cc on portrait , please

Excellent setting, good lighting!

...stiff subject with a static pose.

As I look and study portraiture Photography, it seems that having a talent to connect with a subject and comfortably direct them in a way that brings “them” into the picture, starts to be the biggest difference between “good job”, and “holy s—t”!

plantastic wrote in post #18910699
Excellent setting, good lighting!

...stiff subject with a static pose.

As I look and study portraiture Photography, it seems that having a talent to connect with a subject and comfortably direct them in a way that brings “them” into the picture, starts to be the biggest difference between “good job”, and “holy s—t”!

Thank you

I would crop it horizontal to just below her breasts. As a vertical, it looks like she's leaning backwards. And the strange lift of the sweater to expose the belt buckle seems odd. You also might try sharpening her eyes a bit. Overall it might benefit from a slight boost in clarity (if you use Lightroom).

To me, it seems the model is too much angled (towards right). It doesn't look natural to me and the question is for how long someone can hold herself in that angled position. On the other hand, even though the background is blurred, a line of horizon is visible which is angled. If you straighten that line, the model also get partially straightened and gets closer to being vertical.

On another note: her shirt has moved up and shows her belt. I just don't see the point of having the belt visible. I find it distracting and diminishes the simplicity of the photo for no good reason.

The presence of the light is obvious in the photo. I personally don't like when the (man-made) lighting is noticeable. I would probably reduce the light (one stop or so) to make it less noticeable. Then I will try to lighten the subject in PP. Sometimes it gives a more pleasant result to my eyes.

raminolta wrote in post #18916368
The presence of the light is obvious in the photo. I personally don't like when the (man-made) lighting is noticeable. I would probably reduce the light (one stop or so) to make it less noticeable. Then I will try to lighten the subject in PP. Sometimes it gives a more pleasant result to my eyes.

I'm sorry, you lost me. What man made light are you talking about. The flash? You don't like the catch light in her eyes? Just wondering.

I overall like the photo. To me, I can tell who she is.... not a clone of everyone else. Her expression is a bit confusing....to me. Can't tell if she doesn't want to smile or not. Its sort of a smirk... but that may be who she is. On my monitor (not calibrated) it seems a bit flat as well.... could use some more contrast. But that could be just my computer as others don't mention it at all...

Croasdail wrote in post #18917371
I'm sorry, you lost me. What man made light are you talking about. The flash? You don't like the catch light in her eyes? Just wondering.

I am not sure if the light is from flash or from a continuous light source but that's not my point anyway (don't care much about the catch light in the eyes either). I feel like it has flattened the image taking away its depth (which you have also noticed but couldn't figure out why). Moreover the relation between the subject lighting and the background lighting doesn't look natural to me. It almost looks like those cases when the model is shot in the studio and then cut and paste in Photoshop on an image of a favorite background!

Nevertheless, I have to say these things are subjective. The look of flash is often unnatural but since we have seen them so often around, we have accepted them as norm and no longer question their abnormal appearance.

It seems something is off or added to the color of her skin. Most noticeably her left hand seems to be colored different in the center compared to the edges. The color matches the tone in her face, which I suspect has been processed heavily to give it a smoother finish. That very neutral tone gives her face a very flat feeling compared to the highlights in her hair. Could you share the OOC photo?

I do agree the image looks flat. But I might also argue that is because there wasn't enough additive light. She seems flat against the background. But that is also a stylistic thing.

The garment strikes me as odd in front. If the buckle view was desired, maybe the sweater could have been tied to itself in back. A few times, I've asked subjects to tie or wad their shirts or sweaters in back, even in big knots, to change the fit.

CC: If the lighting ratio on her face was higher (it is pretty flat) that would make the lovely back lighting look a lot better and improve the overall look of a fairly static pose.