggest any change. Good shot. Good eye.



I agree by the way with the objections to the bright stripe on the right side of my photo. Cropping any closer would hack the image up in my opinion and going wider would not have changed much of anything. Had I printed this shot I would have taken care of it in the darkroom. But I don't know how to apply a selective burn in ps so I went with it as it was.

The weather is getting cooler and I am planning another shoot with Ashley as well as another young lady from work who has also agreed to pose for me. Ingrid is from South America and has a completely different look and style than Ashley. I am looking forward to working with her.

 

[Wayne R. Scott]

Wayne: While the crop works here very well I wonder why it was chosen? Is there a school of portrait thought that says cropping portions of the head are THE thing to do? This is not a criticism. I am truly curious.

These are good questions. This photo is from a series of photos that I shot of this gal for her modeling portfolio. One of the requested shots was a black & white "head shot" for the portfolio. This is one of those "Head Shots". Apparently modeling agents look at the facial features in a glossy 8x10 to decide who will work and who won't. So in a strict sense this is not a classic portrait shot.

Indeed, this is not an existing light shot. Three lights and a reflector where used to photograph her. Normally I boss my lights around when doing portrait work so they do what I want them to do 🙂.

sbug- Yes, this is a scan from a dusty 8x10 print on a crappy flat bed scanner from a couple of years ago. (My first negative scanner ever, an Epson 4990, arrived Sat. and I am just now learning to scan negatives. Old dog, new tricks.)

Wayne

 

[remrf]

I was kidding about existing light. I can see the main, fill and hair light but they are very subtle and do not call attention to the lighting over the subject.

 

[sbug]

Thanks everyone for the comments. I think this has been the best critique thread I have participated in so far.

For what it's worth, yes the day was mostly overcast, yes I consciously did not frame the shot vertically and as for equipment: Nikon S3, 105/2.5, Kodak Portra 160VC. F4 @ 1/125th or 1/250th, handheld. Post-processing was limited to unsharp mask and a resize for posting. I've never considered myself good with portraits so one day a few weeks back I hauled two wrought iron chairs out to the middle of my parents lawn and started taking portraits for practice. This one is of my mom.

 

[rncamero]

This is great, thanks for all the comments guys. I'm glad to have participated in this one - been overdue for something like this.

I also think his face is a bit hidden - not quite a recognizable gesture, but for the time it was. Weeks away from his first gallery show, he was a bit stressed and constantly poring over his chosen pieces to display. There were bits in this one I thought represented his style - pinhole photography (the shirt), the cafe windows felt like the same dimensions as his 4x5 negs, and the OOF view into the cafe reminiscent of his own ephemeral style of pinholes.

I should've moved the table, but afterwards I liked the way the legs looked against the white wall.

Anyway, I was able to read in a lot, and that helped to make this one a favorite of mine for a bit... just wanted to see how it stood up outside of that. Thanks again guys!