Was asked to take some photos of this young lady. The day was very cloudy, I was using a speedlite. Don't remember all my settings, but think my ISO was 200. Was shooting in manual with auto focus but don't think it was set to spot metering. I do know that I messed up again and didn't ck for the bracketing to be on and it was which explains why some came out the way they did.
Jay Pat
Loc: Round Rock, Texas, USA
Yes!!!!
If you can, clone a tooth or two in there.
Pat
Jay Pat wrote:
Yes!!!!
If you can, clone a tooth or two in there.
Pat
Thanks Jay Pat. Sometimes I wonder if I'm on the right track. I know the basics on the cloning but don't know if I should in this case. I may try it out to see how it looks. This young lady was rather critical about herself in these photos ie, to fat, face looked fat, she didn't like her eyes or her hair, etc. You get the picture. I think she had fun tho because she could strike a pose as good as any model :-)
OK, if you are going to call them portraits, you MUST get the flash off the camera. The first image could be so much better without that flat, unflattering on-camera flash. The light needs to come from off to one side and be higher than the subject. It is also cropped a bit too tight - but that part is a preference thing. This image needs a definite Levels or Curves adjustment as there are no highlights at all.
Her face looked fat because of the way you lit it.
Number two is composed well - great expression. Maybe a bit too much sky above her. Here again, some fill flash or reflector would make a huge difference. Her face is not that much difference in tonality than the sky. I might even try cropping a bit higher to eliminate the trees. This image also needs a Levels or Curves adjustment to pop those highlights.
Number three is my favorite. Cute pose with the bent leg. Guess what - some fill flash or reflector to make her a bit brighter than the field would be nice, but it is pretty good as-is. The shadow on her neck does look like some flash was used, so maybe just a tad more light woudl help. I definitely would liked to have seen it shot with a wider aperture to blur that tree line a bit more - but not a big deal.
Natural light portraits are not easy - we still have to give the light direction and that direction has to be almost anywhere other than from along the lens axis.
Nice start. Remember, if you are going to call them portraits instead of snapshots, it is all about the light and some appropriate post processing. Tell the straight out of the camera crowd to go pound sand. :-)
CaptainC wrote:
OK, if you are going to call them portraits, you MUST get the flash off the camera. The first image could be so much better without that flat, unflattering on-camera flash. The light needs to come from off to one side and be higher than the subject. It is also cropped a bit too tight - but that part is a preference thing. This image needs a definite Levels or Curves adjustment as there are no highlights at all.
Her face looked fat because of the way you lit it.
Number two is composed well - great expression. Maybe a bit too much sky above her. Here again, some fill flash or reflector would make a huge difference. Her face is not that much difference in tonality than the sky. I might even try cropping a bit higher to eliminate the trees. This image also needs a Levels or Curves adjustment to pop those highlights.
Number three is my favorite. Cute pose with the bent leg. Guess what - some fill flash or reflector to make her a bit brighter than the field would be nice, but it is pretty good as-is. The shadow on her neck does look like some flash was used, so maybe just a tad more light woudl help. I definitely would liked to have seen it shot with a wider aperture to blur that tree line a bit more - but not a big deal.
Natural light portraits are not easy - we still have to give the light direction and that direction has to be almost anywhere other than from along the lens axis.
Nice start. Remember, if you are going to call them portraits instead of snapshots, it is all about the light and some appropriate post processing. Tell the straight out of the camera crowd to go pound sand. :-)
OK, if you are going to call them portraits, you M... (
show quote)
Thanks Captain. I did have a speedlite off to the side but guess I needed to increase the output. It is triggered by my on camera flash which must be what I'm seeing in the first photo in her eyes. I'll pull my book out on posing subjects. Ah and the PP, I'm a work in progress.
Thanks again so much and I look forward to your input.
Pepper
Loc: Planet Earth Country USA
deanna_hg wrote:
CaptainC wrote:
OK, if you are going to call them portraits, you MUST get the flash off the camera. The first image could be so much better without that flat, unflattering on-camera flash. The light needs to come from off to one side and be higher than the subject. It is also cropped a bit too tight - but that part is a preference thing. This image needs a definite Levels or Curves adjustment as there are no highlights at all.
Her face looked fat because of the way you lit it.
Number two is composed well - great expression. Maybe a bit too much sky above her. Here again, some fill flash or reflector would make a huge difference. Her face is not that much difference in tonality than the sky. I might even try cropping a bit higher to eliminate the trees. This image also needs a Levels or Curves adjustment to pop those highlights.
Number three is my favorite. Cute pose with the bent leg. Guess what - some fill flash or reflector to make her a bit brighter than the field would be nice, but it is pretty good as-is. The shadow on her neck does look like some flash was used, so maybe just a tad more light woudl help. I definitely would liked to have seen it shot with a wider aperture to blur that tree line a bit more - but not a big deal.
Natural light portraits are not easy - we still have to give the light direction and that direction has to be almost anywhere other than from along the lens axis.
Nice start. Remember, if you are going to call them portraits instead of snapshots, it is all about the light and some appropriate post processing. Tell the straight out of the camera crowd to go pound sand. :-)
OK, if you are going to call them portraits, you M... (
show quote)
Thanks Captain. I did have a speedlite off to the side but guess I needed to increase the output. It is triggered by my on camera flash which must be what I'm seeing in the first photo in her eyes. I'll pull my book out on posing subjects. Ah and the PP, I'm a work in progress.
Thanks again so much and I look forward to your input.
quote=CaptainC OK, if you are going to call them ... (
show quote)
You have a book on posing your subjects? Would you tell us a bit more about this book please?
Pepper wrote:
deanna_hg wrote:
CaptainC wrote:
OK, if you are going to call them portraits, you MUST get the flash off the camera. The first image could be so much better without that flat, unflattering on-camera flash. The light needs to come from off to one side and be higher than the subject. It is also cropped a bit too tight - but that part is a preference thing. This image needs a definite Levels or Curves adjustment as there are no highlights at all.
Her face looked fat because of the way you lit it.
Number two is composed well - great expression. Maybe a bit too much sky above her. Here again, some fill flash or reflector would make a huge difference. Her face is not that much difference in tonality than the sky. I might even try cropping a bit higher to eliminate the trees. This image also needs a Levels or Curves adjustment to pop those highlights.
Number three is my favorite. Cute pose with the bent leg. Guess what - some fill flash or reflector to make her a bit brighter than the field would be nice, but it is pretty good as-is. The shadow on her neck does look like some flash was used, so maybe just a tad more light woudl help. I definitely would liked to have seen it shot with a wider aperture to blur that tree line a bit more - but not a big deal.
Natural light portraits are not easy - we still have to give the light direction and that direction has to be almost anywhere other than from along the lens axis.
Nice start. Remember, if you are going to call them portraits instead of snapshots, it is all about the light and some appropriate post processing. Tell the straight out of the camera crowd to go pound sand. :-)
OK, if you are going to call them portraits, you M... (
show quote)
Thanks Captain. I did have a speedlite off to the side but guess I needed to increase the output. It is triggered by my on camera flash which must be what I'm seeing in the first photo in her eyes. I'll pull my book out on posing subjects. Ah and the PP, I'm a work in progress.
Thanks again so much and I look forward to your input.
quote=CaptainC OK, if you are going to call them ... (
show quote)
You have a book on posing your subjects? Would you tell us a bit more about this book please?
quote=deanna_hg quote=CaptainC OK, if you are go... (
show quote)
I don't want to sit here and type out titles - and some I use may not be what you find applicable, so just go here and pick a few:
http://www.amherstmedia.com/miva/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=AM&Category_Code=PS
CaptainC wrote:
OK, if you are going to call them portraits, you MUST get the flash off the camera. The first image could be so much better without that flat, unflattering on-camera flash. The light needs to come from off to one side and be higher than the subject. It is also cropped a bit too tight - but that part is a preference thing. This image needs a definite Levels or Curves adjustment as there are no highlights at all.
Her face looked fat because of the way you lit it.
Number two is composed well - great expression. Maybe a bit too much sky above her. Here again, some fill flash or reflector would make a huge difference. Her face is not that much difference in tonality than the sky. I might even try cropping a bit higher to eliminate the trees. This image also needs a Levels or Curves adjustment to pop those highlights.
Number three is my favorite. Cute pose with the bent leg. Guess what - some fill flash or reflector to make her a bit brighter than the field would be nice, but it is pretty good as-is. The shadow on her neck does look like some flash was used, so maybe just a tad more light woudl help. I definitely would liked to have seen it shot with a wider aperture to blur that tree line a bit more - but not a big deal.
Natural light portraits are not easy - we still have to give the light direction and that direction has to be almost anywhere other than from along the lens axis.
Nice start. Remember, if you are going to call them portraits instead of snapshots, it is all about the light and some appropriate post processing. Tell the straight out of the camera crowd to go pound sand. :-)
OK, if you are going to call them portraits, you M... (
show quote)
Can you elaborate on your statement "from along the axis". I am assuming this would mean the lens and the light should not be coinsiding as points along the X axis?
Pepper wrote:
deanna_hg wrote:
CaptainC wrote:
OK, if you are going to call them portraits, you MUST get the flash off the camera. The first image could be so much better without that flat, unflattering on-camera flash. The light needs to come from off to one side and be higher than the subject. It is also cropped a bit too tight - but that part is a preference thing. This image needs a definite Levels or Curves adjustment as there are no highlights at all.
Her face looked fat because of the way you lit it.
Number two is composed well - great expression. Maybe a bit too much sky above her. Here again, some fill flash or reflector would make a huge difference. Her face is not that much difference in tonality than the sky. I might even try cropping a bit higher to eliminate the trees. This image also needs a Levels or Curves adjustment to pop those highlights.
Number three is my favorite. Cute pose with the bent leg. Guess what - some fill flash or reflector to make her a bit brighter than the field would be nice, but it is pretty good as-is. The shadow on her neck does look like some flash was used, so maybe just a tad more light woudl help. I definitely would liked to have seen it shot with a wider aperture to blur that tree line a bit more - but not a big deal.
Natural light portraits are not easy - we still have to give the light direction and that direction has to be almost anywhere other than from along the lens axis.
Nice start. Remember, if you are going to call them portraits instead of snapshots, it is all about the light and some appropriate post processing. Tell the straight out of the camera crowd to go pound sand. :-)
OK, if you are going to call them portraits, you M... (
show quote)
Thanks Captain. I did have a speedlite off to the side but guess I needed to increase the output. It is triggered by my on camera flash which must be what I'm seeing in the first photo in her eyes. I'll pull my book out on posing subjects. Ah and the PP, I'm a work in progress.
Thanks again so much and I look forward to your input.
quote=CaptainC OK, if you are going to call them ... (
show quote)
You have a book on posing your subjects? Would you tell us a bit more about this book please?
quote=deanna_hg quote=CaptainC OK, if you are go... (
show quote)
You have a book on posing your subjects? Would you tell us a bit more about this book please?
Captain put up a site with several books. I have one of the books on there but see several more I think I would like to have.
bedgmon wrote:
CaptainC wrote:
OK, if you are going to call them portraits, you MUST get the flash off the camera. The first image could be so much better without that flat, unflattering on-camera flash. The light needs to come from off to one side and be higher than the subject. It is also cropped a bit too tight - but that part is a preference thing. This image needs a definite Levels or Curves adjustment as there are no highlights at all.
Her face looked fat because of the way you lit it.
Number two is composed well - great expression. Maybe a bit too much sky above her. Here again, some fill flash or reflector would make a huge difference. Her face is not that much difference in tonality than the sky. I might even try cropping a bit higher to eliminate the trees. This image also needs a Levels or Curves adjustment to pop those highlights.
Number three is my favorite. Cute pose with the bent leg. Guess what - some fill flash or reflector to make her a bit brighter than the field would be nice, but it is pretty good as-is. The shadow on her neck does look like some flash was used, so maybe just a tad more light woudl help. I definitely would liked to have seen it shot with a wider aperture to blur that tree line a bit more - but not a big deal.
Natural light portraits are not easy - we still have to give the light direction and that direction has to be almost anywhere other than from along the lens axis.
Nice start. Remember, if you are going to call them portraits instead of snapshots, it is all about the light and some appropriate post processing. Tell the straight out of the camera crowd to go pound sand. :-)
OK, if you are going to call them portraits, you M... (
show quote)
Can you elaborate on your statement "from along the axis". I am assuming this would mean the lens and the light should not be coinsiding as points along the X axis?
quote=CaptainC OK, if you are going to call them ... (
show quote)
Yes - the on-camera flash. When the flash is on the lens axis and close to the lens, it makes for a very flat and unflattering light. Now, if the light is a large source and well above the lens, it can make for what is called a beauty light and can be very flattering on females with great skin.
MWAC
Loc: Somewhere East Of Crazy
besides everything else that has been mentioned, they all look a little underexposed to me.
I do like the posing (I really like #3). I think she is a very pretty girl. I would not clone in a new tooth, to me that would be like removing a facial feature that makes her, her.
Adjustments to #3. Any better????
#3
I just put the top one in Photoshop and bumped up the contrast slightly with remarkable improvement.
The Captain has, as usual, provided valuable advise on being aware of your light and light source. It's always, ALWAYS, good to pay close attention to what he says...there's more there than meets the eye!
Very nice work Deanna, keep it up! As you learn, we learn. Good stuff!
Danilo wrote:
I just put the top one in Photoshop and bumped up the contrast slightly with remarkable improvement.
The Captain has, as usual, provided valuable advise on being aware of your light and light source. It's always, ALWAYS, good to pay close attention to what he says...there's more there than meets the eye!
Very nice work Deanna, keep it up! As you learn, we learn. Good stuff!
Thanks Danilo, I'm trying. I've been going back thru the photos and trying to make adjustments just not sure of what I'm doing tho in PP. Please post the photo you adjusted. :-D
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.