Portraits - critique please!

chilohm

chilohm

Jack Sloan
Local time
7:49 PM
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
154
Here are some portraits I have done recently. Advice and critique welcomed.

I shot these on a Contax G2 with various lenses on to Kodak Portra 160VC and HP5+

1. Sadie eating
2833228240_616d288121_b.jpg


2. Max
2660183155_3b33e9677a_b.jpg


3, Emily
2584094581_116e620dbe_b.jpg


4. Hazel
2642548374_80ca59f483_b.jpg


5. Lorcan in drag
2807836783_4fbe59abd4_b.jpg


6. Amy and Sadie
2833202098_20ef0d61f6_b.jpg


7. Christina 1
2600069197_de61ff8c91_b.jpg


8. Christina 2
2600899766_15ef555cb8_b.jpg
 
I like the first the best but think it needs more contrast. On the other hand, some of the color shots are too contrasty for my tastes (highlights burnt out). Like the last one too.

Jim B.
 
Thank you all. I really appreciate your feedback and would love more.
I'll have a think about contrast...
 
I do not know if you are shooting digital or film. But you are pushing too much contrast and the appears to be signs of over-sharpening.

But I do like the poses and expressions, so you have done well with your directing, just need to get the light under better control.

No. 6 is my pick, light is good, and the poses and expressions are fun and light-hearted.
 
Thanks. I am shooting film. I agree they have come out very contrasty. It's really useful to get other peoples' opinions!
Jack.
 
What film are you using, unless you are shooting transparencies, then you are being let down on the scanning/printing, as most negative film and B&W if exposed properly will have the latitude to handle this amount of contrast. In almost every photo the highlights are blown and the shadows quite blocked. If you are serious about doing portraits you may want to consider getting a reflector or go the cheap route and just move your subjects into open shade to reduce the contrast.
 
Papercut said:
he lists the film used in the OP: Kodak Portra 160VC and Ilford HP5+
Click to expand...

My bad! I tend to look at pictures and avoid the words.

Using Portra 160VC would explain the color photos. I would recommend using Portra NC, which would bring the highlights and shadows back under control.
 
hehehe, i do the same thing many times -- easy to slide over the words when there's pretty pictures enticing the eye! :D
 
OK I'll try NC. Once again, I really appreciate the advice. I've taken pictures for years but never in a serious way. I'm getting addicted now though, so need to learn the trade!
Jack.
 
Interesting Keith. Number 4 and number 7 were my picks as well. Number 4 has very contrasty lighting, but it goes so well with the subject. Number 7 for the reasons you gave.
 
I really like the poses and expressions that the OP captured. My only real nitpick was the complete loss of highlights, which I actually suspect is the result of less than optimal scanning. I like portraits with 'hard-light' for dramatic effect, but you unless you are working 'high-key', you really need to keep a hold on the highlights.

I agree with Keith and others that No.s 4 & 7 are very well done, but I would reject both because of the highlight loss on the hair of lady in No. 4 and the loss of highlight on the chest and shoulders of the girl in No. 7.

Take both negatives to a good printer or scan as a positive using 48bit RGB in a good scanner and then use ColorNeg to invert and you will see the real potential of these photographs.
 
First one is the best to my eye- I quite like the sandwich as smile thing you've got going, and how the edge of the hill goes through the ears.
 
For some reason, i can't see all of the images in the thread.

Which lens(es) did you use on 1, 5, and 7? The 90mm Sonnar?

How were these scanned? There seems to be great sharpness with minimal grain. I love #1, and #7 looks like it was shot by Bruce Weber or Tim Walker. Well done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom