Jack_Maegli

<p>You have received many good responses. Most of the group portraits I have taken have subject placement depth requiring something in the f/11 range for facial focus. I usually make a PS gaussian blur layer from the original and paint a mask where I want the subjects to pop.</p>

<p>If you want to keep it simple, which I would suggest if you are not used to portrait stuff; buy a flash bracket and extension cord and practice flipping it to loose the shadows on portrait (vertical) shots. But try to keep most of your shots in the daylight; using available skylight as your modeling light; keep the light diffuse (subjects in the shadows), not direct zebra stripe sunlight; and the flash as fill only. Once the night sets in, your shots will have more of a point and shoot feel without a second modeling flash.</p>

<p>A lot of good information posted, some of the answer depends on how much time you have to dial in the shot, manual if time is no object; Av with an exposure compensation tweak if things are happening faster; which requires the same degree of thought. What I didnt see in preceding posts is keep your eye on the histogram of what you have been shooting with playback "inf"; the dynamic range of digital is short; make sure your highlights are not bleached or shadowed material blackened, assuming you arent shooting RAW.</p>

<p>Igor, You bring up an interesting point, to my superficial knowledge, the early classical painters used the "Golden Rectangle", which is derived from the "Golden Ratio" originating from greek mathemeticians such as Euclid and Pythagoras, which is the product of ((1 + SQRT5)/2) or <em>phi</em> or numberically 1.62. Using this ratio, the long side of the rectangle, or subject placement in a work of art should be 1.62 times the distance of the short side, which gives a rough division of the composure into thirds along one dimension. Check out this Rembrandt self portrait, the eyes kind of grab me as the focal point in this example of the Golden Rectangle in the vertical dimension.<br>

<a href="../wiki/File:Rembrandt_aux_yeux_hagards.jpg"><img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/05/Rembrandt_aux_yeux_hagards.jpg/220px-Rembrandt_aux_yeux_hagards.jpg" alt="" width="220" height="223" /></a><br>

The actual two dimensional "rule of thirds" was first proposed by John Smith about 1797; dividing a composure into both horizontal and verticle divisions. It was heavily employed in landscape art (where a tree should be in a field with a horizon of clouds). <br>

Anyhow, I like to consider both rules, but first employ the Golden Rectangle in portrait composition, then try throwing the eyes in a head shot, or face in a full body, off center and see if there is an improvement. If not, I go back in my cropping as no one should be addicted to all the rules unless they consisently produce the best result. I find the full "rule of thirds" works best when the subject is arranged diagonally in the compostion. <br>

If you find your printed article, Igor, I would be very curious to see which of these rules it refers to.<br>

Jack</p>

<p>Rules were meant to be broken; but a loose adhearance can give you results such as below. Note the focal point of interest in portraiture is usually the eyes. Try framing the picture with the eyes at least in one of the vertical thirds, then try horizontal "off-centers" to the point of hitting the "rule". Then back off the changes till it looks good to you.<br>

<a href="../photo/11384750&size=lg"><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/11384750-md.jpg" alt="Susan" width="544" height="680" border="0" /></a></p>

<p>Or, you might give the history brush a try; "screen" mode for dodging everthing from shadows to highlights; "multiply" for burning the same.<br>

Jack</p>

<P>This is a loaded question. A perfect photographer is thin; a supercomputer that can capture a perfect composition; waiting until the lighting arangement, subject placement, pose, shadows, fill, are perfect before popping the shutter button; while capturing perfect exposure and color balance. I am of the camp that tries to think hard and take less shots, but far from perfect I average single digit returns. I would offer a return volley of a question: Shouldn't the aspiration of a good photographer to be a thin shooter?</P>

<p>All good suggestions so far. When I have a shoe mounted flash, with an otherwise perfectly good natural diffuse source of light available, I try to use the flash for a fill light only, stopping it down by 1.5 f/ or so from full exposure. The natural light source then serves as the modeling light to throw the shadows where you want them. It's hard to get mood without shadows; and your not going to get shadows with a shoe mounted flash. And all good shadows need a bit of fill. You can always adjust the luminosity of the fill later in PS.</p>

Thanks for the insightful responses. I guess the bottom line is if you are doing a portrait shoot and call yourself a photographer, amateur or proffesional, you owe the subject a minimal level of knowlege on composition and lighting. I just didnt want to be missing some basic element of artistic composition. Kind of on subject, I was at a high school graduation party a few weeks ago for a full figured girl with the usual litiny of senior portraits on display. They all used broad side lighting; the results were horrible. But without a short side comparison I dont think the client minded. I dont want to fall into that camp of photography.

<p>I am reading Doug Box's "Guide to Posing"; a great book, by a highly respected author, and he teaches a

common rule of portrait lighting is: if the subject is male the primary source should be to the front, and if the

subject is female the primary source should be to the rear. Other books like "Light, Science and Magic"

and "Faces" by Hunter, Fuqua, and Biver, or the Wacker's portrait photography books make no mention of such

a rule. <br>

Most of my portrait photography tends to be senior portraits and glam type shots which

border more toward high key, and I position the modeling light (or diffuse sunlight) toward the front of my

subject, regardless if male or female. I like the wider light dynamic range this presents, and really dont

want to shadow the frontal features of my subjects. <br>

So, the question I pose is: how important or

basic is this rule of gender driven primary light orientation in the practice of portrait photography? What

pleases me, the photographer, is really imaterial to what the subject/client finds flattering.<br>

Thanks for

any replies.<br>

Jack</

<p>Appreciate the advice!</p>

<p>I have had people pick what in my opinion are some seriously goofy facial expressions of themselves in portrait shots. But my opinion does not count, it is how they want to be portrayed. I think the job of the photographer is to present them options that are technically correct, with a breadth that goes beyond what is natural to them, including your interpretation of appeal. If that presents a self reflection that satisfies them more, great; count your wins, not losses. If Winston Churchill had to pick the shot from Yousef Karsh's famous session, do you think he would have pointed to the one just after Yousef plucked the cigar from his mouth? (If it was a personal portrait session) I don't know, but most people dont like capturing events that made them angry. It was one of the most iconic shots of the century. So there you have the paradox!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I am an amateur, but do quite a few senior/family portrait sessions in a simple basement studio. I would like to throw some thin, high density sort of padding between the concrete floor and the seamless paper backdrops I use to make things more comfortable for the subject, particularly when they are lying down. Any insulative effect would also be a positive. I dont want something so soft the paper would deform or tear. Any ideas would be appreciated!</p>

<p>The weddings I have shot; I use manual, adjusting the ISO as low as possible to get good background lighting at a decent shutter speed (depending on action) at a focal depth to make the shot (portrait or dancing; short or long). A book could be written on the lighting variables encountered at the average wedding. Your best friend is a flash and extender, so you can adjust the facial fills to get a good result, especially in daylight where the backlight will drown your subjects. In flash-less situations overexpose if necessary to get good facial histograms. Sorry to sound vague; ISO 200 to 800, shutter 1/25 to 1/320, f/3.2 to 11 sort of covers my normal span. The only point I wanted to make is get good facial exposure.</p>

Stephen's quick identification method and the rest of this thread just salvaged the 300D-Sigma 17-70mm setup my wife loves for point and shoot and school yearbook photography. I have been dragging her camera into Wisconsin winter conditions to shoot in full manual for nature shots where the autofocus wasnt an issue. I always throw it into a plastic bag when I bring it in to reduce condensate, but wonder if moisture didnt exaserbate the mirror stick.

 

Anyhow, she said I wrecked her camera and now I am happily off the hook.

 

I also reflect that on my 20D-Canon 70-200mm which spends alot of time shooting hockey at the usual -5F to +20F conditions; the autofocus takes a dozen mirror slaps to get things right. Maybe condensation from the warm up it got after the previous game is causing a similar mirror sticking issue(?)

Start with a modeling/primary softbox or umbrella 45 deg off center about 4' from your subject 3' overhead with a fill softbox etc. about 10 deg off center the other side 15' back and at head heigth to fill the shadows and work from there. You can always bounce the fill backwards off your white walls for better diffusion. When I shoot against black I like to add a highlight honeycomb behind the subject to contrast the hairline against the background, but I like high key.

Jack<div></div>

Here is the white back drop...if you are curious...<div></div>

Here is a picture without the link

Thanks for your contributions, the shoot came out real good tonight, about 10 shots out of 120 worked. Used a white felt backdrop and black felt per the subjects request. They were wearing dark clothes, so I had to throw a backlight on them against the black felt for seperation. I had a wind up music toy clock that I waved around the camera lens to hold the baby and dog. They wanted a portrait shot, not a Christmas shot..my mistake. Switched to a Sigma 17 - 70mm per your advice, needed that latitude. I would post one of the results, but cant figure out how to paste a .jpg into a response.<div></div>

I did free portrait shots of the all the high school hockey team players and

coaches this year from our city and the resulting poster board was impressive

and resulted in one of the coaches asking me to shoot him and his wife and 6

month old baby and family dog for a Christmas photo. Adding a dog and baby is

logrithmically above the skill level of doing single portraits of which I am

used to. Given no advise I was going to shoot them with a honeycombed

backlight in a close overhead postion to light up the dog and baby which will

be postioned in front, if the baby is old enough I would like it to be in

sitting postion beside the dog with the parents behind in full kneel.

Modeling flash 40 degrees off subjects (left of camera) and fill flash 20

degrees to the (camera's) right. I will be taking shots at 12 feet at 70mm to

flatten with my Canon 20D and EF70-200. The backdrop is flat black and the

rug they will be sitting on is dark blue. So after making a attempt to sound

smart, I actually dont have a clue how to compose or light this shot, and any

suggestions would be highly appreciated.