CO

I took this photo today at an outdoor model photo shoot. Fortunately, the sky was overcast so there were no hot spots. I fired my Nikon SB-700 flash with a diffuser on it for fill flash. The tree she's sitting on was actually tilted like that. My camera was fairly level.

I know that the nose should not break the plane of the cheek. Is that a problem with this shot?

(Download)

d3200prime

The nose breaking the plane of the cheek rule is generally reserved as a no-no for headshots and the like. I don't believe, at this distance, this shot does any damage. I quite like it actually. Just my 2 cents worth.

CO

Thanks for the critique. I knew about the rule but maybe at a distance, it's not that important.

ronz Loc: Florida

Not sure why the sunglasses were left in the shot, it is a bit distracting. I would prefer just a little more fill on the face as it appears a little dark to me. Looks like you have a great model however.

CO

Thanks for the critique. Her complexion is actually like that. Her face and arms are a little darker than her legs. You can that in this photo. I really liked photographing her. She's very good at modeling. There were five models at this photo shoot on the farm.

(Download)

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

Yeah...I am with Ronz. You need to get a bit more light on her face. Since her complexion really is that way, we need to light her with that in mind. For a portrait, we want to make people look the way we want them to look, not the way they DO look. So a bit more light from a reflector or small flash (maybe with a grid or snoot to get the light JUST on the face).

The pose in #2 is just...I dunno...I have to ask why anyone would do that. That is just a personal thing.

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

In a PORTRAIT, whether it is full lenght, a 3/4 view, a head a head and shoulders shot or a tight close up and whether it is a studio or environmental shot, it's important to maintain good facial aesthetics. In this case, going for a more exacting profile view of the face would be better.

Of course, the subject face should be the main motif of the image and be highlighted accordingly. If the subjects limbs or even clothing is significantly brighter that the face all of this can serve as a distraction. It is natural for limbs and hands to be lighter that the face in that they don't usually receive as much UV from the sun. True enough, some folks have pigmentation difference so all of this needs to be addressed in posing and lighting. Sometimes gobos or subtractive lighting can be employed.

One remedy would be to create a pose where the subjects legs were not as dominant. In this profile view, a reflector or off camer flash at about 135 degrees from the camera/subject axis coud have provided a much more effective profile lighting and if placed low enough- the ligh would get under the hat. Exposing for a more dense or intense highlight on the face would automatically make the legs and background to go darker.

This image would benefit from less depth of field and a much softer background.

As it is- perhaps a bit of post processing correction would address some of theses issues.

The othere image shows the subject's athleticism and is a fun shot but may not qualify as a classic portrait!

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

Quote "As it is- perhaps a bit of post processing correction would address some of theses issues"

Here's a quick attempt at some burning and dodging.

(Download)

CO

I know about photo #2 being an awkward pose. I only posted photo #2 to show that her face is darker than her legs. I would not have posted it otherwise. She was in this tree about five feet off the ground. It would be impossible to bring a reflector up there. I did fire my Nikon SB-700 flash at full power.

CO

Thanks for the critique. I only posted photo #2 because there was a question about her face not getting enough light. Her facial complexion really is darker.

CO

Thanks. The vignetting looks good but do we really want vignetting on her leg? It doesn't look right to me but I'm not an expert.

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

Yes! The background softening got into her legs. I made an improvement. My main goal in the edit was to bring up tje face and somewhat daekrn her legs.

CO

Thanks. That looks great. I will do the same on my computer.

bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana

I do portraits and weddings for a lot of people of color. One thing to watch out for is dodging the face too much, because you will be (trust me on this) accused of trying to make them look too white. On the other hand, you do need to light it enough to see the details. That's why the proper light in the first place really helps.

This is difficult, because obviously, she does have a much darker face than her legs/arms... my guess is a suntan as well as just normal skin coloration.

It gets even more tough when you have really light skinned people, mixed with very dark skinned people. Just follow my rule. Edit it ever so lightly, then back it off a bit more than you think you should.

Nothing is more insulting to a dark skinned person, than trying to make the face too light, even making them look like a light skinned
African American. They have issues between light and dark skin within their own community. (again, I know, been there, thought I was doing a good thing, not because it was lighter skin, but because you could see her face more.......yeah, not a happy camper) My old business partner, and one of my assistants are dark skinned, and they have taught me a lot about the culture, and what is acceptable.

Just do less than you think you should, then back if off a little from there, and everyone will be happy, including you.

bk

CO

Thanks, that's great advice. I will keep that in mind when dodging.