New Hampshire Girl

Thanks, guys! I appreciate the comments. Funny you say that about the tilt, idkdc. I almost never do them, but pic #6 just called out for one. Not sure what you mean about vanishing fingers, but I do appreciate the feedback!

Please don't do this.

YankeeMom wrote in post #17518232
Thanks, guys! I appreciate the comments. Funny you say that about the tilt, idkdc. I almost never do them, but pic #6 just called out for one. Not sure what you mean about vanishing fingers, but I do appreciate the feedback!

For portraiture, mostly fashion, which is what I've shot before, you never cut off the fingers - everything should be in full view. So hands should be turned the right way so that fingers or thumbs don't "disappear," for example into hair. It's an aesthetic choice. May or may not apply to what you're doing, but on a subconscious level, it affects viewers or publishers for certain genres of portraiture.

There is a skill set involved with posing. It is arguably the most important part of portraits. Shooting everything wide open will get you mediocre results. It is the same thing every time. Directing your subject to get the results you want will get you remarkable photos.
There is so much more to that than having them shake their head like they are getting water out of their ear. Not trying to be mean...just trying to help.
Go over to creative live and pay for a series on Sue Bryce. You'll see what I mean.

ganginwood wrote in post #17518452
There is a skill set involved with posing. It is arguably the most important part of portraits. Shooting everything wide open will get you mediocre results. It is the same thing every time. Directing your subject to get the results you want will get you remarkable photos.
There is so much more to that than having them shake their head like they are getting water out of their ear. Not trying to be mean...just trying to help.
Go over to creative live and pay for a series on Sue Bryce. You'll see what I mean.

I wouldn't say wide open always gets you mediocre results, but posing and lighting is certainly more important. I go for "candid" portraits for non-models, but that requires very short shutter lag window times, good vision and a decent viewfinder. Models and beginning models I'll have to coach into posing correctly. Some people require more than one shoot, so I do a "test shoot" to warm them up and get them more comfortable around me/the camera.

I see. Good food for thought -- thanks for explaining.

Hi ganginwood, someone else suggested that -- I have never done that with a model's head. Also, I don't shoot everything wide-open, but 6 of the 13 in this session were. There are definitely times for it and not for it. Thanks for the comments!

They are all nice shots, don't get me wrong. But all of them at at 2.8 and wider. It's not like you were shooting into a construction site. That's all I was saying. I probably came off a little abrasive. I certainly wasn't trying to.
To be fair, if you're a mom to 11...just shoot at 2.8 and below. You don't have time for composition.

Ha, yes, 11 kids, but no handicap and no excuse for lacking composition (which I don't believe I do.) I don't just shoot wide-open or at low f-stop to blur out an unpleasant background. There is an aesthetic to subject isolation and blur even with a beautiful, even background. 4.0 is snapshot default, but I realize that it is necessary at times.

YankeeMom wrote in post #17519701
Ha, yes, 11 kids, but no handicap and no excuse for lacking composition (which I don't believe I do.) I don't just shoot wide-open or at low f-stop to blur out an unpleasant background. There is an aesthetic to subject isolation and blur even with a beautiful, even background. 4.0 is snapshot default, but I realize that it is necessary at times.

Agreed. There are different styles of portraits. I don't do portraits much apart from taking some shots of my wife and myself while we are on trips. I certainly like wide open shots and there's no need to explain yourself why any of these are f2.8 or larger. Nice work with your daughter... I like the colors in the background and probably would not like them as much if you used a smaller aperture.

If you're interested, here's an f1.2 chosen exactly as you say for aesthetic purposes. Nothing unpleasant about the background. Click for full size (didn't want to detract from your main thread).

IMAGE LINK: http://www.nathantpham​.com …DJmm/0/X2/IMG_8​199-X2.jpg

Thanks so much, Nathan! I tried to click on your picture, but couldn't open it larger, though I see what you are doing there. I definitely try to open my lens as much as possible, as long as everything I want is in focus. Wide-open, for example, does not usually work well on close up, angled portraits for me -- but stepping back can be perfect. Nothing beats that isolated subject/3-D effect.

Thanks. It's in my POTN profile gallery, if you want to see. I also fixed the link on the photo.

I definitely run into the same issue with close ups wide open... who doesn't? Generally, for any portraits that capture the full body, I go wide open.

I certainly see the place for small apertures in studio settings. Otherwise, outdoor portraits that include the background in the DOF seem dated to me.

ganginwood wrote in post #17519412
To be fair, if you're a mom to 11...just shoot at 2.8 and below. You don't have time for composition.

What are you saying? Lisa Holloway (also a member of POTN) is a mother of 10. She shoots at large apertures all the time.

ganginwood wrote in post #17519412
To be fair, if you're a mom to 11...just shoot at 2.8 and below. You don't have time for composition.

Nathan wrote in post #17519978
What are you saying? Lisa Holloway (also a member of POTN) is a mother of 10. She shoots at large apertures all the time.

I think shooting wide open doesn't necessarily mean you ignore the background. Lisa Holloway seems to be composing intentionally. When I shoot weddings or location portraits, I deliberately maneuver for the best angles and backgrounds. Just because something is blurry doesn't mean it's invisible. Bokeh( 暈け) is quality of blur, so the object(s) blurred in the background will affect the quality and aesthetic of the blur.

I don't think anyone is saying they blur out the background without consideration for composition.