Two sisters -- honest CC desired

[renee sprink]

At the encouragement of numerous friends, I've recently started transitioning from hobbyist to portfolio building photographer. I had a session with a girlfriend's daughters several days ago and would like your honest feedback and criticism of these photos on everything from exposure to composition and everything in between. I wore my big girl bloomers today so let me have it with both barrels! I want to learn and improve!

Renee

[gonzogolf]

Renee,
The first one is soft, I'm sure its not helped by compression for the web but I still cant find any sharp areas except maybe in the front girls hair. I'm not sure if this is missed focus or motion blur from a too slow shutter speed. The compostion and exposure are nice although I would lighten the front girls eyes a little in post processing. The second photo is nice although I think in your quest for shallow depth of field you might have gone a little too far again as the blond girl seems a tad soft although not enough to spoil the image.

[shaftmaster]

These are both very nice, but the second one is much better in my opinion. I'm not sure why I don't like the first one as much, maybe it's because the girl on the right doesn't seem to be making eye contact but is more in focus than the girl on the left who does appear to be making eye contact. Does that make any sense? Maybe I'm too picky.

The second one is really nice. It would be even better if the younger sister was also making eye contact, but I know how hard it is to get two kids to do that at the same time.

[Flo]

Agree on the first, its OOF for the better portion, And the little gal in front has such dark eyes, they could be lightened up?

Second is a cute shot, although you did crop off the little ones feet? Not sure if the blur leaves need to be there, it does detract a bit from the first glance. There is also detail lost in the dark colors, ie: the bows

[longsight]

I like the second one excellent shot.;)

maybe could do with a slight crop on the right hand side.

[stsva]

I like both of them, although the first shot does have technical issues as noted by others. I think a mom might like the soft look, however. I did think the contrast might be a little high for some people, although again a mom might like the look it gives with the strong colors. The second one is really sweet; it would be nice if the blond girl were looking at the camera, but it works well as is.

[renee sprink]

Those little girls are a handful. I couldnt get them both looking in my direction at the same time to save my soul. The older one wanted to direct the shoot herself and the little one. Well, she's 2. Need I say more?

Thanks for the feedback. Keep it coming.

[renee sprink]

How can I get rid of soft focus?

[gonzogolf]

Renee,
Which camera do you have? Generally for portrait work you want to focus on the eye. I tend to pick a single focus point, On my 40d its the 9 point system so I pick the nearest one to the eyes of the subject then I will put that point directly over the eye of the subject, depress the shutter button halfway til it focuses, then holding that button move the camera so that I get the framing and composition I want. The term for this is focus and recompose. Dont use the multipoint focus for portrait work as it can get fooled.

[jetcode]

The poses are good, the subject content (their mood and capture) is good, and here is a little bit on each one.

#1 soft as mentioned. you can selectively sharpen the forward model just in the face and make this happen, also I might try a few different crops to see what works best with the free space surrounding the subjects

#2 is simply beautiful, really like the way this photograph is designed, the bridge in the background, the girls lying down, leaves across the foreground, this elements in this image are horizontal and you took advantage of that and made the best of it. I might crop some off the right hand side if I felt the girls white shoes and socks were distracting enough to do so. You have enough length to do this without losing the effect of the design. While this image is a little soft as well because it is not a closeup it is not as pronounced. Wonderful image you should be proud to show this.

Images Removed

[renee sprink]

While I save up for the 5d, I'm using my old rebel xti. I use a single focus point and do the whole recompose thing.

For the first one, my settings were

lens canon 35-135/4-5.6 usm
1/80; f/5; iso 400


For #2:
lens - canon 70-200 f/4
1/60; f/4; iso 800 -- we were quickly losing light on an overcast day

[shaftmaster]

While I save up for the 5d, I'm using my old rebel xti. I use a single focus point and do the whole recompose thing.

For the first one, my settings were
lens canon 35-135/4-5.6 usm
1/80; f/5; iso 400

For #2:
lens - canon 70-200 f/4
1/60; f/4; iso 800 -- we were quickly losing light on an overcast day

Those shutter speeds are a bit slow for kids portraits and for handholding non-IS lenses on an XTi. For my kids, I like to shoot at 1/125 or faster to reduce subject motion which can cause your subject to look soft or even blurry. If you're shooting at 100mm focal length on your XTi, that's an equivalent field of view of 160mm on a full frame 5D and will usually require shutter speeds faster than about 1/200 to avoid camera shake. The general shutter speed rule for hand-holding is 1/focal length (adjusted for crop factor) or faster.

I would avoid using focus and recompose since it can cause out of focus shots when shooting at wide apertures (f/2.8, f/2, f/1.4, etc.) due to thin depth of field. I have an XTi as a second body and selecting the proper focus point with the cross keys is pretty easy once you get used to it.

Do you have any faster lenses? If not, I'd look at getting a Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 lens which will work on your XTi and also a 5D. I think it would be a better portrait lens than your 35-135mm and is not too expensive (around $400 new).

Hope that helps.

[Flo]

I think the first photo is not ready for an edit.its just too out of focus.and any sharpening won't bring it back.

[renee sprink]

Do you have any faster lenses? If not, I'd look at getting a Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 lens which will work on your XTi and also a 5D. I think it would be a better portrait lens than your 35-135mm and is not too expensive (around $400 new).


I have the 50mm 1/4L, a wide angle that I can't remember, of course the kit lens that came with the camera, a macro lens and the 24-70 2.8 is on order to arrive on Monday.

The macro lens and the 35-135 lens were both from my old film cannon - that's the only reason i have them now. i might try to sell them.

i had to slow the SS more than i wanted because they were late to the location and we really lost light very quickly.

i'm sure it's operator error as much as anything but part of me wonders if some of it is the XTI as well.

Thanks for the feedback! It is greatly appreciated! Keep it coming if you have any more.

[gonzogolf]

The xti is a fine camera. I think the culprit here is the slow shutter speed. It explains the overall lack of sharpness in the first shot. Usually when its just a case of missed focus, something is sharp in the photo, even if it wasn't what you intended. I would think in the case of both these shots it might be good for you to consider fill flash as an option. Not only to add a little boost of light in failing conditions, but also to fill the dark eye sockets buy providing a little kick from the right direction.

[jetcode]

I think the first photo is not ready for an edit.its just too out of focus.and any sharpening won't bring it back.

Flo I hear your statement and opinion ...

This portrait could be considered soft focus and there are lenses designed specifically for that purpose. Not every portrait has to be razor sharp. I was more interested in keeping the softness of the skin while trying to bring the facial highlights forward so I was spare in how much I applied. Soft focus has a dreamy look to it.

If this image was full size (maximum data size) I could sharpen it more throughly given the inordinate number of tools and techniques available to do so. I see a lot of people toss an image because it isn't sharp enough when in fact there are well documented techniques going back 1/2 century on how to overcome these shortcomings.

[gonzogolf]

All the sharpening in the world wasn't going to make that image crisp. You might be able to improve it a bit, but your improvements in my opinion were a step back rather than an improvement.

[jetcode]

I feel the $$$ pain as far as getting the right gear in your hands. Photography is an expensive sport. However I think you are approaching it in the right way. Personally I would get the 50 1.4 and 85 1.8 as a nice starter lenses for portraits. The IQ is high for both of these lenses. The L series of course is the bomb and you can always rent an L lens for a $100 or so for 7 days of shooting. If you plan your sessions you might be absolutely astonished at what you could produce in a week. The 5D is a great camera and I think you will go nuts over it as I did when I had one for several years.

Do you have any faster lenses? If not, I'd look at getting a Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 lens which will work on your XTi and also a 5D. I think it would be a better portrait lens than your 35-135mm and is not too expensive (around $400 new).


I have the 50mm 1/4L, a wide angle that I can't remember, of course the kit lens that came with the camera, a macro lens and the 24-70 2.8 is on order to arrive on Monday.

The macro lens and the 35-135 lens were both from my old film cannon - that's the only reason i have them now. i might try to sell them.

i had to slow the SS more than i wanted because they were late to the location and we really lost light very quickly.

i'm sure it's operator error as much as anything but part of me wonders if some of it is the XTI as well.

Thanks for the feedback! It is greatly appreciated! Keep it coming if you have any more.

[jetcode]

All the sharpening in the world wasn't going to make that image crisp. You might be able to improve it a bit, but your improvements in my opinion were a step back rather than an improvement.

Duly noted ... I'd still like to take a whack at a full size rendition ... I have seen sharpening pull detail in out of images many would toss ... and it would be a great exercise in seeing what is truly possible with selective sharpening given enough information.

[Flo]

Seriously, I think its better to get the focus and detail in taking the photograph again, than spend hours trying to get sharpness out of a photo that has none to begin with..?

I don't view it as a "soft" as in classic soft photo.Dreamy should still be focused.

[renee sprink]

Jetcode - I have the 50mm 1.4L -- that's what i meant, i just got a "/" in there instead of a "." I love that lens and probably should have used it more with these girls.

and i'm happy to send you the full res version of it if you want to play. just tell me how!

thanks for your continued comments everyone. i'm learning just by listening to you all debate! :-)

[jetcode]

Seriously, I think its better to get the focus and detail in taking the photograph again, than spend hours trying to get sharpness out of a photo that has none to begin with..?

I don't view it as a "soft" as in classic soft photo.Dreamy should still be focused.

Absolutely ... But imagine a printer who has to work with what is provided. That's the angle I am coming from. Sharpness in camera delivers real detail but it doesn't always work out that way so what can you salvage and make presentable?

To your second thought I would say it matters how much softness is applied. What I have seen happen when applying soft focus filtering is a proportional contraction of contrast in the image. For sure this is not seen in the PP I provided and again if I had a higher resolution image I could go in and specifically tweak sharpening to improve sharpness though it would take some work to do and will never provide the same look as a sharp image to begin with.

[chughey]

don't hesitate to adjust your single focus point to different locations on camera. Shooting with a shallow DOF, it is easier to get OOF images when u focus and recompose.

[jetcode]

Jetcode - I have the 50mm 1.4L -- that's what i meant, i just got a "/" in there instead of a "." I love that lens and probably should have used it more with these girls.

and i'm happy to send you the full res version of it if you want to play. just tell me how!

thanks for your continued comments everyone. i'm learning just by listening to you all debate! :-)

Email me the file is the best way. Let me see what I can do with the image it should make a great lesson and practice. I will post the results if I see a real improvement.

[renee sprink]

what is your email?

[HappySnapper90]

I'll critique photo developing.
You are minding the highlights in your photo developing but not the shadows/blacks. Viewing the histograms of these photos, the left side is really slammed against the left side indicating lots of shadow areas that are without detail and pure black.

This can be seen in dark eyes and overall too contrasty. Their eyes seem black without color.

[Ray Marrero]

Those little girls are a handful. I couldnt get them both looking in my direction at the same time to save my soul. The older one wanted to direct the shoot herself and the little one. Well, she's 2. Need I say more?

Thanks for the feedback. Keep it coming.

Hey, I know how difficult it can be, but . . . part of being a good photographer is coming up with creative ways to get the attention of your subjects.

For kids, you have to act like a fool behind the camera. Make silly faces and noises. Bring props like toys and stuffed animals to make them look you way. Have an assistant stand behind you with toys, etc...

Talk with them. Ask them silly questions. My favorite question to ask toddlers is, "What's your boyfriends name?" And then be prepared to take the shot. Do what it takes to get the shot. You will look silly for the session but the images you create will be impressive. People will wonder how did you get that picture.