My first 4x5 portrait

Dear colleagues, I made my first 4x5 portrait with movements, to be

exact - front tilt. Did I outdo myself or am I wrong? my first

attempt and I am a bit of in doubt. Your critique is highly welcome!:)

http://www.photo.net/photo/2135693<div></div>

Is the subject a model or a client, and what did she think of the shot?

No, she is not a client nor a model;) and what do you think, Art?

Did you intend the hands, etc. to be so far out of focus, or was that just the result of tilting to get the face entirely in focus?

I think that this belongs in the Photo Critique Forum.

Leonard, yes. But I think i tilted too much, the hands are too blurred and seem bigger than they are. Do you think so?

Shall I exhibit it or it is spoiled by extreme tilt?

Ben is right, sorry! http://www.photo.net/photo/2135693

Bill, sorry again! %)

>>>"No, she is not a client nor a model;) and what do you think, Art?"<<< Then what is she? A "model" doesn't have to be a paid pro. A volunteering neighbor can be a "model." My thoughts are irrelevant as my take on portraiture is VERY personal, but I'll say this: I fail to see why you felt the need to front-tilt and why you chose such a stern expression unless it's theatrical.

I rather like some/most of this. You used back tilt, from the angle of focus, and I do think the resulting band of sharpness on the background is distracting, given the overall blur/softness. Had the background at that level been a table with detail (books/sewing/medical instruments, etc.) it would have tied in with the face, but right now a featureless background band competes with the face for attention.

 

Less dramatic of a tilt, and a forward tilt as well, could have gotten the face, a bit more of the hands (though I sort of like them ghosted out), and also had the background sharp focus thrown high, out of the picture. Wide open aperture.

 

You could have also moved her further from the backdrop, and your existing tilt would have thrown the focus plane out of frame below, as well. Other than that, if you like the ghost large hands, great, that is a matter of taste. But, I think that extraneous background band of focus is a technical error/oversight.

incindentally, cropping close to shoulders left and right, possibly cropping just above the hands, makes a tight, nice selective focus portrait, and does away with the visible sharpness in the background.

looks like photoshop blur of a digital pic......

Rusla,

 

I like the tilt in this example. I think you may have overdone it just a little bit. Instead

of moving my eye to the face (which is sharp), my eye moves to the out of focus

hands (because they are so far out of focus). A little goes a long way here, but I think

you're on the right track.

Move to photo criticque section?

 

Most of the people who look there wouldn't know what to make of a question about tilts.

Using tilts in portraiture is a personal perference, Rusla. Personally, I don't like it, as the technique seems strained to me - too much effort at being "creative". In your example, having part of the background in focus is also bothersome to me, and I agree that the hands are too far out of focus.

I like it... An interesting break from the usual "pleasant" portrait... I do agree with the fuzzy hands being distracting... They need to be burned down a stop, or so, to be less distracting...

Rusla:

 

I think this is a good one, the tilt thing lends itself to the overall

look of the portrait which I find interesing. It makes me want to

know more about this person, which is all you can ask for in a

portrait of someone .

 

good work.

 

Ray Bidegain

I agree with earlier posters about the hands being distracting. On the other hand, the fuzzy/enlargened hands add to the general ethereal quality of the portrait.

 

I like it a lot.

If you move it to critique photo, They wouldn't answer the question. Noone seems to answer any question I ask at all. <a href = "http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?topic_id=1481&msg_id=007P0e&photo_id=2133908&photo_sel_index=0">Here's Proof! </a>

>Jay Lynch , feb 16, 2004; 10:06 a.m.

 

>looks like photoshop blur of a digital pic......

 

Only to someone that doesn't know how to use tilt....

I can see the theatrics you were trying for and it almost worked. But tilts isn't the way to do it. The band of sharp focus is confusing to the eye and the hands are too far out of focus. The expression works for me but I would like to see the entire face including hair piece in some sort of focus. One of the things that bothers me is the line down the front of her shirt that is so out of focus as to make me wonder is it the cleft between her ample bossom or shirt seam? All in all a good idea but too far short of your goal. If you want to continue to try to make this work, use a filter such as a skylite or uv filter and smear vasoline around the outer part of it. Nice soft slightly out of focus effect while leaving the face sharp. You can even tailor the effect to any shape you want. Remember.........upside down and backward.

Thank you, gentlemen!:) i did want it to be not a glamour portrait but something absurdic-irreal or irrational. I will try and make another one and if you don't mind i will send it for your consideration again! Thank you a lot! Good luck and take care!:)

Jay that is just not correct at all. That is exactly what kind of effect doing tilts produces depending on your apature size.

 

I love the shot, but I don't like the blur, personally. I know it takes a lot of time to get the depth of field exactly how you want it when you are using swings/tilts. I'd like to see the background out of focus but all of her in focus.

 

I do not at all claim to be a master of 4x5 techniques, but a lot of the time I have my front standard perpendicular to the ground, and I use the rear standard to do my tilts. (Swings I use both) Mess with that and see if that helps any.

Thanks, Pat! I'll go for it and try!:)

for a first shot its ok...less twist making it a bit more subtle and giving it some vertical twist to focus more on the face and throw out say one half of the background which could be moved further away from the depth of field..maybe mess about with some shift on the front to find some more intersting effect...but this is really a suck it and see excercise which can easily be carried out and taken at f5.6...you can get some amazing photos with a viewcamera and really leave that digital pshop blur brigade behind.