Pls given your most honest opinion ( the age of innocent)

[khiem_nguyen1]

hi , All I had taken this picture by leica R6, with elmarit 90mm f2.8

first version , pls give me your most honest opinion , thanks , film

used is fuji 400 superia , and print by SAm club 1 hrs photo by

digital frontier 390 system<div></div>

[john_a.]

Looks like mine! Just make it smaller ex. 500 pixels and rotate 90 counter clockwise ;^)

[shambrick007]

Hey Khiem. <p>

My technical evaluation is that there seems to be shoot blurring due to camera motion during the exposure - which seems hard to believe considering the bright sunlight and 400 speed film! What was the shutter speed?

[shambrick007]

that should read "..some blurring.."

[sandy.]

Re-sized and re-posted for Khiem Nguyen<div></div>

[gerry_szarek]

Exposure is good, like the composition, only suggestion is to get a shallower depth of field.

 

I would also find a good photo shop instead of Sam's, I used to go to CVS, their print quality is about the same. Recommend you shoot one 12 exposure roll of Kodak Gold, taken another identical roll to a good photo shop, you will notice a difference.

 

May you have many sleepless nights like I have had.

 

Gerry

[matt_m__toronto_]

i don't like the rock growing outside of the young lad's head. i find it distracting, you and others may not agree.

 

cute kid though, keep snapping ;-)

[dave_cheney]

yep - its a frontier print all right, grainy, pale faces, poor shadow detail.

 

Seroiusly, i know the lad was wearing sunnies, but shading him with a cloth or a large sheet from outside the frame would have reduced the scene contrast and given the printer at least something to work with (that is unless he/she wasn't off drinking coffee while still wearing the cotton gloves -- you know who you are Ted's employee!)

 

Also, was a 90 really necessarily needed on this shot? From the angle and the loose crop it could easily be a 50 or even a 35 at very close focus.

 

Dave

[fotografz]

Khiem, here is a tweaked version of your shot. If you have

PhotoShop just adjust the curves and sharpen. The photo's just

fine. Keep at it.<div></div>

[peter_mann3]

Khiem, a nice photo. Direct sunlight on the face is not always the most flattering to a portrait subject. Perhaps you would like to consider the outdoor portrait specialists main trick. This is to place the subject with the sun behind the subject, using it as a rim light on the top or top and side of the head and shoulders. The main light is then supplied by a bright white or warm (gold) reflector which catches some of the sunlight and bounces it into the shadowed face and body. Exposure is based on a reading of the face with a spot meter or the camera held close to fill the exposure area of the camera meter. Then give one-half to one more stop exposure for the final image. (For example if the meter reads f8, give it f5.6, or adjust the shutter speed instead of aperature). Sounds tricky but isn't with just a little thought and practice. If you are not already aware, collapsible relectors can be purchase at many camera stores. The gold variety are good for shade to counterbalance the intrinsic cool (blue) light of the shade. Good luck.

[charlesk]

Lots of primary colors do not balance well.

<br>Tweak them a little more in PS or shift to b/w

[sprouty]

Peter, why the compensation? Wouldn't a direct reading off the subject's face (or the palm of your hand)in that situaion be appropriate? Just curious...

 

Regards,

[jlee]

Khiem,

Cute child, he should provide a willing subject for a few years to

come. The vertical shadow on the rock behind his head is the

most distracting element IMHO and the harsh flat overhead sun

light makes the picture seem a bit flat as well. You did good to

get down closer to a childs level. Keep experimenting. Adjust

your subject at different angles and in different kinds of light to

get the results you want and always be very concious of the

backgrounds. I like the fact that you put sunglasses on him to

work with the light you had but still would like to see a similar

shot much earlier, much later, or on an overcast day with some

good eye contact.

Keep at it, JLee

[sandy.]

Friends, khiem's email address bounced. Maybe we are talking to a "ghost".

[khiem_nguyen1]

Thanks everybody for your honest critique , I am very glad to receiced it , plus especialy to Sandy Shore for fixing and repost my picture , the boy is not my son , he is my nephew oh ! my email is nguyenkhiemthien@yahoo.com , the juno address I no longer use it due to spam junk ! Thanks so much again everybody you are all wonderful people!

[peter_mann3]

Stephen P. A direct reading on the face will tend to place the exposure a little low, since the meter is calibrated (as all meters are) to make any subject brightness appear as a mid-tone gray (Ansel Adams zone V). The human face, Caucasian, is lighter so more exposure is given to raise the brightness of the face to about zone VI. The same is true of the hand which if used as a meter reading subsitute or "handy" gray card substitute, requires one step of exposure increase over the meter reading from the hand. Otherwise, the image will be underexposed overall. And the use of an incident light meter held near the face pointed at the camera avoids all these problems. I use my camera meter a lot, but not for portraits, because portraits are mostly about the face and dead-on exposure is an important goal.