Valerie up close

[McMadCow]

I shot with Val for the second time last weekend. Got a few shots and I'm pretty happy with two that I'll be sharing over the next couple of days. I'll post this one since I'm still trying to get the other one to match the print I got in my darkroom.

Lens was 50mm. f2.8 or so. I forget the shutter speed. Film is Tri-X.
Comments and critiques are appreciated!

[jbaldocchi]

Interesting portrait. I think I would have backed up a little. A 90mm or longer lens is preferable for portraits, it's a little easier on the complexion. The image has good tonal range but I don't like the out of focus part from her chin down. It makes her hair unflattering. Good focus on her eyes. I love tri-x.

Jim B.

[Alison]

Had this been a portrait of me I don't think I would be very flattered with the shadows under my eyes.

Is the young lady happy with the portrait? If so, then who cares what I think? LOL

Other than that, great clarity and tones. The F/2.8 doesn't bother me at all. I use 2.8 alot

[GB1]

MadCow - It's ok but the direct angle isn't as glamourous as it would have been from a slight sideway angle. The lighting is a little flat here. I do like her eyes however... Try a crop of just them and see how it looks. The B&W is a plus.
GB

[point*break]

I like this shot, people are saying that the angle is not glamourous but i doubt that is what you were aiming for? Loads of impact in the eye and with the short Dof. Love it!!

[McMadCow]

I like this shot, people are saying that the angle is not glamourous but i doubt that is what you were aiming for? Loads of impact in the eye and with the short Dof. Love it!!

Yeah, I definitely wasn't going for the "glamorous" look... thanks for noticing!
Jim, I'm currently in the market for either a 90mm or a 135mm lens for my SLR, but holy cow are they expensive. Even so, this is one of those instances I probably still would have stuck with the 50 for the downward angle. I'm looking forward to being able to compare the effects of the normal lens and some other longer options.
Alison, I just sent this scan off to my model but I haven't heard back from her yet. I'll go out on a limb and say I think she'll like it because both times we've shot together we stressed a really subdued natural look. Also, she's an extremely beautiful girl and photogs usually want to "glam" her up a bit in response to that. I think she likes the occasional change of pace. At least, she liked it enough to want to shoot again. As I said in my OP, I've got another shot that I'm extremely happy with. At least, I'm extremely happy with my darkroom print of it. Hopefully I can continue to tweak it in PS to translate it to the digital world. It is a much more "traditional" beauty shot, BTW.
Thanks to all for the comments so far!

[Seb]

The eyes are striking for sure. I am not sure about the dof though. The blur lend to a strange effect. I think that I would back up to f/8 or so to get everything in focus. I am too concerned about the shadow under the eyes but she's beautiful anyway (and that's your picture, not mine, I know that you are not into the usual glamourous kind of photography).

Seb

[yogestee]

Sorry McMadCow,,,,this is not a very flattering portrait of a young lady...Your 50mm lens has distorted Valerie's facial features and the bags under her eyes aren't very nice...Sharpness and skin tones are good though..

Jurgen

[GB1]

Sorry McMadCow,,,,this is not a very flattering portrait of a young lady...Your 50mm lens has distorted Valerie's facial features and the bags under her eyes aren't very nice...Sharpness and skin tones are good though..

Jurgen

The eyes still have some sparkle. Here's a high-contrast, high-brightness edit to exemplify...

[veggie]

I really enjoyed the top half, but the bottom does not work for me. It seems like her neck is disconnected. The eyes are amazing though, they make the shot!