Practicing outdoor portraiture

7d
M
ISO 320
1/200
70-200MM @70MM
F3.5
External flash on camera with bounce card.

C&C welcome

Due to negative responses I am going to replace this picture with another version of it...

The exposure looks good. The pose is not good, its not flattering and draws attention to places better left alone. Your crop is a bit tight on the top of the head as well.

hummm....I would never pose a child like that... just saying...
I sure wouldn't put this online.

I know it may seem like such an innocent pose...and it is...but with the way some folks are I wouldn't have an image of my child with that pose...online.
Sorry

Looks overly grainy to me.

I guess it depends on how your mind works, you could find a lot of pictures obscene, which I assume what the first two posters mean. I don't and the mother asked me for a print of it so she doesn't either.

Rivas, can you be a little more specific?

I agree with the terrible pose. Not flattering for any age person.

Looks like a torso and a pair of legs photoshopped together.

awesomeshots wrote in post #16285477
Looks like a torso and a pair of legs photoshopped together.

Thanks, I can see now that you mention this how that it could be "seen" that way.

If I hadn't shot this straight on I can see how what wouldn't be the perception.

It might just be my monitor but it looks overly noise for ISO 320. Did you increase the exposure in PP?

I fully admit to being prolly the most amateur one on here, but the pose is no good.
I know the mother may love it, but the mother should also have the say in who she shows it to.
It is now on an internet forum, which would make me terribly angry.
I would remove it... ymmv!

rivas8409 wrote in post #16285831
It might just be my monitor but it looks overly noise for ISO 320. Did you increase the exposure in PP?

A Bit yes..

mojo_plasma wrote in post #16285877
I fully admit to being prolly the most amateur one on here, but the pose is no good.
I know the mother may love it, but the mother should also have the say in who she shows it to.
It is now on an internet forum, which would make me terribly angry.
I would remove it... ymmv!

Why?

An image is usually considered a portrait when the photographer or artist is:

1. In control of the lighting

2. In control of the environment, i.e. chooses the background for a specific purpose and is able to prevent intrusions into the scene

3. In control of the subject i.e. is able to pose and direct the subject/model as needed.

If those conditions aren't all satisfied then you have a snapshot ( I wish I can remember exactly where I read this to give the proper attribution).


The lighting is extremely flat and doesn't provide the necessary modeling to simulate a three-dimensional effect. Even with a flash mounted on camera it is possible to bounce the light off a nearby object (or person) to create directional lighting.

Its inconceivable that you instructed/directed the subject to create this specific pose; hopefully she just sat in this position without instruction from you. One of the basic tenets of photography is that the subject(s) limbs are NEVER pointed at the camera because it results in distortion.

Besides the obvious pose critique, you might have benefited from adding a bit more distance between the subject and background. I don't mind the stone wall, but I think the plant subtracts from the shot.

PixelMagic wrote in post #16286638
An image is usually considered a portrait when the photographer or artist is:

1. In control of the lighting

2. In control of the environment, i.e. chooses the background for a specific purpose and is able to prevent intrusions into the scene

3. In control of the subject i.e. is able to pose and direct the subject/model as needed.

If those conditions aren't all satisfied then you have a snapshot ( I wish I can remember exactly where I read this to give the proper attribution).


The lighting is extremely flat and doesn't provide the necessary modeling to simulate a three-dimensional effect. Even with a flash mounted on camera it is possible to bounce the light off a nearby object (or person) to create directional lighting.

Its inconceivable that you instructed/directed the subject to create this specific pose; hopefully she just sat in this position without instruction from you. One of the basic tenets of photography is that the subject(s) limbs are NEVER pointed at the camera because it results in distortion.

Wow. Really? And all this time I thought a portrait was a picture, painting, or a graphic portrayal in words of the likeness of a person usually showing the face. I guess we need to submit a change to Webster to correct the definition in the dictionary.