Please tell me how I could have done better at this!

I initially posted this in the People forum, but thought I would give it a shot here instead. Please be harsh!

I really want to get better at portraits like this. After reading what I had to work with below, can some of you please share with me what you would have done differently? Maybe some different poses, etc? I really appreciate the input, as this is driving me nuts. I feel totally fine at weddings, which is what I mainly do (still on the side though), but this is really difficult for me. I mean, they are basically snapshots. The people just line up and I take the picture. I don't know how I can get them all in the picture and still have it artsy and fun.


This family wanted me to take some family portraits for them at the beach. They were specific in that they wanted it at this beach, with this background behind them. We did it a 6:00pm, so they were in the shade, but the water, boats, all were lit by the sun.

They like the pictures, but to me, they just seem like really good snapshots. I am not that good when it comes to portraits like this, so I am wanting to know what some more experience photogs would have done in this situation, given the instructions to get all the people in the picture, and get the specific background. Actually, they really wanted the mountain in the background, as well as a ferry boat, but they were so far away, it didn't really show up.

Equipment I had to work with:
30D, 430EX, big flip it, 28mm f1.8

I basically just exposed for the background, and then used the flash to get them. What could I have done differently????

looks pretty good to me, mind you with Prince Edward in the photo

How did you set the flash to go off? It is too strong. If you were on manual, dial it down; if not, you should use flash exposure compensation (FEC) and push it down 1 and 1/3 or 2 stops under the ambient. If the background is then too bright you might re-think the whole setup or not place the family in the shade.

Also you should move the flash off-camera. Using a wireless trigger like an ST-E2 would be the optimal but there are cheaper options that are nearly as easy -- a simple PC cord would be fine. Put the flash off to one side to give the light some depth; right now it is very flat.

Do you have any light modifiers? An umbrella to bounce or shoot-through?

IMHO, you're trying to combine artistic and snapshots into a single picture and it isn't working.

Its nice to do the 1/3s but if you don't show anything worth looking at in the background, what's the point?

I would suggest that the tree line to the right would have been a better space filter to show "nature" rather than a shipyard or whatever that is in the background. But than maybe there was something else there that you didn't want to show.

I like #5 the best, #3 would have been good if you could get the tree on the right in the background rather than the ship/water.

Photoshop... Good base pics (imo).

I would play with levels a bit... maybe some curves. if you want to bring out the subjects, maybe mask and light gaus blur (about 13) the background (make a copy of the layer) at about 10-20 percent opacity.

Tried to do an example but the image quality was so low it was extremely pixalated on my comp. looked good itty bitty but too grainy when made larger.

thebishopp wrote in post #5884765
Photoshop... Good base pics (imo).

I would play with levels a bit... maybe some curves. if you want to bring out the subjects, maybe mask and light gaus blur (about 13) the background (make a copy of the layer) at about 10-20 percent opacity.

Moderating the depth of field is another point... it is too sharp all the way back to bring any focus to the foreground subjects. I understand they wanted those things in the back but that is another reason it looks snapshotish... it may be nicer with the background recognizable, but not so sharp. This is of course easier to do in camera rather than mask and blur each shot in Photoshop.

The above suggestions are great, especially moving the flash off camera and using more DOF. THe tighter crops are also better. Next time, get the family to wear some clothes that are less distracting, the t-shirts with the logos make it snapshot-like for sure. They don't all have to dress identically, but something that ties them all together without all of the distracting elements. Maybe also posing them in a couple of different levels, some sitting some standing, etc. may add to a little more of a dynamic shot and will get them all closer together for a more compact shot - as opposed to having them all in a row, face on to the camera. The couple of shots like this need to have tighter framing - filling a third of the frame with the beach doesn't really contribute to the image, IMO.

Good luck!

Kirk

PS - Here's an example of some PP in PSCS3 - it's a JPEG of a JPEG, but you get the idea, with a loose, 8"x10" crop:

Have everyone take their shoes off next time, especially the tennis shoes. No logos, no sleeveless shirts.

kirkt wrote in post #5885229
You originally shot this at 28mm. Maybe try getting further back and shooting at 50-80mm or even greater, to "pull" the subjects forward and "push" the background back,

A longer lens would bring the background closer. (in this case that wouldn't be a bad thing since the photog wanted the mountains and ferry noticeably in the frame.) I also agree with using a narrow DOF to keep the background out of focus.

The longer lens would do that but the separation in terms of DOF would appear greater. it definitely was confusing the way that I stated it. Thanks m33p33.

Kirk

Thanks for all the input. I have a 28mm 1.8 which I used for this. I also have a 24-85, but I was using the 28 because it is a sharper lens. It is interesting that the overwhelming theme is that the background should have been more blurry. See, I fully knew what I was doing it keeping the background sharp, trying to get the mountain and boat, which don't really even show up. I could have done the blurry background really easily, and I should have done that on a couple of them.

m33p33 wrote in post #5885827
Have everyone take their shoes off next time, especially the tennis shoes. No logos, no sleeveless shirts.

A longer lens would bring the background closer. (in this case that wouldn't be a bad thing since the photog wanted the mountains and ferry noticeably in the frame.) I also agree with using a narrow DOF to keep the background out of focus.

So, if I used the 85 or maybe a 105mm, and stood back, with full zoom, would that make the mountain look bigger in the pictures? Is this a similar technique that people use to get a lion in sharp focus and then a HUGE setting sun behind it?

TheHoff wrote in post #5884746
How did you set the flash to go off? It is too strong. If you were on manual, dial it down; if not, you should use flash exposure compensation (FEC) and push it down 1 and 1/3 or 2 stops under the ambient. If the background is then too bright you might re-think the whole setup or not place the family in the shade.

Also you should move the flash off-camera. Using a wireless trigger like an ST-E2 would be the optimal but there are cheaper options that are nearly as easy -- a simple PC cord would be fine. Put the flash off to one side to give the light some depth; right now it is very flat.

Do you have any light modifiers? An umbrella to bounce or shoot-through?

The camera was in manual, and the flash was a 430ex in ETTL. I just played with the FEC a bit to try and get the subjects lit up.

As far as moving the flash off camera, I just really need to get a 580EX and then I can use the 430 in wireless mode. I know I am fairly limited having it on the camera. As far as light modifiers, I have a big-flip it, with diffuser, but that doesn't work as well standing farther back. It seems to work much better on two people, closer in.

CanonLaw wrote in post #5886885
The camera was in manual, and the flash was a 430ex in ETTL. I just played with the FEC a bit to try and get the subjects lit up.

As far as moving the flash off camera, I just really need to get a 580EX and then I can use the 430 in wireless mode. I know I am fairly limited having it on the camera.

If you're comfortable with the camera in M you should become comfortable with the flash in M as well. You could've dialed it up or down just as easy -- the same as using FEC -- except you'd have full control and not be dependent on the reflectivity of the subjects with each exposure but rather your judge of the histogram and chimp'ed image.

And if your flash is in M you don't need an expensive controller; you can do it with a $10 PC sync cord and a tripod used as a flash stand. If what is holding you back from off-camera flash or multiple flashes is the expense, you might investigate doing it the manual way -- you can even go wireless with a peanut flash trigger (optical sensor) and another cheap manual flash that is fired from your main (connected via cheap sync cord).

The closer the light is to your subjects, the larger of a light source it becomes... so using the flip-it or not, being able to move the flash closer (by off camera cord) becomes essential. Especially if you use a longer lens (like you said above with the lion example) to compress the foreground and background perspective.

CanonLaw wrote in post #5886851
So, if I used the 85 or maybe a 105mm, and stood back, with full zoom, would that make the mountain look bigger in the pictures? Is this a similar technique that people use to get a lion in sharp focus and then a HUGE setting sun behind it?

That's exactly it. If you use a longer lens, and keep the image size the same, you will find that the background gets proportionately bigger, owing to the difference in perspective caused by the longer lens (foreshortening).

be nice to go farther back and zoom in, but shoot it so u get their whole heads with 100% water behind them. then have to buildings above them. Like a higher vantage point. that way they dont block out the scenery and more eye pleasing shot then having the horizon cut their heads in half.