Son - Isaac - 4

The photo was purely intended as a test shot.
Appreciate some C&C on the different processing.

Preference and why would be appreciated?
Cons, I'm a big boy and can handle it, so be brutal if you need to be. Caveat, my son is NOT up for discussion.

1DsMkIII, 50mm @ F1.2, ISO50, 1/500.

Heya,

First one looks better to me from a processing stand point. The second one looks like the kind of filter you'd find off a phone, plasticized to me.

Too bad about the blinds or whatever that is behind your son, a simple background would have looked great with this. Granted you could process it out too.

Very best,

MalVeauX wrote in post #18128524
Heya,

First one looks better to me from a processing stand point. The second one looks like the kind of filter you'd find off a phone, plasticized to me.

Too bad about the blinds or whatever that is behind your son, a simple background would have looked great with this. Granted you could process it out too.

Very best,

Mal, yes, background was a serious flaw........
Appreciate your preference, 2nd was just a different take with a high key tweak.
Thanks for your comments.

I prefer #1. It's more realistic, and he looks livelier and healthier in #1 because #2 makes the skin tone so pale.

Outline of left ear in both is distorted by local overexposure: too much light coming in from behind at that spot.

OhLook wrote in post #18128584
I prefer #1. It's more realistic, and he looks livelier and healthier in #1 because #2 makes the skin tone so pale.

Outline of left ear in both is distorted by local overexposure: too much light coming in from behind at that spot.

OhLook, thanks for your feedback.
Left ear, must say I didn't even notice......until you pointed it out. At least you explained to me WHY it has happened, so its something I can avoid in the future.
Really appreciate that.
Glad you prefer #1, like Mal, it is also my preference.

Something doesn't look right to me. It looks like you may have blurred his face. The eyes look sharp but the front part of his hair is blurred and halfway back it looks in focus; then in contrast, the front shoulder looks in focus. It looks like intentional blurring. If you did that, I'd suggest backing off the blur altogether.

I couldn't put it togeher either.
Front shoulder and front eye in focus...almost same focal plane so I can understand. Front of hair is blurred but behind that is in focus....this confuses me being the image is shot at f1.2. Focus should have been falling off behind it.
For this the image just isn't right to me. Non-photogs may never notice but from a photography point of view I wonder what you did in post.

Using a 50mm lens for portrait work borders on insanity...poor focus.

The best tests are often those where the results don't measure up to expectations.

With similar lighting and the same (great) subject and (fine) camera, you may want to continue testing, closing down your 50mm to various stops and adjusting ISO and shutter speed to maintain the same light values. For almost all portraits you want to focus so at least one eye is in sharp focus and control your DOF to maintain decent focus on other facial features.

Qbx wrote in post #18128932
Something doesn't look right to me. It looks like you may have blurred his face. The eyes look sharp but the front part of his hair is blurred and halfway back it looks in focus; then in contrast, the front shoulder looks in focus. It looks like intentional blurring. If you did that, I'd suggest backing off the blur altogether.

And you'd be right thinking something doesn't look right. I had to do a double take when I had it on my monitor, it was definitely shot at 1.2, and there is NO additional blurring.
All I could deduce was the focal plan has gone through into his hair as his head is tilted at an angle towards the camera. I'm also shooting from a higher position than he is.
I don't have any other explanation, and its the only reasoning I can come to a logical conclusion.
Any other thoughts on HOW or WHY this might happen?

Post processing consisted of Contrast adjustment, eye work and some skin blemish cleaning. Usual overall sharpen at end.

DagoImaging wrote in post #18128990
I couldn't put it togeher either.
Front shoulder and front eye in focus...almost same focal plane so I can understand. Front of hair is blurred but behind that is in focus....this confuses me being the image is shot at f1.2. Focus should have been falling off behind it.
For this the image just isn't right to me. Non-photogs may never notice but from a photography point of view I wonder what you did in post.

Refer response above.

chauncey wrote in post #18129029
Using a 50mm lens for portrait work borders on insanity...poor focus.

It was a test shot, I shot the same pose and lighting with 70-200 @ f2.8 and 135 @ f2. Not sure the pic was poor focus, as the part I wanted sharp and in focus (eyes) was.
Maybe poor choice of lens and aperture!

AZGeorge wrote in post #18129238
The best tests are often those where the results don't measure up to expectations.

With similar lighting and the same (great) subject and (fine) camera, you may want to continue testing, closing down your 50mm to various stops and adjusting ISO and shutter speed to maintain the same light values. For almost all portraits you want to focus so at least one eye is in sharp focus and control your DOF to maintain decent focus on other facial features.

Will do, and yes as chauncey commented, probably poor choice of lens and aperture.

Guys appreciate the feedback, let me organise another shoot using the 50 (stopped down) and the 135 with a better BACKGROUND!!