My Wife, practice, looking for further CC and/or alt. Edits

[whiskaz]

I did post this shot in the People section prior to noticing an actual CC forum. I really love some of the insightful comments given in here so... tear it up...

This was mid-day and the sun was pretty harsh. However, we found a nice shaded area next to a house. This has obviously been PPd with nearly everything adjusted in some manner, for better or worse!

I'm using a 350d with the 50mm f/1.4. I have the camera set to Parameter 2 (everything set to 0 in terms of brightness, contrast, etc) so that I do most of the tweaking in PP. This was shot at f/2.5, 1/200.

The thread in 'People' got some looks but few replies. I'd like to think I'm that good, but know otherwise :) TIA

Jeremy

http://www.thejonzes.net/gallery2/d/2930-2/IMG_4025.jpg

A slightly larger version is available here:

http://www.thejonzes.net/gallery2/d/2928-1/IMG_4025.jpg

[In2Photos]

Jeremy,
My only real 'issue' or 'problem' with this shot is that there is too much space to her left in this shot. It is fighting for attention, something that women don't like.:) Crop the space to the left of her in half and I think you have a winner. She has a great smile. The catchlights in her eyes can be slightly distracting as they are larger than usual (the catchlights, not her eyes ;) ).

[Robert_Lay]

This is a very nice candid shot, and you caught a nice whimsical expression.
She's a little too far to the right in the picture, so you may want to crop about 25% off the left hand side just to give it a little better balance.

You have good lighting for such a shot and the exposure looks to be correct. The lighting seems to be very diffuse and coming from behind and above the camera. For portraits I prefer more cross - lighting to get more modeling with light shadows, but this is very good for a candid shot. I could be wrong about the color balance, but it seems a little too red on my monitor.

[whiskaz]

Thank you for the comments. In this edit I have cropped the shot in a bit but probably not as much as suggested. I was trying to keep the same ratio as the original and as such, lost a bit off the top and bottom and could only sacrifice a little on the side. I was going for an off-centered shot but I suppose I took it too far here?

I've also toned down the catchlights in her eyes a bit (you are correct, the sun was coming from behind and above).

Out of curiosity (and newbishness, as if that's a word), what makes the shot a candid versus a portrait (probably an age old question asked and answered many times here, and I will search)? I guess when I think of candid I think of something that wasn't posed but caught, which wasn't the aim here so I missed that mark. What could I have done to improve that?

Also, it does have a reddish cast to it - on purpose, though I've toned that down a bit in the edit.

Thanks again!

The edit:

http://www.thejonzes.net/gallery2/d/2942-2/IMG_4025_e2.jpg

Larger version:

http://www.thejonzes.net/gallery2/d/2940-1/IMG_4025_e2.jpg

The original for comparison purposes:

http://www.thejonzes.net/gallery2/d/2948-2/IMG_4025_orig.jpg

[Robert_Lay]

Being a little off-center is a good rule to follow - some call it the rule of thirds.

If I were painting someone's portrait, or taking a portrait photograph it would be "head and shoulders" as a minimum.

For an informal portrait, looking for open shade is highly recommended, because you get good lighting with no extra equipment.

[Inspired Photography]

Hi Mate,

I have to disagree with the others about the original composition. I like it.
While i agree that she is a little too far to the side, i think the cropped version cuts too much out, which can't be avoided if you want to maintain a 2:3 ratio.

The only thing i don't like is whatever is behind her. I quickly too it out (excuse the roughness of it - it was just to demonstrate - and it is a low-res file making it even harder) and personally thing it removes the distraction.

Otherwise, great exposure, lighting, and it's nice and sharp.

Rob

[whiskaz]

Thanks, Shooter. I tend to like the original crop better, myself, but I can agree that she's a tad too far over. That's a giant wheel rim, I think... I took quite a few shots and some of them had really poor backgrounds. This looks better without the wheel, for sure.

Here's #2. More head and shoulders and not quite so far off to the side. I just noticed a small portion of another rim is poking out from her shoulder, but I don't think it's all that distracting. Slight yellow tinge to this (added in PP) that could maybe be lowered, but the larger version looks alright to me.


#2:

http://www.thejonzes.net/gallery2/d/2958-2/IMG_4047.jpg


Larger Version:

http://www.thejonzes.net/gallery2/d/2956-1/IMG_4047.jpg


Thanks for taking the time to commend on and edit the image, Shooter :)

[Robert_Lay]

I like this one better.

I'm still not sure why you are determined to do a portrait in landscape mode.

I also wonder whether or not you have tried any setups at that same location that were oriented to give more cross-lighting instead of only frontal lighting?

You might want to try that just to see what different effects you get from it.

[whiskaz]

Bob, good suggestion. I'll try that. This particular location is on top of a hill and quite bright in the evening, with little shade. While I wasn't paying particular attention to the orientation of the sun, this shot was taken from the side of the house wherease the previous photo was taken from the front. Other than the fact that the area is quite open, I'm not real sure why the light appears to be coming from behind and above in both shots.

As for the orientation, I shot in both landscape and traditional and I couldn't find any from this particular series that I cared for that were shot as a traditional portrait. I'm fairly new to photography (a couple of months under my belt) and I tend to switch from horizontal to vertical often just to experiment with composition.

Thanks for your thoughts!

Jeremy

[TooManyHobbies]

I though it needed a little softening. Applied dream glow technique.

[Robert_Lay]

Bob, good suggestion. I'll try that. This particular location is on top of a hill and quite bright in the evening, with little shade. While I wasn't paying particular attention to the orientation of the sun, this shot was taken from the side of the house wherease the previous photo was taken from the front. Other than the fact that the area is quite open, I'm not real sure why the light appears to be coming from behind and above in both shots.

As for the orientation, I shot in both landscape and traditional and I couldn't find any from this particular series that I cared for that were shot as a traditional portrait. I'm fairly new to photography (a couple of months under my belt) and I tend to switch from horizontal to vertical often just to experiment with composition.

Thanks for your thoughts!

Jeremy

The most fundamental difference in the quality of light for a given geographical locale' and time of day is the question of whether you have direct rays of the sun or open shade. Most people have never even heard of the term "open shade", whereas they probably understand "direct rays of the sun". Generally speaking the former is to be sought and the latter is to be avoided. Open shade is found on the North side of any building (in the Northern Hemisphere). You place your subject in the shade of the building while keeping the subject under an open sky. The result is you get the softest most diffuse light from the open sky without any of the harshness of the direct rays.

[S. William Davis]

Number 2 has my vote,,,very very nice
Sam

[cfcRebel]

I like Jeff's soften & glow touch. That alone makes a HUGE difference IMHO.
You have a lovely wife.

[whiskaz]

Thanks, I sharpened the 1st one a bit and agree, it needed softening. I had planned to go back and PP some more to soften the face, using a technique I found posted on the boards - just haven't done it. His edit has a little too much softening for my taste, but something in between would work for me :)

Thanks all!