A posed portrait of Danielle

[Alison]

I took this today. Danielle is standing on the stairs directly in front of our front door, I burned the stairs a bit, gave it a supermooth filter then an unsharp mask.
No flash! Woo hoo!
My lovely 50mm 1.8 lens, Manual mode, f/3.2, ss 1/80, ISO 400
Locked my focus on her eyes.

Am I, at last, getting things right with my portraits? Your thoughts please. Thank you.

[CaSousa]

Hey Alison,

I like this shot. The focus is clearly on Danielle, and her skin tones are smooth and even. The only thing that bothers me is the catch-light in the eyes. I think in this shot, since you have such crystal clear focus on the eyes to begin with, those catchlights actually add too much "pop". I'm only recently getting into portraits myself, so this is just my personal opinion.

Overall a great shot though!

[Hodgy]

Personally I think the catchlights are fine, only thing I would do next time is turn her body away from the light just a little more. This will off center the catchlights AND add a bit more "depth" to the shadowing on her face.

Great image, don't you just love the 50 1.8? I think I paid $150 for mine.

[Ronnoco]

This time I disagree with everyone, but Allison. Having been involved in portrait sessions with multiple photographers and then sitting down to tear apart each others work, I could not help but learn a little. One catchlight in each eye is fine and the location is perfect. A catchlight off to the side of the eye is distracting in that the attention is on the light, not the eyes. When the catchlight is in the centre, it keeps the attention on the eyes, themselves and not the light.

Ronnoco

[Alison]

Thank you for posting your opinions here.

Ronnoco - So you are saying this portrait is fine?

[Ronnoco]

Thank you for posting your opinions here.

Ronnoco - So you are saying this portrait is fine?

Yes, excellent! Almost a Mona Lisa expression. Obviously, some personality there! I wondered a bit about the flower on the dress, but decided that it "lightened" the shot and emphasized youth, so it works too.

Ronnoco

[Hodgy]

Catchlights are not distracting unless they are small and pointless. Having large catchlights in the eyes brings your attention to the eyes, and then to the portrait as a whole. If they eyes are lifless, then the portrait is lifless.

This image is not ABOUT the catchlights, it's about the lighting. Turning the body (or moving the light, which cannot be done here) will bring more definition to the broad side of the face. This will add more depth and more flattering. Bringing the subject farther away from the window will also soften the light. This is a great image, but it's flat light.

Being in multiple portrait session too, and tearing apart peoples work, and having my work tore apart, I would like to think I learned a little to. But hey, what the hell do I know.

[Ronnoco]

Catchlights are not distracting unless they are small and pointless. Having large catchlights in the eyes brings your attention to the eyes, and then to the portrait as a whole. If they eyes are lifless, then the portrait is lifless.

This image is not ABOUT the catchlights, it's about the lighting. Turning the body (or moving the light, which cannot be done here) will bring more definition to the broad side of the face. This will add more depth and more flattering. Bringing the subject farther away from the window will also soften the light. This is a great image, but it's flat light.

Being in multiple portrait session too, and tearing apart peoples work, and having my work tore apart, I would like to think I learned a little to. But hey, what the hell do I know.

Different nose, different eyes, different hair and different facial shape, so what may work with one model, will not necessarily work with another as to position or lighting. If it is all about lighting then your lighting was a little on the dark side reducing definition from the background on the right. I would suggest that you add a little fill in that area. Off axial use of a reflector in Alison's portrait would add more depth but, as to whether it would be more flattering? It would be necessary to see the model.

Ronnoco

[CaSousa]

Ok, so i was wrong about the catchlights Perhaps it was the rather ethereal feeling that the eyes have in the portrait that threw me off. I'm still quite an amateur at taking portraits, so am open to the learning experiences around me.

[Alison]

Ronnoco - Thank you so much.
Hodgy - I usually do turn the body more but I wanted to have direct light this time. i was aiming for a more even looking lighting to the face. I think most of it is down to personal preference anyway.
You attached a beautiful portrait by the way.

[jar_e]

Alison,

One of your better shots IMO. The only thing that concerns me is how sharp and almost unrealistic the eyes look. I love the shot, great sharpness, and wonderful work to burn out the BG.

Good job,

Jared

[Ronnoco]

Alison,

One of your better shots IMO. The only thing that concerns me is how sharp and almost unrealistic the eyes look. I love the shot, great sharpness, and wonderful work to burn out the BG.

Good job,

Jared

You seem to be contradicting yourself, Jared. How can the "great sharpness" concern you as per the previous sentence? By the way the guideline for portraiture is that if other elements are de-emphasized through soft lighting, then to create an effective portrait the eyes need to be strengthened through sharp focus.

Ronnoco

[jar_e]

You seem to be contradicting yourself, Jared. How can the "great sharpness" concern you as per the previous sentence? By the way the guideline for portraiture is that if other elements are de-emphasized through soft lighting, then to create an effective portrait the eyes need to be strengthened through sharp focus.

Ronnoco

I love the overall sharpness of the shot, but the eyes are oversharpened IMO which distracts me from the shot. The eyes look very surreal to me compared to the rest of the shot.

Hopefully that makes more sense

[Alison]

Ok here are both images.
The first is SOOC (apart from the conversion to B&W).
The other is the PS version.
As you can see, I didn't actually have to do much to the image. Danielle's hair is like silk in real life so, although I sharpened that too, it still has a soft look. I think that is probably the culprit for making her eyes look sharper than everything else.

[cyberlord]

Ok here are both images.
The first is SOOC (apart from the conversion to B&W).
The other is the PS version.
As you can see, I didn't actually have to do much to the image. Danielle's hair is like silk in real life so, although I sharpened that too, it still has a soft look. I think that is probably the culprit for making her eyes look sharper than everything else.

I find that softening of youthfull skin is not needed or it should be very very subtle. Her face is plenty soft in the untouched photo and it shows more detail due to the contrast that was removed when you used your softening tecnique.

It's fun to play in an image editor and experementation is part of learning.

I wish my family was more willing to pose. Maybe I'll get a manican or big stuffed toy to practice on.

Tim

[Hodgy]

Alright, to me, personally, It's a nice capture, but it could be better. Call it what you will, argue what you want. YOu asked if you are getting it right. IMO no, your not. Your lighting needs work, it needs depth. These were my thoughts, and my suggestions.

Take it or leave it, I do have "some" experience in portraiture.

Anyways, Im outta here.

[Alison]

You sound angry Hodgy. I was just trying to say what look I was after. Under these conditions how did I do?
Any better in colour?

[bobbythebandit]

You sound angry Hodgy. I was just trying to say what look I was after. Under these conditions how did I do?
Any better in colour?

Aaaaaahhhhhhhhh Red hair just like her mums. She is truly stunning. And you are quite lovely yourself Alison. Red hair ? umm any irish blood in there ? i too had red hair before it turned grey, was considered mad as a hatter. I can see you have a love of life by your eyes.
Thks for sharing, Robert

[fotomatt]

Ah yes...one more example which proves my colleague's saying: "photography is a bunch of subjective crap!"

Please don't take this wrong...take it as tongue-in-cheek humor we photographers face when we show our work to others. Show a photograph to an art director or editor one day and maybe they don't like it. Maybe it's one of my lifestyles shots of a couple and the editor is viewing it after having a rough morning with their spouse. Show it to them on another day and they love it. Go figure.

Alison, I think it's a wonderful photograph. I agree Hodgy about rotating the subject to change the light direction. However, I like the way the flat, broad light works - it gives it a high-key fashion look. And - to me - it's her expression that makes the image work.

From somewhere on Colorado's Continental Divide...

Matt Lit
www.LITfoto.com

[poker]

I've been wanting to share my opinion on the bw shots but couldn't gather my thoughts on it. Once I saw the color version, I'm was really happy to see it. I feel the color version is warm, brings in depth, and life. I think the lighting is nice.

The bw version looks a bit contrived and the eyes were so sharp....it looked unreal.

But your efforts are noted because I'm sure you spent some time on it in PS.

Thanks for sharing.

[molaselake]

Hmm...I love black and white, but I wasn't too impressed with the portrait. However, the color (most noteably the changes made by hodgy) version of this is absolutely beautiful.

[Hodgy]

I defianetly like the color better than the black & white. Adds a little more "life" to the image.

[Alison]

That's beautiful Hodgy. Can you tell me how you created that look please?
Looks like you saturated it and used an omni light render.

[Hodgy]

Alison, I picked the a foreground color from her shirt, and the background color black. I then isolated the subject and created the background layer with filter render coulds. I thin used an omni light on the background and burned the edges. I didn't have to to touch the skintone that much (you had a really good exposure and whitebalance, when you get that,99% of the battle is done). I used selective color and removed a bit of cyan in the red channel. I then dodged the eyes, and added a little catchlight in the lower right of her eyes. I then applied a custom softening action (hodgysoft) that I created, and stepmounted the whole thing twice.

[Alison]

Yeah I thought you might have done something like that. I have done that before. I have also found that the gold pattern and red pattern tools work well with this image but I decided to go with the B&W version. The Porcelain skin look was what I was trying to acheive.

By the way, I thought you was outta here lol