# NSFW Portrait for class



## SoulfulRecover (Oct 5, 2013)

I have to do two indoor portraits using ambient light which I havent really ever done nor have I ever done a "sexy" photo. The girlfriend and I gave it a go for practice and came up with this shot. We were limited to my apartment but I dont think it came out bad. I wanted to blow out the back ground so you couldnt see the neighbors house 


Anyway, Id love some feed back







I hate the railing but there wasnt much I could do. I was thinking about buying a thin white bed sheet and hanging it outside to create softer light and a less distracting back ground


----------



## EIngerson (Oct 5, 2013)

I think the railing is fine. The model being OOF is the problem.


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Oct 5, 2013)

Not bad.. her right hand looks awkward though.    I think you can expose it higher even more.


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 5, 2013)

I think a smile would look better than that "I think I am sexy, but I am not sure" Deer in the headlights pouting look... and the right hand thing Robin mentioned, just looks awkward! Looks a little soft also.. did you use some sort of action or something?


----------



## SoulfulRecover (Oct 5, 2013)

thanks guys! I think its soft mostly due to missing my focus and also having to shoot at ISO 640. I think my shutter speed was 1/30th? to slow to hand hold really but it was mostly a practice shot for really getting after it today once I get my tripod back. Plus we will be able to shoot at ~4 rather than 6:40pm. Glad I have north facing windows for once! now I just need a bigger place haha


----------



## kundalini (Oct 5, 2013)

Her chest is as bright and has more surface area than the lit side of her face. With this competition, my eyes go to her chest first rather than her face.

If that is post work on her left buttock, it's kinda sloppy. Moving further down, the lack of an outline of her left leg is kinda odd looking.

I think some Fill light would balance the exposure better. Either a large reflector or OCF would help.  This would probably allow you to shoot with a faster shutter speed.


----------



## SoulfulRecover (Oct 5, 2013)

kundalini said:


> Her chest is as bright and has more surface area than the lit side of her face. With this competition, my eyes go to her chest first rather than her face.
> 
> If that is post work on her left buttock, it's kinda sloppy. Moving further down, the lack of an outline of her left leg is kinda odd looking.
> 
> I think some Fill light would balance the exposure better. Either a large reflector or OCF would help.  This would probably allow you to shoot with a faster shutter speed.



thank you for your input. there is no PP on her buttock or her body in general. beyond my knowledge to do those things. Typically ill do some spot treatment then basically some levels, contrast, color.....

I did have a reflector (gold) and it helped some. Probably just need to move it closer to the subject? maybe use the silver side instead? I would just use my strobe but for the project we are only allowed to use natural light.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 5, 2013)

What hurts the shot the most I think is the softness, the lack of clarity, probably due to camera shake. The overexposure on the background does help to reduce the degree of distraction from the outside architectural elements, and so I think the bright background is overall, a net positive. You're right--if it had a sheet or fabric behind her, the shot would be very different. I'm not sure if I like the hand above the head...it looks a bit odd that way.


----------



## SoulfulRecover (Oct 7, 2013)

Thanks again everyone. With the weather being nice, the neighbors were outside or had all the windows open all day yesterday so no luck reshooting that picture just yet. But we did try for some in the bed and it was a fail as well. To slow of shutter speeds and the tripod some what helped but didnt overly. For whatever reason I struggled with this project quite a bit.


----------



## DiskoJoe (Oct 7, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> I think a smile would look better than that "I think I am sexy, but I am not sure" Deer in the headlights pouting look... and the right hand thing Robin mentioned, just looks awkward! Looks a little soft also.. did you use some sort of action or something?



Maybe a different look but not necessarily a smile. For some reason modeling and smiling are usually not the best mix.

But of the two shots here, #1 is the better. The real goal though is to make everything look as natural as possible. Dont over think it.


----------



## fotofinish (Oct 7, 2013)

I actually like this shot. The main detraction for me is her right hand - the one up high - it looks like she is hanging on and if it was more leisurely like the left hand it would look better all up.


----------



## DanOstergren (Oct 8, 2013)

Rather than posing her so both her and the light source are in the shot, you could pose her somewhere so that the ambient light simply illuminates her instead of the light source really overtaking the photo. For example, pose her somewhere indoors and use a window to the side of her as the light source. If you don't put her directly in the light it will also give you very flattering soft light. I found this site after a quick google search and it has some pretty good tips and examples. Window Light Portrait Photography Tips ? PictureCorrect

I'm not saying you have to change the way you are using your indoor ambient light, but in my opinion you could get better results by making some adjustments to yours and your model's positioning in ratio to the light.


----------



## SoulfulRecover (Oct 8, 2013)

Thank you guys for the continued help! When I get out of my psych class Ill check out the link.


----------



## curtyoungblood (Oct 8, 2013)

I have been following this thread since you originally posted it, and actually opened it to post exactly when Dan just said. It looks like you've got some really great window light that would look nice if you weren't shooting into it. If you use the light, instead of shooting against it, it will also help with your slow shutter speed/ blurry issues. Knowing that you need to produce two images for a class, I would suggest using one image along the lines of what you're doing (I like the second one much better) and shoot something else where the window light is acting as your main light.


----------



## SoulfulRecover (Oct 8, 2013)

These went over quite well in class despite the various issues, so I am thankful for that. But I still want to reshoot with the advice I have been given.


----------



## DanOstergren (Oct 8, 2013)

SoulfulRecover said:


> These went over quite well in class despite the various issues, so I am thankful for that. But I still want to reshoot with the advice I have been given.


Congrats on the good results in class! I'm excited to see what you do next.


----------



## DiskoJoe (Oct 8, 2013)

DanOstergren said:


> SoulfulRecover said:
> 
> 
> > These went over quite well in class despite the various issues, so I am thankful for that. But I still want to reshoot with the advice I have been given.
> ...



More of the same, but better, hopefully.


----------



## Ftwopoint8 (Oct 8, 2013)

The background background seemed distracting but nonetheless very nice photography with great expressions 










SoulfulRecover said:


> I have to do two indoor portraits using ambient light which I havent really ever done nor have I ever done a "sexy" photo. The girlfriend and I gave it a go for practice and came up with this shot. We were limited to my apartment but I dont think it came out bad. I wanted to blow out the back ground so you couldnt see the neighbors house
> 
> 
> Anyway, Id love some feed back
> ...


----------



## SoulfulRecover (Oct 9, 2013)

DiskoJoe said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> > SoulfulRecover said:
> ...




I hope so too!


----------



## hopdaddy (Oct 9, 2013)

Do you focus and then recompose or do you move the focus point in your camera to the eyes ,then shoot ? I have found that when I recompose ,my photos will end up a bit soft .  I feel the roundness of the lens (Not all lens are rounded ) will cause this problem ...........Just a thought .


----------



## DanOstergren (Oct 9, 2013)

hopdaddy said:


> Do you focus and then recompose or do you move the focus point in your camera to the eyes ,then shoot ? I have found that when I recompose ,my photos will end up a bit soft .  I feel the roundness of the lens (Not all lens are rounded ) will cause this problem ...........Just a thought .


I focus and then recompose. I was wondering if this has been affecting how accurate my focus has been lately.


----------



## amolitor (Oct 9, 2013)

Focus&Recompose is often trotted out as a problem, and usually it's not. If you're swinging in the camera through a couple of degrees during the recompose step, your plane of focus is going to move a very very very small amount. If your DoF is also very very very small, well, you might have a problem.

Hold your hand out at arm's length. One finger width will be one degree (roughly, might be half a degree, might be two degrees). If you swing your camera through 5 degrees when you recompose, your plane of focus will push out by about 0.4% of the distance to the subject. If the subject is 10 feet away, the plane of focus will move about half an inch. At 2 degrees, it moves less then 1/10 of an inch.

Try not to be swinging the thing around too wildly, though. At 10 degrees it's shifting almost 2 inches back, and at 20 degrees it's moved 7 inches.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 9, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Focus&Recompose is often trotted out as a problem, and usually it's not. If you're swinging in the camera through a couple of degrees during the recompose step, your plane of focus is going to move a very very very small amount. If your DoF is also very very very small, well, you might have a problem.
> 
> Hold your hand out at arm's length. One finger width will be one degree (roughly, might be half a degree, might be two degrees). If you swing your camera through 5 degrees when you recompose, your plane of focus will push out by about 0.4% of the distance to the subject. If the subject is 10 feet away, the plane of focus will move about half an inch. At 2 degrees, it moves less then 1/10 of an inch.
> 
> Try not to be swinging the thing around too wildly, though. At 10 degrees it's shifting almost 2 inches back, and at 20 degrees it's moved 7 inches.



Have you actually SET UP A CAMERA on a tripod, and aimed it at a wall, and placed three targets on the wall, and using a field of view wide enough to encompass a standing person 3/4 body, actually MEASURED the distances between the center of the frame, and the outer regions of the frame? (In this case the outer regions being the top and bottom zones of the frame, since our person is "standing".)

I think you have not. The difference between the center of the field often is very typically going to be greater than the DOF zone when shooting indoors at anything even remotely resembling "normal" ISO values and "normal" aperture settings. Also, you are assuming a perfectly flat-field lens performance as well, which is not a given.

What the heck is this "couple of degrees" nonsense? Your commentary on this is way out of touch with reality. I appreciate that you're *good at math*, but you're talking out of your arse here...and dispensing nonsense.


----------



## amolitor (Oct 9, 2013)

Math dictates how much the DoF moves, dude.

If your point is that you have to swing the camera more than a couple degrees in some shooting scenario, well, then there you are, eh? The point is, my post gives you the tools to estimate how much the plane of focus is going to move. You can estimate a number of degrees of swing by holding your hand out, since I have helpfully told you how many degrees your fingers are, AND I have given you a helpful indication of how much the plane of focus will move for various amounts of swing.

If using the center focus point is going to cause you to have to swing the camera more than, say, the width of your hand held out at arm's length, why then you might consider using alternate means of focusing. Like, another focus point, or focusing on the model's belt buckle, or whatever.

I don't know what the hell you're shooting and I don't care. If you're focusing and then swinging the camera around wildly, well, that's your lookout. Stop doing that, idiot. If you're focusing and making small adjustments to recompose, you'll be fine. And now you know what "small adjustments" are and what "wildly swinging" is.

I'm just happy to help!


----------



## amolitor (Oct 9, 2013)

And, just for grins, let's try out Derrel's experiment!

85mm lens, shooting at f/2.0 on a FF body, from a distance of 12' from the subject.

Distance to very top or bottom edge of the frame is about 12' 3" and if you focus there you run out of DoF at 11' 11" more or less. So when you swing to center up, your subject is juuuust barely inside the acceptable DoF, by 1 inch. This is a swing of about 12 degrees, you'll find it about two hand widths, more or less, which I think I established is in the range of "uh oh" and constitutes swinging the camera around wildly. Use a more appropriate focusing method, rather than focusing on the subject's eyes with the center focus point, and the recomposing to center her navel in the frame.


----------



## hopdaddy (Oct 9, 2013)

amolitor said:


> And, just for grins, let's try out Derrel's experiment!
> 
> 85mm lens, shooting at f/2.0 on a FF body, from a distance of 12' from the subject.
> 
> Distance to very top or bottom edge of the frame is about 12' 3" and if you focus there you run out of DoF at 11' 11" more or less. So when you swing to center up, your subject is juuuust barely inside the acceptable DoF, by 1 inch. This is a swing of about 12 degrees, you'll find it about two hand widths, more or less, which I think I established is in the range of "uh oh" and constitutes swinging the camera around wildly. Use a more appropriate focusing method, rather than focusing on the subject's eyes with the center focus point, and the recomposing to center her navel in the frame.


Well Can we try that with ,say a 35mm lens ....................The op was shooting indoors ,I suspect he was much closer than 12 feet ? No? If that doesn't convince ya ,can we then try it with a 10mm ?


----------



## Gavjenks (Oct 10, 2013)

Let's guess a typical portrait situation of something like 15 feet away with a 50mm lens, which would cover the girl about that much in frame.
That would mean that he swung about 10 degrees if he focused on the middle of her and then moved her where she is in that photo.
For a 10 degree swing, it would be tan(10 degrees) = 0.23 (ratio of opposite over adjacent)
0.23 * about 2 feet from the center of the image to the center of her body horizontally = *0.46 feet change front to back
*
I.e., the plane of focus shifts 5 and a half inches.  Which is an awful lot.  Whether it's enough to seriously soften the girl or not depends on aperture, which I don't know because exif is stripped.  But it's extremely plausible.



Or if you want to hypothesize a cramped apartment, then let's switch to about 24mm and 7 feet (doesn't look distorted enough though. I think it's decently far away, but whatever) to get the same framing of the girl.
That would require more angle swing, since 24mm has a wider angle of view. More like 17 degrees.
tan(17 degrees) = 0.31
0.31 * about 2 feet = *0.62 feet change front to back

*And at the same aperture, the 24mm + 7 feet distance yields almost exactly the same DOF as the 50mm at 15 feet. So in a cramped apartment, focus and recompose is even more dangerous.


----------



## SoulfulRecover (Oct 10, 2013)

[h=2]Exif data[/h]
CameraNikon D300Exposure0.04 sec (1/25)Aperturef/3.2Focal Length35 mmISO Speed640Exposure Bias0 EVFlashNo FlashX-Resolution300 dpiY-Resolution300 dpiSoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.4 (Macintosh)Date and Time (Modified)2013:10:04 19:21:08Exposure ProgramManualDate and Time (Original)2013:10:04 18:39:06Date and Time (Digitized)2013:10:04 18:39:06Max Aperture Value1.7Metering ModeMulti-segmentLight SourceCloudySub Sec Time Original77Sub Sec Time Digitized77Sensing MethodOne-chip color areaCFAPattern[Red,Green][Green,Blue]Custom RenderedNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualDigital Zoom Ratio1Focal Length (35mm format)52 mmScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlLow gain upContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknownLens Info35mm f/1.8Lens Model35.0 mm f/1.8CompressionJPEG (old-style)Coded Character SetUTF8Date Created2013:10:04Time Created18:39:06Digital Creation Date2013:10:04Digital Creation Time18:39:06Viewing Conditions Illuminant TypeD50Measurement ObserverCIE 1931Measurement Flare0.999%Measurement IlluminantD65XMPToolkitAdobe XMP Core 5.5-c002 1.148022, 2012/07/15-18:06:45Creator ToolAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.4 (Macintosh)Metadata Date2013:10:04 19:21:08-05:00Lens35.0 mm f/1.8Lens ID159Image Number65457Approximate Focus Distance2.51Original Document ID50CF5F55DCF5BA3B24B2798F5AD103F1History ActionderivedHistory Parametersconverted from image/x-nikon-nef to image/dng, saved to new locationHistory Instance IDxmp.iid:d66c7d90-f86e-4b40-9690-41df3593517dHistory When2013:10:04 18:55-05:00History Software AgentAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.4 (Macintosh)History Changed/Derived From Original Document ID50CF5F55DCF5BA3B24B2798F5AD103F1Formatimage/jpegColor TransformYCbCr


My guess is that the focus caught her shoulder rather than her face and I just went with it not paying attention or thinking the DoF was deep enough it caught her face too. That in combination of shooting 1/25th hand held with my movement and hers im sure it tossed the focus all over the place. Typically ill have the subject move, focus then click. everytime. I dont think Ive ever focused, had the subject move and just click especially in a low light, wide open setting.


----------



## amolitor (Oct 10, 2013)

Yeah, like I said, don't be waving the camera around wildly.


----------



## SoulfulRecover (Oct 10, 2013)

for sure. I need to invest in a decent tri-pod. I picked one up from best buy for 30 bucks just to get the last shot for this project but its so cheap, it wiggles around like crazy even with everything locked in place. such a waste of money.


----------



## DanOstergren (Oct 10, 2013)

The constant "I'm right and you're an ******* who's talking out of your ass for disagreeing with me" contest that always goes on in this forum is becoming highly uninspiring.


----------



## amolitor (Oct 10, 2013)

What's especially odd is that Derrel and I get along really well.


----------



## Geaux (Oct 11, 2013)

I actually like the second shot than the first one IMO. beautiful girlfriend nonetheless.

what I find funny is that whenever there is a disagreement or someone thinking there way is better it nearly always involves Derrel or Gavjenks or both....

I actually like Derrel and his input most of the time. He just goes on these "I'm always right..I studied art and photography and you suck" tangents and it's rather off putting.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 11, 2013)

hopdaddy said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > And, just for grins, let's try out Derrel's experiment!
> ...



Amolitor...the OP has a crop-frame Nikon. My experiment was done with a Canon 20D at 10 feet, using a 33mm focal length setting...the difference betweeen the center of the frame and the edges was in excess of the depth of field at f/8. Sorry dude...

Look at Gavjenk's reasoning in his reply to your left-field "85mm lens on full frame from 12 feet" thing... interestingly, Gavjenks' theoretical calulations and my actual experiment measurements are in relatively close agreement...huh, imagine that. Unless maybe my Stanley steel tape was kidnapped by aliens and mis-calibrated...

As Gavjenks wrote, "*So in a cramped apartment, focus and recompose is even more dangerous.*"

Uh, yeah...that was my point.


----------



## amolitor (Oct 11, 2013)

What the hell are you on about? We don't even disagree.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 11, 2013)

amolitor said:


> What the hell are you on about? We don't even disagree.



Whatever you say. Go ahead. Dismiss it.

"Just for grins." Yeah. ****s and giggles too.


----------



## DiskoJoe (Oct 11, 2013)

SoulfulRecover said:


> for sure. I need to invest in a decent tri-pod. I picked one up from best buy for 30 bucks just to get the last shot for this project but its so cheap, it wiggles around like crazy even with everything locked in place. such a waste of money.



 You dont need a really bad ass tripod for most stuff, just a heavy one. I got a sunpak from best buy. I just bought the one that was the heaviest. Hasnt failed me yet.


----------



## Geaux (Oct 11, 2013)

Or you can get a sandbag or hang your camera bag under the center post if you feel it needs a bit more weight.


----------



## SoulfulRecover (Oct 12, 2013)

I don't even think its a weight issue. One of the legs doesn't seem like it was assembled as "tight" as the others so it's got some wobble to it. Like it pivots on it self. I got my other tripod back that a friend borrowed and it's much more stable so it shouldn't be an issue now


----------



## Starskream666 (Oct 12, 2013)

I think the white sheet is a good idea. Also the right arm does look awkward, IMO maybe both hands up like behind her head pose would be sexier


----------



## DanOstergren (Oct 12, 2013)

Geaux said:


> what I find funny is that whenever there is a disagreement or someone thinking there way is better it nearly always involves Derrel or Gavjenks or both....
> 
> I actually like Derrel and his input most of the time. He just goes on these "I'm always right..I studied art and photography and you suck" tangents and it's rather off putting.


I agree, it really is off putting. I think it's best to just let them have their opinion without questioning it or defending your own reasoning for something, or feel the wrath of hell fire until you say they are right.


----------



## hopdaddy (Oct 13, 2013)

DanOstergren said:


> Geaux said:
> 
> 
> > what I find funny is that whenever there is a disagreement or someone thinking there way is better it nearly always involves Derrel or Gavjenks or both....
> ...



One of the down falls of the internet , In MY opinion , is the abundant misinformation  .I know from practical experience that "Focus and recompose" will cause softness . The degree depends on the lens . I feel one thing that shows the quality of a photographer ,is there ability to achieve "Critical Focus " .   I was simply trying to help the OP . Derrel and Gavjenks ,Again In My Opinion " Were  simply Trying to point the OP in the correct direction .And FWIW, A tripod is not needed for portraits.


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Oct 13, 2013)

Not trying to defend derrel.  I must say after meeting him in person, I actually understand the way he writes stuff better.  The way he writes is exactly how he talks/jokes in real life.  And when he jokes, it does sound very arrogant when it is written down.  You have to hear him talk to take no offense.. seriously.

That's probably why you don't see me fight with derrel anymore.


----------

