View Full Version : Critique #14 Theme *Portrait*
Welcome to this critique thread. Please read the purpose statement and the guidelines/ground rules regarding participation.
Purpose
The primary purpose of this thread is to provide a forum where photographers can give and receive constructive criticism on one another's photographs. By setting up some basic guidelines we hope that this thread will provide a forum where the give and take of honest constructive criticism can help us become better photographers.
Guidelines/Ground Rules
The thread has very specific rules regarding participation. The one basic rule is that you cannot provide criticism on an image or comment in a critique thread unless you also have an image posted. To post an image to this thread you must be a participant. Participation in this thread is limited. Here are the guidelines and ground rules for participation:
• Participation in this thread is limited to 5 photographers
• Participants join the thread by posting their intention. You can simply reply with your intent to join by posting something like: "I'm joining," "I'm in," or just state your name
• Joining is on a "first come, first served" basis. The first 5 to reply become the participants
• Once the thread has 5 participants, no other photographers can join or participate in the thread
• Once the thread is full of participants all photographers will upload their image(s)
• Please abide by any thematic requirement (e.g., landscape, portrait, etc.)
•The number of photos for each participant is limited to one
• Photographers attach photos as thumbnails (no inline images or links)
• Photographers post their images supplying titles (if any) and other pertinent information (the amount of information should be minimal)
• Photographers can only comment on their own images and reply to comments only when everyone else in the thread has posted their comments on the image
• Every participant must comment on every photo (except their own—initially)
• Every participant must make at least two comments, one positive comment, and one constructive criticism (which is actually two positive comments)
• Once every photographer has commented then a free flowing discussion begins. It is at this point that every photographer can comment on their own work and reply to comments, ask questions, etc.
• The participants decide when the thread closes.
If you'd like to participate in a critique thread and need some ideas about how to proceed with viewing images critically, you may find this thread helpful:
How do you look at photos (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26459)
You can also provide feedback on critique threads here:
Critique Feedback Thread (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26611)
Remember: Please do not provide criticism on an image or comment in a critique thread unless you also have an image posted.
This thread is now active, please follow the guidelines if you'd like to participate! Have Fun!
.
Gabriel M.A.
08-09-2006, 07:08
I'm joining. I state "Gabriel". ;)
Well Big G, one of us has cooties I guess. Or there are only two or three of us on this forum who shoot pictures of real people up close and personal. You know, when you actually have to talk to the subject and let them know you are taking a picture.
jmilkins
08-10-2006, 17:39
Hmmmn ..alright.. I'm in.
It's hard here in the southern hemisphere to get a foot into these great critique threads becasue they usually fill up while i'm asleep!
Portraits (particularly more formal ones) are certainly not my forte, but I'm here to learn so might as well get in amongst it.
Hmmmn ..alright.. I'm in.
It's hard here in the southern hemisphere to get a foot into these great critique threads becasue they usually fill up while i'm asleep!
Portraits (particularly more formal ones) are certainly not my forte, but I'm here to learn so might as well get in amongst it.
Glad to have you and thank you for participating. And the way this thread is filling up so far the time zone differences won't matter at all. Besides we have as much time as it takes for all of us to participate.
Bump for more participants! :)
.
Gabriel M.A.
08-10-2006, 19:10
Well Big G, one of us has cooties I guess.
I think it's me :rolleyes:
Warren T.
08-11-2006, 07:37
Can someone define "Portrait"? Do street candids count?
Thanks,
Warren
Can someone define "Portrait"? Do street candids count?
Thanks,
Warren
your interpretation, warren. a street candid might fit the street photography theme a little better, but it can blend into the portrait theme too.
:)
Warren T.
08-11-2006, 07:41
Okay, thanks. :) In that case, I'll give it a try. I don't have too many formal portraits in my portfolio :).
I'm in.
--Warren
And I'll go ahead & be first to post a photo.
"birthday party"
Warren T.
08-11-2006, 12:37
"Girl in Chinatown" (candid, shot from the hip), Zorki 4, Jupiter-8, Tri-X
Here is mine. Portrait of David. Minolta 7000, Plus-X. I don't recall what I used to develop it but it was enlarged on my Daylab to 8x10".
Gabriel M.A.
08-11-2006, 19:29
OK, this is another critique with lff, whose account seems to have been deleted.
We need one more person. Not that I'm stalling for time (heh); but I'm serious; we're lacking one person.
Gabriel M.A.
08-11-2006, 19:41
Here's mine in the meantime. Different portrait.
Leica M2 / Ilford FP4+ in Diafine / Summitar
jmilkins
08-11-2006, 20:40
Ok. Here's the 5th image for this thread. Critique away :)
"Mother and Child". CV R3a Hexanon 50/2
Gabriel M.A.
08-12-2006, 05:08
Ok. Here's the 5th image for this thread. Critique away :)
We need one more. The first image is from a deleted account :confused:
CALLING FOR A FIFTH PARTICIPANT
Gabriel, how does my account show up as deleted? It's only 24 hours since I was last on here & I'm still able to log in & post on these threads.
I will admit that my account seems a bit odd on my end as well. I have an avatar uploaded & many other bits of info about me are checked in my CP, but none of this info shows up with my posts. I know this isn't the place to resolve these issues, but I've been wondering for a few weeks now.
Warren T.
08-12-2006, 13:20
Well then, if lff still exists, then let's go with 6 participants in this thread. How about that?
--Warren
jmilkins
08-12-2006, 13:49
Well then, if lff still exists, then let's go with 6 participants in this thread. How about that?
--Warren
Yeah -lets live on the edge ! ;)
Thoughts on images coming.
jmilkins
08-12-2006, 13:55
Gabriel, how does my account show up as deleted? It's only 24 hours since I was last on here & I'm still able to log in & post on these threads.
I will admit that my account seems a bit odd on my end as well. I have an avatar uploaded & many other bits of info about me are checked in my CP, but none of this info shows up with my posts. I know this isn't the place to resolve these issues, but I've been wondering for a few weeks now.
OT
Iff - FYI there's been a bit of non-community-condusive skullduggerry on the site and hotmail yahoo and maybe msn based accounts are not readily accepted anymore.
send a message to the moderators (back alley,kim coxton, rover)and they may be able to assist.
I will go down the list of photos as they appear in the thread.
iff : I remember a thread on the general discussion forum several months back concerning portraits. It seemed to me at the time that most of the photos posted as examples in the thread were not truly portraits but snapshots of people. I do think there is such a thing as a candid portrait but those to me are different than a snapshot. Because of my background shooting formal portraits professionally I did not consider the chance shot of a person or group however well exposed to be a portrait. The issue came up again on another forum I frequent and I decided to look up the word for an exact definition.
It turns out I was wrong. According to Wikipedia the definition is quite broad,
"A portrait is a painting, photograph, or other artistic representation of a person. Portraits are often simple head shots or mug shots and are not usually overly elaborate. The intent is to show the basic appearance of the person, and occasionally some artistic insight into his or her personality."
I still have a very firm idea of what I am going for when I shoot a "portrait"
but I have widened my definition when it comes to viewing what others consider to be such.
Having said all that I like your shot of the kids. They are a happy looking group. You say it is a birthday party. Perhaps for one of the kids in the photo. My personal preference is for sharper focus than what appears in this photo but it has a certain charm just as it is and I'm guessing by the light fall that it was shot without flash using available light hence the slight blur of movement. But the happiness radiating from the kids covers a lot of supposed photographic mistakes. The only thing I would suggest is to crop the sides for a tighter shot of the subjects.
Warren T.: This is what I consider to be a "candid portrait" and a really good example at that. A disturbing photo. I wonder why she looks so wary and displeased. But be that as it may it is a very good candid portrait snd I don't think I would do anything to change it. Some might see the crop at the top of the head to be a problem but I don't think this photo would be any stronger if all of the subject's head were in the frame. It works for me just as it is.
gabrielma: A beautiful portrait. One that captures the dignity and grace of the subject perfectly. Although the underlying form to me is quite formal it has an easy candid feel of a person at ease with herself and the world. I find the light at the back of her head to be a distraction and had it been me doing the printing I would probably have burned that section in quite a bit more. But this would be a personal preference and I understand that others may find that light to be a plus. In any case a wonderful example of a photographic portrait. Right place, right time, right angle, excellent framing.
jmilkins: Another excellent candid portrait. A very intimate moment. Beautifully composed overall but I think you could crop just a bit off the left side at about the middle of the blanket and still have a good balance within the frame. That space is doing nothing for the overall composition and the photo would be just as strong or stronger without it. Again, a beautiful photograph.
mango: This photo to me hangs right at the edge of what I would think of as a portrait. A beautiful and moving photograph to be sure but I'm not as sure that it is a portrait. While it is a group shot only one subject's face can be seen and the framing suggests to me that she is a portion of the shot but not the subject which seems to be the scene overall. Others I'm sure will disagree. In any case it is a masterful shot by someone with a sure hand with a camera.
jmilkins
08-13-2006, 04:25
Birthday Party
Iff
Iff this one has a homely, warm feel to it imparted by the overall fuzziness of the image – focus of camera shake?. But its a time when this works and adds to the photo. The image makes one wonder whose birthday it is – the girl in the middle with her friends hand on her shoulder? I like the varying expression of the kids, from the girls’ open smiles to the little tough guy-and the adult in the background off perhaps to light the candles?
"Girl in Chinatown"
Warren
Great capture of the inquisitive unselfconscious stare of the young. It looks like she’s leaning backward as she passes to keep watching. And tightly framed too. I don’t know enough about Tri-x to know whether you’ve needed to crop it or not (not that I think that matters). I find the lighter blown highlights to the left of the image slightly distracting because my eye tends to go there rather than to the subject.
Portrait of David
James/ “Larry”
A soft,gentle portrait full of humanity and soulfulness. David’s smile is a wry one and his eyes are particularly striking - I can’t work out if there’s humour or sadness behind them – maybe it’s both. I like the natural, non-formal position of his hand. I’ll be interested to know whether you used a soft focus filter, or whether it’s just a very shallow DoF.
Gabriel
Different portrait
Oh wow – it is indeed different! I really like what that lens can do tonally. Also the impact of the shallow DoF - it adds a delicacy and gracefulness to the image. I love the way her hair and skin are rendered, and the change across the patterns in the shirt. At first, the sharp, but OOF edges of the furniture behind are distracting, particularly because the subject is in profile, but the softness wins out. One really disturbing aspect for me is if one squints at the image the plant in the right background seems to take on the form of an approaching wide-mouthed monster with a forked tail. Not that we are meant to look at photos like this normally, but it gives me the shivers..
Orphans celebrate the birthday of their president
ManGo
This one is intriguing. What president?! But then I got distracted by the wonderful tones and grain in the image. It really encourages me to try Tri-X. Also how much detail has been caught from the white folds off the child’s t-shirt to the dark headscarf –and even the warm air around the candle flame. It seems really well exposed. And another classic inquisitive stare from a child. A decisive moment when the photographer had more power than the president!
Thanks all for showing me the variety of takes on the theme. Now off to read othere's impressions.
Warren T.
08-13-2006, 08:39
lff:
You captured very pleasant expressions on everyone's faces. The lighting conditions were difficult, and no doubt forced you to shoot with the lens wide open. Either camera motion or DOF issues caused some of the faces to be slightly out of focus, but not enough to be too distracting.
However, the person in the background is a bit distracting, maybe cropping from both the left and right sides would focus a little more on the group. It may also be possible to move the camera position, maybe lower and to the right to change some of the background, yet still show some of the party decorations in the shot.
remrf:
This is a very well done portrait of someone who appears to be very comfortable with you. I love the originality of the pose, and the effective side lighting.
I at first was put off a little by the overall softness of the picture, but after viewing it for a while, I decided that the softness adds to the overall mood of the shot, and it allows for the viewer to really "see" and "feel" the subject's gaze.
gabrialma:
This is a very well done profile study, and your subject seems very relaxed. I like how placed her profile right in front of a dark background. The background is pleasantly out of focus, and I think the highlight area on the right background actually helps balance the shot. The main subject (face and front of blouse) are lit perfectly, and in perfect focus.
Just a suggestion, I would burn the dark area a bit to slightly reduce the lines that are aiming right at the subject's face. And just a personal observation, the feeling I get is a certain detachment from the subject. That may have been your intent though :).
jmilkins:
This is lovely, intimate picture. It reminds me of classical paintings of Madonna and Child. Several compositional factors draw attention to the baby: the spot of light on the baby's body and arm, the mother's loving gaze, the mother's arm position, and the baby's raised hand. Even the mother's hair is perfectly positioned.
The only thing I would do here is to crop some from the left side of the picture to remove the slightly distracting background information.
I REALLY like this picture. Well Done!
ManGo:
I would have to assume that this is a portrait of the child with the bottle. You captured a wonderful expression and pose on this child. The image is very well exposed with excellent tonal range.
There is really too much else going on in the picture that competes for the viewer's attention. It seems more a documentary image of a party (a very well done one, at that) than an actual portrait.
Thanks for all your great shots, and for letting me have an opportunity to comment on them :).
--Warren
Warren T.
08-13-2006, 08:59
Mango:
The more I view this, the more I LIKE it. There is no doubt for me now, who the subject is, for she is the only one facing the camera. The boy on the left foreground seems to be staring intently at the girl, which in turn guides my focus towards her as well. Everything else has been rendered out of focus, so that the viewer can see what is going on, but the eye does not linger too long there, but inevitably focuses back on the subject. Wonderful!
--Warren
Gabriel M.A.
08-14-2006, 07:13
"birthday party"
The first thing I thought was "crop". I think this needs to have the person in the background on the right to be cropped out, and that would also force you to crop the left side to balance it. Very soft, out of focus, I don't know if this was your intent, but it gives it a certain quality that is of course different from the sharp, deer-in-headlights shots we often see from most birthday parties. A common problem, in my view, is that people tend to place the eyes in the middle of the frame, chopping the rest of the body, and here the legs are cut off. This would have been a good opportunity to put their whole bodies in the frame. Otherwise, I would have come in closer and framed them from the waist up.
It has a nice warm feeling to it.
Gabriel M.A.
08-14-2006, 07:17
"Girl in Chinatown" (candid, shot from the hip), Zorki 4, Jupiter-8, Tri-X
I can't help but think that this is already cropped. And this is about the image itself, not the photograph: the shadows and highlights are clipped, and there is a lot of pixelation. If you could scan this again with a higher dpi, or, well, that's not the scope of these critiques. I think the impact of this photo would improve immensely by the quality of its scan and the treatment of its tones.
It is a nice little candid, with a very nice real expression in her eyes and rest of her mouth. There is a nice diagonal made across the frame. I wonder how this would look not so tightly cropped.
Gabriel M.A.
08-14-2006, 07:22
Here is mine. Portrait of David. Minolta 7000, Plus-X.
I love the "glowing" highlights, just how soft the light is coming in and falling on his left side and featherly diffused on the rest of his face. His expression is charming, if I may say so; his eyes draw you in, it's hard not to gravitate towards them. Perhaps some would complain that the hand is half in or out the frame, but I don't find this bothersome one bit. Beautiful blur, nice focus on the plane right in front of his eyes. Despite the fact that the shadows are clipped, this can stand well as it is. I'm sure this would make a good (wet) print, if printed with care.
Well done.
Gabriel M.A.
08-14-2006, 07:29
"Mother and Child". CV R3a Hexanon 50/2
Here I would have opted for the widest aperture and come in closer, or used a longer focal length. But most of the time, I know we're not set up that way, and have to work with what we have; these shots are challenging, and I know because I've tried them with my rangefinders, and at least in my case, I don't want to "get in their face" or disturb them in any way.
You placed the mother very well, centering her as a triangle, and both of their faces, and her heart off-center, also forming a triangle. It is a nice warm photo.
I would do two things: try to crop off the shadow on the left side, while keeping the centered forms, if possible, you may have to move them just a tad, and play with contrast. I think this would be a smacker if it had nice rich shadows, and brighter highlights; but don't make it *too* contrasty. :)
Gabriel M.A.
08-14-2006, 07:37
Gabriel, how does my account show up as deleted? <snip>
I will admit that my account seems a bit odd on my end as well.
Mea culpa :o
Your account looks exactly like all other accounts that have been deleted; you have no avatar, no other information (literally), and the "Posts: n/a" is the very indication of deleted accounts; that and no other information provided when looking up your profile before, well... Have any of the mods looked into your account?
Sorry for the confusion. So sorry.
No harm done Gabriel. I was just confused a little myself. I have actually tried 2 different avatars & neither have showed up on my posts, despite being visible in my CP as my chosen avatar. And I was able to find out how to at least show more info in my profile over the weekend. The fact that no further info shows up on my posts bothers me as well, but I have not been able to figure out how to get it to show. Perhaps I should PM a moderator about this soon- maybe today if work will cease making me work for a while. ;-)
Now for the pictures....bear with me as I don't consider Portrait photgraphy as a great interest of mine, I just had a photo I wanted to show & get some feedback on, so I apologize in advance for jumping into something I know little about.
Warren T
I like the angle & the expression here. Very nice work getting the focus right shooting from the hip. The only thing remotely troubling for me here is the graininess of the photo posted and the white paint behind her seems a little overexposed. But if you'd sped the shutter up a little, the girl would be too underexposed & that would be worse.
remrf
You obviously know more about this area of photography & it shows here. I also like the use of side lighting & the placement of the focal plane. The expression is priceless.
gabrielma
I'll confess to not being much of a fan of the profile, but you have done a nice job of capturing this woman & giving her a certain dignity. The only little problem I see is the brght spot in the bg above here head distracts me as well.
jmilkins
This is a nicely done shot. Good job capturing mother & newborn in a precious moment. I'm sure both subjects will enjoy this one for the rest fo their lives. The only potential improvement would seem to be what most everyone else is saying- either a tighter crop or a longer lens to pull the subjects in closer.
ManGo
This one is a toss up with remrf's for my favorite of this thread. It certainly makes the confusion over my presence in this thread quite worthwhile. I love the isolation of the subject via creative use of the DOF & focus. Cropping down to just the girl might also provide a wholly different & yet pleasant picture (or maybe not?).
Warren T.
08-14-2006, 15:54
Bump... waiting for ManGo's critiques so we can move on :)
--Warren
Good story to go along with a damn fine photo, ManGo.
My photo was taken in available light w/o flash- hence the soft look. The main reason I showed that one was because I wanted to post a rf shot & that was maybe the only "portrait" I have shot w/ any of my rf cameras. When I signed onto this thread I had another photo in mind, but then I remembered it was shot w/ an slr. I like this photo mainly because it taught me early on the low light capability my GSN has. I love that camera.
Good story on the Iraq photo Mango. Iff, as far as I know there was no requirement that the photo had to be taken with an rf camera. The one I entered was shot with an 35mm slr and on a previous critique the camera I used was a Mamiya 645 slr. None the less I share your opinion of the Yashica. I love my GS.
To answer somebody's question yes the portrait of David was shot using a soft focus filter. And the photo shown is a scan of an 8x10" wet print which I did on a Daylab enlarger and developing system.
The subject of the portrait, David is a video producer I met while working with the local cable company in the Tucson studio. David is one of the smartest people I ever met and we also did a series of comedy radio spots for a local community radio station. He is an excellent videographer and is comfortable on either end of the lens. I was an audio consultant to his weekly comedy current events program which ran for a few years locally called ,"This week in Tucson". Or "TWIT". :p
Warren T.
08-16-2006, 18:57
Hi Folks,
Thanks for your great critique comments on my picture. I was out for a walk with my then newly acquired Zorki-4 with J-8 50mm that day. We came upon a restaurant's grand opening ceremony and dedication so we stopped so that I could get some shots with the Zorki. It was the first roll through that camera, and I was still getting used to it. While standing there watching the lion dance, I noticed this little girl standing there with her grandmother, but she seemed more intent on watching me than with watching the action. I knew that if I actually aimed the lens at her, she would probably turn away, so I pre-focused on a nearby object, and waited for the right moment to snap the shutter without bringing the camera to my eye.
Sorry for the poor scan quality, it got worse as I was rushing to post the picture for critique. My original crop actuallly showed the top of her head, but I decided to crop out a distracting highlight in the top right side of the frame which caused the top of her head to go out of the frame.
I may re-scan it someday when I have time.
--Warren
jmilkins
08-16-2006, 19:38
Thaks all for the interesting contexts you provided - they add to the images posted. For my part, the Mother and Child image was orignally taken on 35mm Reala 100 and then converted to B&W. From your feedback I'll work on improving that part in terms of the curves etc - thank you.
This brings me to a question that I considered in posting this image - "to crop or not to crop"?
I agree that a tighter framing of the image would perhaps have more impact, but I'm unsure of the photographic conventions or "rules" surrounding cropping - is cropping during scanning or printing regarded as a valid technique in obtaining the final preferred image, or should the changes be made "in camera" e.g. by changing lenses for a tighter view.
Or, as I suspect, is this just getting too obsessive about what is or is not "correct"?
I'm interested in your views.
Cropping reminds me....I originally wanted to crop out the woman in the background, but the only scan I could find was too low res to afford any cropping so I just left it as it was.
I fully expected to be critiqued on cropping.....but hey, that's my MOM back there! Birthday girl is 2nd from the right on the front row.
haha....thanks again for the critiques.
T
I agree that a tighter framing of the image would perhaps have more impact, but I'm unsure of the photographic conventions or "rules" surrounding cropping - is cropping during scanning or printing regarded as a valid technique in obtaining the final preferred image, or should the changes be made "in camera" e.g. by changing lenses for a tighter view.
Or, as I suspect, is this just getting too obsessive about what is or is not "correct"?
I'm interested in your views.
I think you will find as many opinions on this as there are people to offer them. Cropping or framing "in camera" is a good idea when it can be managed but is not always an option when going for the "decisive moment". When I have a darkroom to use I will either contact print the neg or enlarge a full frame print to view to make final cropping decisions. Of late I have scans made of my images and view them in an image editing program and make the crop(if any) at that time. I generally shoot allowing a bit of excess area around my subject and crop as desired at a later date.
I have met some photographers who only frame "in camera" and then butcher their neg holders to allow the full neg area to be shown on the print which supposedly then becomes "art". Sounds like a pretty stupid idea to me but some will have it no other way. :rolleyes:
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.