First Portraits

[khenn]

Can you please give me some feedback on these two portraits. These are my first attempts at portrait photography. I do not have any studio lighting yet. I used a 10D, 50mm 1.8, 550EX, and omni-bounce.
http://www.bluemtnoutdoors.com/photography/images/categories/Portraits/Cromley%20Family/zoom/122_2252.jpg

http://www.bluemtnoutdoors.com/photography/images/categories/Portraits/Cromley%20Family/zoom/122_2270.jpg

[Belmondo]

The only problem with asking for opinions in a forum like this is that you'll get opinions from people like me who are absolutely unqualified to render such verdicts. The fact is, such determinations are largely subjective and will vary widely based on preferences of the reviewer.

Nonetheless, here goes:

These are both good pictures; who can resist photos of dogs, kids, and attractive women. The composotion is good (to my eye), and the subject matter is well presented.

That having been said, the pictures have a 'stark' quality to them, probably because of the very light almost white background. The picture of the dog almost looks B&W, and would benefit from some color somewhere. The only obvious color is the dog's tongue. The family photo is a little better, but still suffers from the same lack of color. I would think that a more neutral background and a little more color saturation in the subjects would help a lot.

Very nice pictures, though. Again, my comments are based only on personal taste---I have no credentials to be offering such thoughts, but since you asked----


Tom

[PPi-]

They are nice looking pictures. And who wouldn't like to see some huskies. I'm not a professional by any means but I want to give you my share.

The portrait of dog is nice. The light falls quite equally for my eye and isn't too harsh. But then there's this unknown void.. The white background screams the emptiness. Least it needs some other color to work as the dog already have lots of similar color. Talking about color, what color is his/her tongue _really_? Or then you have had blueberries for dessert.. Also I can't determine the eyes clearly - are they blue or what.. But that said in all and all it is a good portrait.

As said the latter picture lacks the same background again. Maybe someone will find this nice but I would prefer something else personally. This is a team picture really. Everyone wearing similar t-shirt and jeans. :) Maybe some more light for faces. I don't know.

Looks good so far. Hope this would help any.

[J.A.F. Doorhof]

Hi,

You should try to get some more play in the second shot, maybe different color T-shirts or a more playful approach like playing with the dog, or laying arround.

Sometimes what looks unnatural in real life will look wonderful on the picture and vice versa.

What always helps in portraits is to have people connect to each other, for example a head on shoulder or something like that.

But hey, I'm only just beginning myself :D.

Greetings,
Frank

[DaveG]

Those are nicely posed shots. The problem is that there needs to be portrait lighting. The lighting you've used has no direction and there's no catch lights in the subjects eyes.

Very simply portrait lighting is when you use at least two lights.

You'll need two people to do the following but it really will show you how simple lighting can be. Have one person sit on a stool. Then have the other take a regular plug-in light, the kind that has a narrow plastic or metal shade so that the light is directional. Turn out all the lights in the room except the one that your friend is holding. You go sit at the camera position. Have the friend walk around the model while shining the light on the model's face. When it's at roughly 45 degrees look for an inverted triangle on the model's far cheek. When you are seeing this you are seeing Rembrant lighting. But almost any light position is OK.

OK you are through the demo. The second flash (or light) is the fill and it must, by definition go within 20 degrees of the camera position. That's so the subject's face has the same amount of fill light on both sides of their face. The main should be almost one stop brighter than the fill.

Without explaining lighting ratios (you'll have to trust me) you have just set up a 3:1 lighting ratio. The main light is directional but the fill puts enough light into the shadows so that you keep detail.

That one stop difference between main and fill is easily handled by the latitude of any film or digital capture. With regular B&W or colour neg film you can expose from the fill measurement, the main measurement or a combination of the two. Those films have so much latitude that it hardly matters. With slide film or digital capture I expose for the combination of the two lights becasue those "films" DON'T have enough latitude.

All other lights are just spices in the soup. Background, hairlight, accent, or whatever will make the over-all picture better but only after the main and the fill.

[hazelj4]

Good try though. Try setting up a light behind subjects to shine on the background. It helps!

[khenn]

Thanks for the comments. I'm not sure if it is just the size of the posted picture that makes them look dark, but the one of the dog almost does look B&W. You can't see his beautiful blue eyes. Oh, and by the way, his tongue really is that kind of purplish color. The fullsize images look much better. Even the family picture is a bit dark, but the fullsize image you can actually see the detail in the lady's hair.

I did use a white background for these pictures, but I'm not sure why they have a bit of a bluish/gray tint on the background. Could it have to do with florescent lighting in the room?

On the dog picture, would a tighter crop help?

[lightandlife]

Try outdoors or available light.

All studio portraits are artificial, and it is very difficult to eliminate the artificiality in studio portraits.

This will surely invite angry protests.