Commissioned Portrait

This is a 100% Digital portrait, done as a commissioned work for a

gift. I'm interested in feedback, both good and bad, so that I

might be both encouraged and challenged. I'm seriously considering

doing digital studio portraiture professionally, and consider this

to be my best work to date (given my limited experience).

I wonder why you deliberately 'overexposed' the right side of her face. It's just too much I'm afraid. All detail has been obliterated and it's akin to whiteout conditions! If you were trying to make a high key photo this isn't the way to go about it!

Amen Ken...Im probably not half as pro as Ken but maybe it wouldve looked better in Black & White?

The point of a photograph is not necessarily meticulous detail. I haven't obliterated -all- detail, only most of it; there's an important distinction there. What is left is her eye, nostril, and mouth, the defining features of the face. My goal was an artistic representation of her face and personality, not a medically accurate record of every skin pore.

Greg,

 

Unfortunately it seems all too common on Photo.net for people to give a harsh critique but offer no suggestions for how to improve...

 

People suggesting this is "not the way to go about it" should...

 

STEP UP TO BAT AND POST SOME EXAMPLES OF HOW TO GO ABOUT IT!!!!!!

 

hint hint Ken.

 

A few lines or suggestions as to how Greg might improve the shot.. or pointers in the right direction aren't too big a burden are they?!?!?

 

While the portrait is not a conventional portrait that doesn't neccessarily mean that it's not working. Obviously 'working' depends what your client wants and or is happy with.

 

The highlights are blown out - way blown out.. so what!!! It could be developed into an interesting style. Not one that say a family or a housewife of 35 or 40 years old might opt for..

but that doesn't mean it isn't worth exploring.

 

Things to consider when shooting something like this might be as follows, others hopefully can post additional items:

 

1) Do you feel the need to keep detail in the highlight areas?... e.g. the texture of her skin on her left cheek where it's gone completey overexposed.

 

2) Is it more important to go for a 'style' as opposed to a realistic rendition of the person.

Is this what they're asking for or are they willing to let you experiment?

 

3) Are you interested in shooting 'Sear Portraits' or are you looking for something more contemporary...

 

It struck me right away as something more similar to a fashion shot than a portait...

in terms of lighting and style. To note one thing, her expression isn't so hot.

It just appears a bit dazed..

 

You might look at some examples of what other people are shooting...

Granted most of the people I will list are commercial pros... but what they do is not unobtainable... it just takes practice and patience...

Check out these peoples work if you can...

 

1) Ralf Gelert

2) Thomas Schupping

3) Holger Scheibe

4) Mir Lada

 

All of them have done 'high key' type shots of people... maybe not neccessarily a 'portrait' but a shot of the head that is 'high-key'

Find examples of their work in:

 

Communication Arts Photography Annuals

(vol 36. and vol. 35) these are a bit dated, but the technique is the same.

 

also try:

 

SELECT - The Photographic Showcase

(mostly German photogs - but a good ref. source)

 

The point is... check out as much material as you can... keep shooting, try a series in one style and then reshoot the same person in a totally different way.. see what they/you like better... pay attention to how pro's are shooting and see if you can pick up on how they are getting there... just don't stop shooting!

 

Good luck and hopefully you'll post some more of this kind of work for critique.

 

ciao,

luc

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the short time that I've been a member of photo.net, I have actually 'stepped up to bat' many times and offered detailed suggestions on improving photographs submitted by people. I am always happy to do this where time permits. In this particular case the problem,in my opinion, is glaringly obvious. The photographer may or may not agree with my opinion which is fine. The effect in this photograph does not, in my opinion, have any appeal. Portraits are generally supposed to flatter the sitter but this photograph doesn't do that. It just looks like an overexposed photograph, nothing more nothing less. The main lighting appears to be behind and above the model casting shadows across the left side of her face. There are no catchlights in the models eyes. Bring your light/s around to the front in a three quarter position and spend time adjusting them until you get the desired effect. If you want to minimise detail and achieve a high key effect with white skin tones, go for a white background (which you have), have the model wear white and go one to two stops over your meter reading to SLIGHTLY overexpose the scene. Fashion photographers use this technique all the time. This should be done on the camera though and not in photo shop/draw! For high key lighting you need a well lit background with the flash approx two stops brighter than your main and fill flashes. If you don't do this the background will appear grey. Use a diffuser or softboxes in the three quarter frontal position noting where shadows fall on your sitter. Move the lights until those shadows disappear. If you want flat even lighting use two softboxes in the frontal three quarter position not too high above the sitter as this casts shadows. If you want some shadow, take a light away and experiment. My last piece of advice is to forget the Corel Draw at this stage. Get your lighting and technique right before manipulating your images on computer. Use lights and reflectors and bracketing exposures in your camera - i.e. become technically proficient with your camera technique before you even think about computer manipulation! I hope that is of some use to you and I wish you well in your photographic endeavours.

cheers Ken,

good advice for portaits or really any kind of shots...

 

Greg, not that you shouldn't keep experimenting with styles.. but be forewarned that when you say 'portrait' when posting for a critique...

it'll make a lot of people think they're about to see a 'traditional' portrait... elbow on the fake fence rail, angels touch lighting and probably a soften filter... the final touch being a vignette ..

ha ha.. not my cup of tea... but it works for some

 

so they'd probably open up this page

and "What the @!#!@#!@!$!@! is this?!?!?!?!"

 

At any rate, keep shooting and keep posting.

I'd be interested to see more shots whichever direction you persue.

 

cheers,

Luc

 

 

I don't think this blown-out white look is particularly flattering. I wonder if your client liked it. If you're doing a facial portrait like this you might as well include the top of the head as well.

hi greg, i find the photo is much to bright( even for high-key ) and better not use a lens this wide when shooting this close, it gives a very unlucky face...take care

This is obviously not a conventional portrait, so Im not sure why some people feel obliged to tell the photographer that the lighting is all wrong and the portrait doesnt flatter the subject. My first thought when I saw it, probably like most peoples, was, "Yikes!". Then it became clear (to me anyway) that the photographer is trying to show the subject in his own unconventional way. Im not trying to compare the photographer to one of the greatest artistic geniuses in history, but lets face it: Picasso's protraits of Gertrude Stein and others during his cubist phase were hardly flattering.

I dont know, I think its an interesting and different way to view the subject. It takes quite an open-minded subject to agree to be portrayed this way, but if she's up for it...?

The skin tone's so washed out you get an interesting effect with the right eye not seeming to be attached to anything. But I think the shadowed side of the face looks better, so I would have not put quite so much emphasis on the overexposed side.

A lot has been said here. Personally, I feel a portrait should have more detail. If a softer look is wanted a softbox and diffusing filter help a great deal. In my opinion this came out totally bleached out and unflattering. Just my opinion. Others, of course, may like the effect

Personally I kinda like this. It certainly isn't a traditional 'portrait', but it's interesting. Not many here are probably familiar with the English band My Bloody Valentine, but it certainly looks like some of the stuff they were using for album covers and videos in the early '90's. Take a look

here to see what I mean. I think the pale blue eyes are another feature that intrigues me. A nice surprise...

Interesting portrait. Looks like someone I know.

Scary eyes man!!!!!

Overall, it's probably not very flattering, but I love the outline of the irises-- were they sharpened, or did the lighting produce them like that?

I'm shocked that, in the whole debate about light-placement, no one mentioned camera placement. I might suggest (in a very friendly fashion) that you shoot from a higher POV on subjects with short chins. I might also suggest trying a longer focal length and backing a bit farther away from the subject. Finally, you could consider keeping the film-plane in line with the subject's features; in this way you'd avoid the oversized mouth and chin. And if you are going to emphasize a feature, I'd go with the eyes. Anyway, these suggestions are intended simply to flatter the subject as much as possible. Rather than ending on a criticism, however, I would feel comfortable saying that the lack of catchlights in the eyes, while normally a self-imposed taboo of mine, pose no problem for me here. The eyes are plenty bright enough, and look cool. Overall, I think you're on the right track. Keep at it!

Whew -- such a heated discussion over my work... I suppose I'm flattered. Let me respond to a couple points:

 

One - Dave, the features were not sharpened, they were kept sharp while the less important things were blurred.

 

Two - I think it would help to explain the commission. The client (who is a close friend, but paid me anyways) wanted something that was "non-traditional" and expressed my "unique artistic vision" (I've been doing digital art for a while). The product was to be a gift for her boyfriend, who loves her eyes when they're moody or dark. I wanted to present her eyes free of distraction. I chose to leave only a few details sharp, blurring or outright obliterating the rest, to provide a more "raw" image with stronger emotional impact.

 

Three - I don't have a lot of equipment to work with. Light was provided by a single 500W halogen worklamp, with a small clip-on light to illuminate the background. I used a white sheet as a fill reflector. The camera was borrowed, as was the tripod. I hate using on-camera flash, always have, so I was stuck with the lights I could get hold of. In retrospect, I agree that a slightly higher angle might have been more flattering, and that her expression could be better. I chose this one out of about a dozen suitable shots because of the moodiness in her eyes. I'm aware of how to use a catchlight, but in this case, I felt it might detract from the intended mood.

 

Hope that helps eveyone's thinking. I'm grateful for everybody's feedback and opinion, positive and negative.

Well, I adjusted my monitor, still looks a little over exposed.

I think this photograph is exceptional. The title, "Commissioned Portrait", makes it clear that the photograph is intended as a deconstruction of the conventions of commissioned portraits (even if it is commissioned, which is beside the point). As such, and considered on the merits of its composition and color, it is highly original and superb.

 

The comments on the photograph which say that it is "washed out", that it is "not flattering", that the model has a weak chin, etc are utterly failing to miss the point, which is that this photo is deliberately breaking the conventions of the "commissioned portrait". These people shouldn't have needed the title or even the statement in the technical details to realize that their comments were beside the point. If I were the subject, say a bride being photographed before her wedding, I would be appalled; this is not at all what I would be expecting. However, this is art. I am really quite dismayed by the narrow-mindedness of the crowd of raters on photo.net as evidenced by the low ratings on this photo. For me, it is a 9/9, and if you check my averages you will see that I am not a high rater.

Greg-

The client wanted eyes, and that's what she got! They stand out amazingly. Nice work.

Too bright. Interesting face though.