Critique #36 *Portrait*-5 Participants

[RayPA]

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.
• Please, only join this thread if you are able post an image within 24 hours of joining.
• 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)
• Photos should be standard screen resolution (72~90) and the longest side of the image approximately 10 inches in length.
• 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

You can also provide feedback on critique threads here:

Critique Feedback Thread

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!



.

[RayPA]

Guideline revisions highlighted in RED (see 1st post).

[remrf]

I'll go another round.

[Wayne R. Scott]

I'll go again. We need some more.

Wayne

[sbug]

Sure, I'm in.

[Wayne R. Scott]

Wow, over 24 hours on this thread and it is still 2 people short. Maybe we should put M8 in the title to get people to join the thread.

Wayne

[remrf]

Originally Posted by Wayne R. Scott

Wow, over 24 hours on this thread and it is still 2 people short. Maybe we should put M8 in the title to get people to join the thread.

Wayne

I think they saw your name on the thread and figured it would be hard to match your portrait of the little girl having tea. Tough act to follow.

[ampguy]

I'm in.


.....................

[ampguy]

bump, needs 1 more .............

[rncamero]

Count me in.

although I get this feeling like I'm walking into class again...

[ampguy]

here's mine.




.......................

[Wayne R. Scott]

Here is mine:



Wayne

[rncamero]

here's mine:


..

[remrf]

Here's mine. "Ashley". Mamiya 6x4.5, Tri-x 400 asa. Developed in Microdol 1-1. Scan of neg.

[ampguy]

throw me a bone here, is the definition a "portrait" a single person or are 2 people OK?

[remrf]

Originally Posted by ampguy

throw me a bone here, is the definition a "portrait" a single person or are 2 people OK?

Oh....two would be okay......as long as both are beautiful women

Just kidding. I used to shoot portraits of couples and families.

[ampguy]

it appears here, many have not yet graduated to the dual person portrait yet

Originally Posted by remrf

Oh....two would be okay......as long as both are beautiful women

Just kidding. I used to shoot portraits of couples and families.

[sbug]

here goes...

[Wayne R. Scott]

Sbug- Lovely capture. I just love the lighting in this photo. Late evening overcast day perhaps? The background is wonderfully out of focus so that your subject just “pops” out of the picture. Pleasant expression that looks genuine. I think you nailed this one.

Remrf- I have a feeling that you and I have basically the same definition of what makes a portrait. This shot is basically good, but it doesn’t grab me right away. I think all of the bright highlights in the background and on the right side of the photo as we view it are grabbing my attention instead of the pretty girl. Also there appears to be some areas of sunlight coming from above (through tree leaves perhaps?) that are showing up as high lights in patches on the girl’s arms that are a little distracting. I assume fill flash was used to balance the light in the photo and place the catch lights in her eyes. My only suggestions would be to crop the right side and photo shop the highlights down in the back ground. Perhaps use a gobo in the future above her when shooting to even out the lighting so there are no hot spots on her.

rncamero- I guess I would classify this as a type of environmental portrait or perhaps a street portrait. If you know this person perhaps this is a very recognizable gesture that friends and family would instantly say, “That is definitely Joe!!” If so then this will work, but since I don’t know Joe I can’t say that I would be able to pick him out a police line up from this shot.

ampguy- Since I have not graduated to two person portraits yet, I do not feel that I am qualified to comment on your photo. Please tell me that you shot this with a Leica, you will make my day.

Wayne

[rncamero]

ampguy: Love the facial expressions - kinda reminds me of grandparents, with the oversize clothes and all. The pampers and partially open closet doors are kind of distracting. If there was nothing else in the room and white walls in the background, the dog print of the couch would be more than enough to draw my attention to the kids.

Wayne R Scott: Great smile! The framing is nice, her face sits well between her hair and collars. The shirt seems a bit light on the screen, there's some texture in there probably looks good in print.

remrf: Man this is sweet. I like the movement in the background, and those eyes are amazing. I'd love to see a version of this photo that has a slight touch of some leafy shadowplay on the model. For some reason, I also get a very vintage 70s feeling from this photo.

sbug: I wish I could do color combinations like that - just perfect match of between the background, hair, skin, and shirt. I like the bright 'overcast' lighting. The shirt is a bit on the bright side.

[sbug]

ampguy: Do I sense a bit of American Gothic here? I quite like that they are not both looking at the camera and her pose is fantastic. Very contemplative. That said, it would benefit from a less cluttered background and the lighting leaves it a bit flat. Give it a try again, you've got great subjects to work with.

wayne: great pose and a beautiful model. Her eyes make the picture work for me. Is this a scan of the negative or a print? I'd probably clean it up a bit either in Photoshop or with a better scan and I'd prefer to not miss the very top and right of her hair. That said, you've got the most important stuff about a portrait nailed here. Well done.

rncamero: I like the casual, non-posed look this has. It's got a very 'real' look to it. I do wish his hands were a bit lower and covered less of his face and the background on the left side can be a bit distracting. It's a great environmental portrait.

remrf: That's a beautiful expression you caught on her. I'd imagine she is quite happy with this shot as well. I do find myself continually tilting my head as I look at this one. I have difficulty 'seeing' her with the angle. Maybe that's just me though. I did save this one and added a bit of contrast and unsharp mask and that made a nice improvement in my eyes. No deal breakers here though. This one should be printed and on a wall.

[ampguy]

Wayne -- very nice. Clean black background and very sharp. I like the natural smile and the very close-up capturing the hair, eyes, and teeth details. It's kind of like "HD b&w", very sharp, and good contrast.

Rncamero -- very sharp. Looks like the guy is wearing a rolex daytona watch. I think it would be nice to have the left background blurred a bit more. very nice.

Remrf -- very nice, softer, warmer and less close-up than Wayne's above, but more traditional, and still in good focus. The exposure seems perfect, but the white vertical stripe at the far R side seems distracting at least on-screen. very nice smile.

Sbug -- very nice color, perfect framing, exposure, and OOF background. I especially like that the person is not centered, yet in the OOF parts, there is nothing distracting. I'll bet you used a very expensive lens for this, and maybe a tripod??

[remrf]

Sorry it took so long to respond to this thread. Work has been...."interesting" of late. Plus I wanted to think a bit about my reactions to the photos posted on the thread.


Ampguy: I don't know if you have read or looked at any of the other portrait threads I have participated in thus far. In them I have posted a Wikipedia definition of the word "portrait" and then gone on to add my own interpretation of the word. Your photo meets the basic definition of the term but falls outside my own. You had a daunting task to begin with in my opinion. Portraits of children can be the most difficult of any attempted. It is a lot like herding cats. Kids typically don't want their picture taken and don't understand why their elders want them to stand still for them. Their attention wanders quickly. This photo has more a the feel of a grab shot than a portrait. A lucky happenstance which could fall into the area of the "candid" portrait" to some but not to me.

First, the full frontal is a camera angle rarely used in potraiture and for good reason. It usually comes off somewhat flat. 3/4 profile is much more common and to my eye is more pleasing and complementary to the subject. I usually ask the subject to turn their body slightly one way or the other and then turn their head back toward the camera. Try it. I think you will like the results. In this photo had you pulled the sofa away from the wall and shot at a slight angle on either side I think the result would have been much more pleasing. It would also had gotten rid of the glare behind the subjects.
The same with the lighting. It appears that you used a flash on or very near the camera which also renders a harsh and flat light. And in this photo also causes a glare off the wood paneling behind the subjects. I personally NEVER use a flash on the camera except when I'm doing news/crime scene type photos. I have never liked the harsh sharp shadows it creates or the "deer in the headlights" look of the subjects.

A tighter crop would also help in this photo. There is too much additional "stuff" in the photo taking the eye away from the subjects. The young lady's posture was very nice but the young man is slouching which also detracts from the overall content.

Having said all that there is a quality to the shot that I do like. Especially the expression on the young lady's face. The young man however looks like he is plotting his revenge.


Wayne: There isn't much not to like with this photo. Expertly placed lighting (either that or you are the luckiest sob on the planet in terms of available light ) I say this because the lighting is very natual looking and does not scream PORTRAIT LIGHTING at the viewer.
Relaxed and pleasant expression on a very pretty face. I am curious about something though. While the crop works here very well I wonder why it was chosen? Is there a school of portrait thought that says cropping portions of the head are THE thing to do? This is not a criticism. I am truly curious.


rncamero: I agree with others on this thread. Too much of the face is hidden for this to be a portrait. But it is still a good photograph and I like it.
My first thought was that it needed to be cropped a bit on the left but the longer I look at it I am less sure this would improve this shot. As I mentally apply the crop at about where the left most leg of the table curves up to the table top it seems as if such a crop would "cramp" the subject. I think you had it right to begin with. Good shot.

sbug: A good shot well executed. Overcast day which evened the light and left no harsh shadows. Good background focus fall off to highlight the subject. My first impression was to crop the shot more traditionally and not have so much open space on the right side but again the longer I looked at your photo the less inclined I am to suggest any change. Good shot. Good eye.



I agree by the way with the objections to the bright stripe on the right side of my photo. Cropping any closer would hack the image up in my opinion and going wider would not have changed much of anything. Had I printed this shot I would have taken care of it in the darkroom. But I don't know how to apply a selective burn in ps so I went with it as it was.

The weather is getting cooler and I am planning another shoot with Ashley as well as another young lady from work who has also agreed to pose for me. Ingrid is from South America and has a completely different look and style than Ashley. I am looking forward to working with her.

[Wayne R. Scott]

Originally Posted by remrf

Wayne: While the crop works here very well I wonder why it was chosen? Is there a school of portrait thought that says cropping portions of the head are THE thing to do? This is not a criticism. I am truly curious.

These are good questions. This photo is from a series of photos that I shot of this gal for her modeling portfolio. One of the requested shots was a black & white "head shot" for the portfolio. This is one of those "Head Shots". Apparently modeling agents look at the facial features in a glossy 8x10 to decide who will work and who won't. So in a strict sense this is not a classic portrait shot.

Indeed, this is not an existing light shot. Three lights and a reflector where used to photograph her. Normally I boss my lights around when doing portrait work so they do what I want them to do .

sbug- Yes, this is a scan from a dusty 8x10 print on a crappy flat bed scanner from a couple of years ago. (My first negative scanner ever, an Epson 4990, arrived Sat. and I am just now learning to scan negatives. Old dog, new tricks.)

Wayne

[remrf]

I was kidding about existing light. I can see the main, fill and hair light but they are very subtle and do not call attention to the lighting over the subject.