Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Photo Critique Section
Please critique these 2 photos
Aug 22, 2021 14:23:29   #
Fitz424 Loc: Los Angeles
 
first photo : Sony A900 1/250 with Sony Zeiss 24-70 f2.8 @ 70mm
Second photo: A900 1/640 with Sony Zeiss 24-70 f2.8 @ 70mm


(Download)


(Download)

Reply
Aug 22, 2021 14:29:46   #
PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago
 
Fitz424 wrote:
first photo : Sony A900 1/250 with Sony Zeiss 24-70 f2.8 @ 70mm
Second photo: A900 1/640 with Sony Zeiss 24-70 f2.8 @ 70mm


Fitz you need to learn how to remove highlights and shadows

Reply
Aug 22, 2021 14:55:51   #
ecobin Loc: Paoli, PA
 
You placed both subjects in direct sunlight resulting in harsh shadows and squinting (second). Try facing them away from the sun and use a fill light or softbox. Or, place them in a shadowed area. Review outdoor portrait lighting on YouTube.

Reply
 
 
Aug 22, 2021 15:01:46   #
Paul Diamond Loc: Atlanta, GA, USA
 
Maybe these photos look better in color. In black-white, they are too contrasty and harsh. Almost more like caricartures, less human.

If you like them.... great. If you are getting comments like the posters before me and my reply, these all might be why.

Reply
Aug 22, 2021 16:40:54   #
Curmudgeon Loc: SE Arizona
 
I don't have any feelings one way or the other about the first one. The second one is a harsh, weathered face and the lighting should accent that harshness, and it does.

Reply
Aug 23, 2021 06:53:04   #
tshift Loc: Overland Park, KS.
 
Fitz424 wrote:
first photo : Sony A900 1/250 with Sony Zeiss 24-70 f2.8 @ 70mm
Second photo: A900 1/640 with Sony Zeiss 24-70 f2.8 @ 70mm


Like them in B&W. The second one needs a little slide on the shadows to make eyes better. Thanks BE SAFE!

Tom

Reply
Aug 23, 2021 08:01:32   #
Wanda Krack Loc: Tennessee, USA
 
I like the black and whites. In #1 try removing the background and using a light gray for a background, or even a white. The background imho is way too busy. Otherwise it's got good details, even with the harsh sunlight. You might try using a tool to lighten the shadows a little, it might and might not improve. You might also consider a tighter crop from the sides.

In #2, nice crop, but the shadows could use some brightening up. It might work and might not.

Both have good details, but like the other comments, the sunlight is really harsh. That makes it dificult to do a lot of 'fixing', but you could play around a little, and perhaps use some tools and make a sketch, or some other 'altered' image, just for fun.

Thanks for giving us pictures to critique.

Reply
 
 
Aug 23, 2021 09:36:23   #
AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!
 
I like the harsh light. It presents the faces in all their gritty details, shadows and all. That's reality and these people are very real. They don't need to be made "pretty." I do think the background in the first one is distracting. I would crop it to a vertical to get rid of most of the fronds that intrude. If it were cropped quite close, they would lose their intrusiveness. I think you've done very well and have presented these men very correctly.

Reply
Aug 23, 2021 10:06:25   #
anotherview Loc: California
 
For the first shot, you could do only two things to improve it. One, crop in a little from right edge, at least to remove that curved element and also to moderate the mug shot presentation. Two, add a filter like amber or a similar filter to please the eye.

Otherwise you have a strong and well-exposed head-and-shoulders portrait.
Fitz424 wrote:
first photo : Sony A900 1/250 with Sony Zeiss 24-70 f2.8 @ 70mm
Second photo: A900 1/640 with Sony Zeiss 24-70 f2.8 @ 70mm

Reply
Aug 23, 2021 10:59:43   #
R.G. Loc: Scotland
 
I think there must be varying levels of shadow intolerance. I think most would agree that harsh light isn't ideal, but it's a fact of life and a frequent one at that. In #2 the shadows are so pronounced that the subject's right eye (our left) is almost impossible to make out. The eyes are so much of the story in a portrait that you don't want to lose too much of them for any reason.

And at the other end of the luminosity scale, the simple fact is that harsh highlights aren't the easiest on the eye and it's only in very specific circumstances that harsh highlights will be doing you any favours.

Reply
Aug 23, 2021 12:56:52   #
Bushpilot Loc: Minnesota
 
I think the second one especially is good in that contrasty, harsh light. Theres is little to be gained by adding any softness to this man's face.
The beard, hair and furrowed brow show off well in your image.

Reply
 
 
Aug 23, 2021 13:21:46   #
peekaboo
 
Both to me needs to cut down on the harse lighting.

Reply
Aug 23, 2021 17:08:49   #
davidrb Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel
 
Get rid of the (blown out) background.

Reply
Aug 29, 2021 13:19:10   #
E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada
 
Direct sunlight ain't bad for subjects like these. Your problem, as I see it, is the DIRECTION of light. It is more or less directly overhead and this fails to get under the hat brim or into the eyes and eye sockets.

The remedy is to shoot later in the afternoon where the sunlight is striking the subject at an angle somewhere between 25 and 90 degrees and lower in the sky.

If you have no opportunity to shoot at a different time, simply backlight the subject or place them in the shade and redirect the sunlight, with a reflector, back the mask of the subject's face from an angle that illuminates the eyes and the orbital area of the face. You will get shade detail in the eyes that reveal expression and catchlights to can note sharpness. If you feather the light beam from a silver type reflector you will achieve great texture in the skin, If you shoot monochrome through a green filter the skin tone will be enhanced. If you avoid overhead sunlight, the background will not tend to burn out as much.

Reply
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Photo Critique Section
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.