New to portraits, need critique and feedback

[will king]

Hi. I'm new to photography, really new to portrait photography and

really really new to B&W portrait photography. So I am looking for

some advice. Please offer any thoughts, comments, feedback on how to

create good B&W portraits. I'm not looking to make a living doing

this but would like to achieve the best results possible with the

equipment I have. Currently a Canon EOS 20D, 580EX flash, 17-85mm

lens, and 50mm f/1.8 lens. I have posted my first B&W portrait of my

son. <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3979875"

>Andrew</a> . I processed the B&W in PS. I wanted to avoid the flat

gray look by just desaturating the colors, so I lighted it up and

added contrast. Anything else I could have done? Without hurling

insults at me, can anyone offer any constructive feedback and

suggestions? In hind sight, I would say that the crop is too tight

and I should have included his neck and shoulders to avoid the

floating head look, but I was hoping to get some thoughts on the

lighting, exposure, skin texture, and how the B&W turned out. Thanks

in advance for your thoughts.

[nicholasprice]

This is my favoured medium for photography.

 

Portraits are essentially very personal, and photographing strangers is a real art (one I

don't have), and the difficulty should never be underestimated!. There is no accounting for

taste, and to produce comercial portraits, you may have to compromise your art, and

churn out pretty standard crowd pleasing dross! - just look at the display windows of

professional photographers in your town and you will see how people expect to see

themselves and their loved ones. It is not that these photographers have bad taste, the

problem is that most of their customers do!

 

I only photograph people I know, which is difficult enough. I attempt to capture something

of the person's essence or "soul" (in the secular sense). I hope to achieve a naturalistic feel,

and favour simple ambient lighting, wide open lenses (50mm or 90mm lenses for 35mm

cameras; and 80mm or 150mm lenses for Medium Format) and fast film. Ignore the rule of

thirds, focus on the eyes, and shoot from the heart. A dinner party with free flowing wine

is a nice way to put everyone at their ease.

 

I don't expect others to value my B&W portraits, but for me, they are valuable, personal

and intimate.

 

Good luck with your new project.

 

Nick.

[nicholasprice]

PS - try to get hold of the 50mm f/1.4 lens for your Canon, it is leagues above the f/1.8, and

my favorite, and sharpest portrait lens (and that includes my collection from Carl Zeiss)

 

N

[will king]

Well....the issue is I just can't see justifying spending $300 after I just got the 50mm f/1.8 for $70. What's the real difference in the two lenses besides the .4 aperture?

[nicholasprice]

...the optics are far superior, producing a really noticeable clarity and sharpness of image!

 

Try to borrow one from your local dealer, and shoot the same subject with both lenses

(preferably tripod mounted), with a wide open apperture - say f/1.8 for comparrason, and

you will see what all the fuss is about! Many people rate this lens above Canon's now

discontinued 50mm L f/1.0, and wonder why it hasn't inherrited the L suffix!

 

N

[nicholasprice]

http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/

Fixed_Focal_Length/EF_50mm_f14_USM/

[kim_ramsey]

very interesting. So, you're saying the clarity and contrast have alot to do with the lens? I've been trying and trying to get my photos sharper with little success. Perhaps, I could use a better lens. very good input nathan.

[nicholasprice]

Kim, you should read what Newton had to say about Optics (or rather a modern treaties on

the text) - there are lumps of glass, and there are lumps of glass. Why do you think people

prize Liecas so much - believe me, it is not for the robust body work!

 

N

[will king]

Who's nathan?

[nicholasprice]

...go on, give it a read...<div></div>

[nicholasprice]

...or try David Jacobson's excellent article on this site;-

 

http://www.photo.net/learn/optics/lensTutorial

 

N

[mark pav]

<i>"A dinner party with free flowing wine is a nice way to put everyone at their ease."</i>

<br><br>

 

You think he needs to do that with his son? ;-p <br><br>

 

Seriously Will, you've critiqued yourself fairly well so far. The lack of neck and the black

background does lend a floating-head look to this shot. On my screen I find it too bright

as well; there isn't much detail left on the face apart from the eyes. It looks like you've

gone for the high-key look, but not quite got it right. It looks a bit more like the shot was

overblown by direct flash. Speaking of which, I've recently learnt myself that having your

light come from the side shapes the face in a more flattering way. <br><br>

 

Maybe try getting down to his level and bouncing your flash? Try a few different focal

lengths and see which ones appeal to you more. Most people will head for the 85-135mm

range for portraits, though wide-angles can be fun sometimes too, if they're handled

right. <br><br>

 

Here's a shot of mine that's really little more than a crappy snapshot, but it illustrates a

couple of the principles of what I suggested. You can find better examples than this

around to learn from, of course, but with a decent background this shot wouldn't be as

bad.

[mark pav]

Try again with a caption! *grumble*<div></div>

[Spearhead]

<i>PS - try to get hold of the 50mm f/1.4 lens for your Canon, it is leagues above the f/1.8,</i><p>

 

This is an opinion not held by most people who have both lenses, including myself. The 1.4 is better for manual focusing and it focuses slightly better in AF mode, but it is not "leagues above" the 1.8, it's a disappointment that it costs so much more yet offers only the one stop. Any image quality improvement is minimal.

[nicholasprice]

...er, good point, luckily my close friends are all old enough to be members of the drinking

classes ;-)

[nicholasprice]

Jeff, how do you know the opinions of most people who have both lenses? ;-)

 

...I have to disagree, and note that most reviews of both lenses share my point of view...but

hey, these are only opinions. This is why I suggested that Will trys both lenses for himself, as

perhaps he should be allowed to make up his own mind on the question, don't you think?

 

N

[jonathan_brewer1]

Happy holidays Will

 

We were all new when we started, and we're all learning regardless of where we are on the learning curve, one thing that isn't done enough is to tell someone starting out what's good about an image and what he/she did right along w/any other issues.

 

First off, you have a great looking boy, timing/knowing when to match up a moment you see in the viewfinder with snapping the shutter is something you seem to intuitively know because this is an interesting expression on his face. Without the emotional content to grab hold of the viewer, a portrait doens't have a 'soul', you shot of your boys does, because you immediately wonder what he's thinking.

 

If I may refer you to a shot on my website as an example of a 'tight head' for you perusal, go2 www.imageandartifact.bz, go2 portraits, go2 'Rennae', this technique is called a 'Warner Bros. close-up' because the technique of cutting off the forehead as a means of getting in closer was made popular/used in several WB prod. first.

 

In getting in real close, you might want to consider backing up your light so that there is some 'falloff' on the face, around the sides of the face/cheeks, this creates shadow areas around the face and a more pleasant transition from the face to the nearby/very close framelines, shooting very close in, can be done, so I'd suggest you keep trying. Look at some movie classics, they're free seminars in portraiture/lighting/framing, if you never do anything else, rent 'The Innocents' a B&W masterpiece directed by Jack Clayton, also 'In Cold Blood', 'Double Indemnity', also 'Pick up on South Street', the two being 'film noir' masterpieces where you can see the lighting schemes, these movies will provide you with a clinic in portraiture.

 

Check out the lighting forum, much of what you want to include/edit out in a frame is dependant on the use of your lights. Check out classical paintings, the dress in these paintings may be a little out of date, but the establishment of lighting and composition in the best of these paintings is timeless.

 

I do have a portrait business and shoot portraits for hire, so I'll say this, all technique is, is the use of a tool/tools to exhibit the message of your 'art' in the best way possible, there are no rules, only things that work, if putting the eyes of a sitter in the top third of a frame makes the image work as portrait, use it, if it doens't, throw it out, but my suggestion is to learn as many techniques as you can, and then use what you need.

 

I also think it's a good idea to show, not just tell someone something with regards to a critique the ideas you have with regards to your use of techniques and style. In terms of backing you light up to create some fall-off/modeling on a face, I'll include this 'head n shoulders' portrait of Dayna, she loved the shot, and I would suggest to you that doing portraits for other folks is a great arena where you can learn/develop you problem solving skills.

 

Incidently, on portraits for clients, I prefer to use wardrobe and lighting to problem solve or as workarounds to anything that comes up. I prefer to use Photoshop as little as possible, because I think an image looks natural, the more you get right in the original shot, this shot of Dayna is pretty much what I shot, BTW she loves/wears contacts if you're wondering about the eyes.

 

Good luck.<div></div>

[will king]

Mark, that's a fantastic shot. I don't think the direct flash was the issue. The original (color version) wasn't that bad. When I transformed it to B&W, it looked a bit flat so I increased the exposure in PS and add more contrast. I find it so hard to transform color photos to B&W and not make it look too flat. I may have gone a bit overboard trying to compensate. Thanks for your tips.

[bennyboy]

Will,<p>

 

This may just be my point of view, but I think that where kids are concerned context is often important - if only to catch them unawares :)<p>

 

Here's a shot of my son, it's probably my favourite so far. This is with a wide lens. There're a number of other portraits in my folio, all are either candid or taken in situ ie not in a studio type setup - for me this offers the best way to capture the spirit of people. But I think that is down to my relative inexperience.<p>

 

<img src=http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3878604-lg.jpg>

[will king]

Jonathan, wow stunning photo and very attractive model. It's a bit of a coincidence that you posted your comments, because I somehow discovered you on another thread and checked out your website. I was so impressed that I requested your email and was going to email you later. Thanks so much for responding. Your work, from the few I saw on your site is amazing.

[kim_ramsey]

"I prefer to use Photoshop as little as possible, because I think an image looks natural, the more you get right in the original shot, this shot of Dayna is pretty much what I shot, BTW she loves/wears contacts if you're wondering about the eyes."

 

Seriously? This is the original? At first glance, I thought that it was highly photoshopped with a glaussin blur. Especially around the nose and lips. It looks as though a heavy blur was added over the photo. Did you use vaseline on the lens or something? The eyes look like they had a lighten tool swiped across them. How did you acheive this look?

[will king]

Kim, I don't know much about portrait photography but I'm pretty sure that I have seen softening lens filters.

<br>

<br>

Ben I remember seeing this shot when you first posted it. If I'm not mistaken it was with your new 10-22mm, right? Yeah, I love catching kids unaware. Here's a photo of my kid running. <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3924428" >Speed of Childhood</a>

[kim_ramsey]

You could be right Will. Honestly, I don't know. I'm just as new to photography as you are. I've been retouching for a little longer. Still, I'm wondering why the photo seems sharper on some areas of the and not on others. Such as the eyes look a bit more crisp...not much, but just a tad more crisp than the rest of her features. Such as around her nostrils and lip line. They are completely smeared of definition. I'm shocked. If this was indeed a non photoshopped image. But, as mentioned I'm very new to photography. I don't think that I would want to acheive this look. but, it is interesting none the less.

[bennyboy]

That's the puppy. I also like grainy B&W :D That's a lovely shot of your son, pure joy in his eyes.

[jonathan_brewer1]

Will..............thank you for the very kind words, they're much appreciated,....................as to the portrait of Dayna she was shot with a soft focus lens with 'high key' utilized in the exposure, the lighting ratio(Key versus Fill) was around 2.5 to 1, illumination coming from my lighting measure F11 metered by pointing my meter straight at the lens from in front of the subjects face, the lights were left at this intensity, and I bracketed exposure going wide open on the lens, this shot was somewhere around F5.6-4.

 

My point with this shot is that it looks more natural to do as much as you can 'in camera', when a shot doesn't work for me/my client, the shot goes in the trash, and I start over, I don't heavily Photoshop images to correct heavyweight flaws, I'm simply honest with myself in that my idea didn' work and take it from there. If I have an idea that incorporates photoshop as part of the idea, that's different, but I'm from the 'old school' as far as doing portraits.