tainkc Loc: Kansas City

She was in diapers.

My niece.



(Download)


(Download)

CO

I think photo #2 is excellent. It's free of camera shake and is well focused. Her leaning makes the photo more dynamic. It looks like you cropped photo #1 too much. The image is breaking down. In photo #3 her feet seem disproportionately large because they're closer to the camera and a 22mm focal length was used. If you backed up and used a longer focal length, it would compress the image a little more.

tainkc Loc: Kansas City

The kid has acne. No camera shake, just frequency separation and a little Gaussian Blur to soften things up. All intentional, including the crop. Oh, and you are not the first person to say that I tend to crop too tight. You may be right. In a second, I will throw you one that is really tight, but I was going for a certain impact. I would appreciate it if you tell me opinion.

And yes, I know the 2nd one is the best. She had never posed before in her life.

Now for the feet. They are huge! No getting around that one. If I were to back up far enough, I would need to use a car. If she were to stand in the ocean, she would probably displace more water than the Yamato. In all seriousness, I appreciate your critique.

tainkc Loc: Kansas City

CO, here is that one I spoke of a minute ago. Please tell me what you think.

Tom

berchman Loc: South Central PA

I have no problem with the last tight crop, but there's something about the lighting or the angle of the face that makes it look as though flesh is hanging below her chin.

CO

I thought photo #1 was a very good composition. It would leave it the way it is. It's fine to crop a little off the top of a person's head. I have a couple of books about posing that discuss that. I thought the image was getting soft because you had cropped the photo a lot. I didn't know that you applied Gaussian Blur.

I thought her feet were a little large compared to the rest of her because of the big nose syndrome created by a wide angle lens used close up. I saw that the focal length used in your photo was 22mm. Here's a photo that shows the effect. It's kind of extreme in this photo.

CO

I thought photo #1 was the better. Because she's looking at the camera, it holds the viewer's attention more to her eyes. The new crop is too close in my opinion. My attention drifts around partly because it is zoomed in so close and also because she's looking away.

E.L. Shapiro is the expert on portraiture in this section. I'll be interested to see what he says.

sb Loc: Florida's East Coast

I like the cropped photos. And the emphasis on the feet by the 22mm lens is sort of appropriate because of her reposed position and attitude.

tainkc Loc: Kansas City

I don't see what you are talking about. Please explain a little further.

tainkc Loc: Kansas City

I see what you are saying. You ought to see other photos that are just snapshots of her. I kid you not; she has big feet! I guess I was just used to it and never gave it a 2nd thought. It is funny; I pay attention to what people have to say about my photos and I use these comments to improve upon. With that being said, from now on, I will pay more attention to this detail. It only makes sense. Nothing to get defensive about at all. Thank you.

tainkc Loc: Kansas City

Yeah, I would like that. Again, I posed her this way and told her to look away in that one. I was going for a certain "look". Perhaps I fell short. I don't know. What may be interesting is that I am now getting paid good money for my portraiture. The experience all coming from people on UHH helping me along. What I am presenting to you is simply photos I designed using ideas that I came up with on my own and from reading and watching tutorials. Again, thank you.

tainkc Loc: Kansas City

Thank you! But I do see what CO is trying to explain to me about the feet and the focal length. You see, I was more concerned about her face because she does have a bit of that teenage acne and I used frequency separation and some blur (a lot of blur in that 1st one) therefore not paying much attention to the other details such as her feet. I'm getting there.

tainkc Loc: Kansas City

Guys, guys! About the feet thing; The first thing I noticed about her after not seeing her for 10 years, were her feet. So much so, that one of the first photos I took of her, were her huge feet. She is no where done growing yet, so I am pretty sure that she will grow into them.

(Download)

berchman Loc: South Central PA

The part of her face that I circled. Because there is almost no delineation of the jawline due to lack of modeling from light placement, it looks as though there is a fleshy mass where her jawline ought to be.

(Download)

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

Tainkc! Good job- nice session.

The tight crop on #1 is perfectly fine- it puts here eyes in the upper 1/3 of the composition which makes for strong expression. Nothing wrong with retouching and soft focus in portraits, especially of young ladies. They don't want to see blemishes in their portraits and the softness is very appropriate. With soft focus or diffused images, sometimes it's good to slightly intensify the catch-lights in the eyes- that gives the viewer an area of sharpness to focus on. The lighting is natural and well utilized. Super expression on this image. When she sees this portrait, you are gonna be her favorite uncle. She looks like a movie star!

The casual shots are good- typical cool teenage kinda images. In the full length shot, I would have liked to see less depth of field for a less distracting background.

A tip- for many years, I shot weddings with one normal lens- back in the earlier film days press cameras did not have easily interchange lenses and many of us later on, went to Rolleiflex 2 1/4 cameras that had fixed lenses. We still had to make flattering portraits without distortion. If you shoot form 6 to 8 feet away from the subject and crop, you should have no appreciable distortion with a normal lens of focal length. We were able to make perfectly sharp images from moderately cropped sections of black and white and color negatives, even before the finer T-grain emulsions and go to 16x20 with no issues. Of course it is better to use, for better perspective, a longer lens for portraiture; between approximately 50mm and 80mm on a cropped body and between 75mm and 105 mm on a full frame camera. It is always better for utilize the entire format when you can. If however, you simply do not have the backup space, your normal lens should do the trick for a dramatic tight headshot if you don't get in too close. A good digital file should stand up to the crop.

As for "big feet"- I take a 14EEEE and my son has feet like cinder blocks! My daughter is up there too. A friend of mine, who is a doctor, told me that our kids, grandkids, nieces and nephews have better genetic potential that we did. They eat better, breath cleaner air, and especially if they lay off the booze and cigarettes and minimize the junk foods, they are gonna be BIGGER, stronger and smarter than we are. Get ready!

I think your portraiture is going in a good direction- watch your focal length usage, camera/subject distances and background management.