Help CC two Headshots

I lost the original RAW photo, so I'm working off a jpeg without EXIF. I had another RAW from the same time, and can approximate the EXIF as follows: ISO 100, f/2.8, 1/800 (probably was higher) 100mm Camera: 5D MII W/ 2.8L IS II USM 70-200 This was taken with all natural light.

I like this photo from several years ago, but recognize the flaws. I am over-focusing on several flaws that might be minimal to another viewer, and might be missing the obvious so need some outside CC and another set of eyes.

- The first is the original (or the jpeg version I was able to recover)

- Second photo after some post processing yesterday.

Would appreciate if you could note both good and bad attributes. Appreciate the assistance !

I like the original. The crop on the second is too tight for me and the highlights on the face are getting blown out.

It's tough using JPG to start from as there is not much information to work with.

First off, I'm not a portrait shooter, I'm just offering opinion. I like the first shot better. The crop is too tight on the second, as mentioned.

To my eye, the hot(ter) area on top of the bricks and the gap in the bricks to her left are both distracting. They pull my eye from her face. At 100mm, and f/2.8, about 10' more between her and the brick wall would have made a nicer shot, IMHO. Providing you had the room to work with, of course.

The brick wall really takes a brick to this photo: it's way too distracting.

Ted & Bassat: Ditch the crop....got it ! The bricks I will address in my next post.

Is there anything about in-cam photo of the subject model that could improve? anything that was correct?

Thanks for both of your help, keep it coming!

Alveric wrote in post #17807006
The brick wall really takes a brick to this photo: it's way too distracting.

Alveric, thanks This is why CC is so important. I never gave two thoughts to the bricks causing a problem, all focus was on the main subject and that's why I need outside eyes from other photographer's.


Ironically the bricks were intentionally part of the shot. The location is a historical place and the walls part of the ruins. This places the subject at the location, rather than just being 'anywhere'. However, in my rationalization I didn't consider that the bricks themselves would be a distraction, just thought that the age/shapes/colors of the bricks would compliment (not distract from) the picture.

Can you explain more? Are bricks generally a bad choice for backgrounds because of the shapes & colors, or doe the perpendicular patterns distract from the subject?

I agree about the wall, the bricks are a bit to much in focus I think, the busy patterns of the brick lead you away to what is a well exposed, decent head shot. Id you either shot it shallower, or moved her away from the wall a bit more it would have helped with the "blur" factor a bit. I prefer the 1st one as well, there is a slight highlight that is a bit blown on the top of her head that bothers me a bit too.

There is a fine line between including scene elements and maintaining a clean portrait. Where this fails is including detail but without context. By showing a few bricks, rather than a whole structure, all you get is the distraction without the reward of telling the story.

gonzogolf wrote in post #17807038
There is a fine line between including scene elements and maintaining a clean portrait. Where this fails is including detail but without context. By showing a few bricks, rather than a whole structure, all you get is the distraction without the reward of telling the story.

Gonzo - makes complete sense!

It reminds ME of where the photo was taken and tells a story, but is useless clutter to anyone ELSE who views the same photo. Again, the usefulness of CC!

Thanks

dballphotography wrote in post #17807026
I agree about the wall, the bricks are a bit to much in focus I think, the busy patterns of the brick lead you away to what is a well exposed, decent head shot. Id you either shot it shallower, or moved her away from the wall a bit more it would have helped with the "blur" factor a bit. I prefer the 1st one as well, there is a slight highlight that is a bit blown on the top of her head that bothers me a bit too.

Thanks dball. I stopped it down a bit due to the sun, probably should have used a ND and opened it up or moved her away from the wall as others suggested. Again, my original intention was to have the wall in focus, which has been a unanimous -FAIL- so far from everyone. Thanks

DanangMonkey wrote in post #17807020
Alveric, thanks This is why CC is so important. I never gave two thoughts to the bricks causing a problem, all focus was on the main subject and that's why I need outside eyes from other photographer's.

Ironically the bricks were intentionally part of the shot. The location is a historical place and the walls part of the ruins. This places the subject at the location, rather than just being 'anywhere'. However, in my rationalization I didn't consider that the bricks themselves would be a distraction, just thought that the age/shapes/colors of the bricks would compliment (not distract from) the picture.

Can you explain more? Are bricks generally a bad choice for backgrounds because of the shapes & colors, or doe the perpendicular patterns distract from the subject?

It's not that bricks are a bad choice for backgrounds –all the contrary, brick walls can make excellent backgrounds–, but that in this particular photo they are too much in focus (a good rule of thumb is to have the subject at least 6 ft away from the background). Furthermore, the wall abruptly ending at the woman's head level inserts an uneven horizon line that is made worse by the bright spots from the sunlight shining on the top bricks.

As for the location, the viewer can't know about its history or importance. You know and it speaks to you because you were there, but the viewer wasn't: to him the brick wall could have been that of a backyard in L.A. or Carcassonne. If you want to showcase the location you need to step back and take a different kind of portrait.

It's a good lesson: When framing an environmental portrait, don't get so fixated on the subject that you miss the rest of the image.

Know that you can very easily change the look and framing of a shot by moving yourself and/or the subject just a few inches in one direction or another.

This thread is helpful. It's specifically about a car, but car portraits aren't really so much different than people portraits: Lighting, pose, and background:
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=536323

nathancarter wrote in post #17807175
It's a good lesson: When framing an environmental portrait, don't get so fixated on the subject that you miss the rest of the image.

Know that you can very easily change the look and framing of a shot by moving yourself and/or the subject just a few inches in one direction or another.

This thread is helpful. It's specifically about a car, but car portraits aren't really so much different than people portraits: Lighting, pose, and background:
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=536323

Point well taken Nathan, Thanks, I'm off to read that thread

DanangMonkey wrote in post #17807020
Alveric, thanks This is why CC is so important. I never gave two thoughts to the bricks causing a problem, all focus was on the main subject and that's why I need outside eyes from other photographer's.

Ironically the bricks were intentionally part of the shot. The location is a historical place and the walls part of the ruins. This places the subject at the location, rather than just being 'anywhere'. However, in my rationalization I didn't consider that the bricks themselves would be a distraction, just thought that the age/shapes/colors of the bricks would compliment (not distract from) the picture.

Can you explain more? Are bricks generally a bad choice for backgrounds because of the shapes & colors, or doe the perpendicular patterns distract from the subject?

Alv, thanks again ..... I actually reframed to put the hole into the shot, haha, thought it would interrupt the line add some dynamic to the background.