# Haven't posted in awhile, would like some CC



## ChrisedwardsHT (Jan 23, 2018)

Hey guys, looking to see what you would change about this shot, if anything? Single speedlight through umbrella to subjects high left. 




Dale by Christopher Edwards, on Flickr


----------



## tirediron (Jan 23, 2018)

Not bad at all; I tend to go for a bit more DoF in my portraits but that's purely a creative/personal choice.


----------



## Christie Photo (Jan 23, 2018)

I do like your lighting ratio, but not really sold on the butterfly (VERY slightly modified) lighting scheme for this model.

I might crop down VERY slightly at the top...  maybe add a TAD of a vignette.

Good choice of background tone...  Deep tone of clothing works fine, but might like something other than a T-shirt for this expression.  Hmmm....

All-in-all, pretty nice.  Good use of a single light!

-Pete


----------



## Derrel (Jan 23, 2018)

Spot-on comments above from Christie Photo. I agree: crop a wee bit off the top.


----------



## Designer (Jan 24, 2018)

ChrisedwardsHT said:


> Hey guys, looking to see what you would change about this shot, if anything? Single speedlight through umbrella to subjects high left.


The straight-on pose is unflattering and too static.  Why wouldn't you go for a deeper DOF?  His ears, hair, neck, and shoulders are completely OOF.  Your model needs more separation from the BG.  BG value is way too close to the model's skin tone.  One-light portraits can be done, but you need a reflector opposite.  The frame proportions emphasize and exaggerate the length of the man's face/neck.


----------



## ChrisedwardsHT (Jan 24, 2018)

Designer said:


> ChrisedwardsHT said:
> 
> 
> > Hey guys, looking to see what you would change about this shot, if anything? Single speedlight through umbrella to subjects high left.
> ...



Hey thanks for that information for the reflector, skintone tones, etc. Curious to why you are wanting a deeper DOF, or just a personal preference? I think if I had a bigger area to work with, I would have chosen my 70-200, maybe you wouldn't be experiencing the exaggerated length in face/neck.


----------



## Designer (Jan 24, 2018)

ChrisedwardsHT said:


> Curious to why you are wanting a deeper DOF, or just a personal preference?


 Well, why not?  Why not get your entire subject in focus?  People do have ears, you know.  



ChrisedwardsHT said:


> I think if I had a bigger area to work with, I would have chosen my 70-200, maybe you wouldn't be experiencing the exaggerated length in face/neck.


I was referring to the proportions of the frame.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 24, 2018)

_Why a deeper depth of field?
_
Because this is a type of photographic portraiture called neorealism, or hyperrealism. It shows him down to the pore level, the whisker level, in unflinching, direct eye contact with the camera. But, instead of the man, the person, the personage being sharply shown, it's a shot that focuses on his eyeglasses. The shot has lost a tremendous amount of impact because the depth of field is so shallow, Instead of the portrait truly featuring or emphasizing   _him_, it shows us that you made an unwise f/stop choice; it shows off YOU, not the subject. And in this kind of work, everything within the final shot is _a choice_. This type of portraiture is designed to emphasize REAL-ness of the subject, but the execution of the shot is marred by a shallow depth of field that screams, "Look! I shot this almost wide-open! Look what I can do with a camera!"

I don't want the above description to sound too harsh, but...Me, and 15 other photography students had the above discussion 35 years ago in a fine arts photography class critique that featured hyperrealism as a topic, and I've heard far, far worse ways of describing what your picture is like. You asked ,"Why?" and I gave you an unvarnished explanation of the issue with shooting with ultra-shallow depth of field on a "*type of photographic portrai*t" that almost demands deep DOF for maximum impact.

The shallow DOF kills the "impact" of the hyper-realistic goal of this kind of shot. _Choosing_ to shoot this as a shallow DOF shot was not the best choice to further a neo-realistic or hyper-realistic artistic endeavor. This is a matter of taste and discernment.


----------



## ChrisedwardsHT (Jan 24, 2018)

Derrel said:


> _Why a deeper depth of field?
> _
> Because this is a type of photographic portraiture called neorealism, or hyperrealism. It shows him down to the pore level, the whisker level, in unflinching, direct eye contact with the camera. But, instead of the man, the person, the personage being sharply shown, it's a shot that focuses on his eyeglasses. The shot has lost a tremendous amount of impact because the depth of field is so shallow, Instead of the portrait truly featuring or emphasizing   _him_, it shows us that you made an unwise f/stop choice; it shows off YOU, not the subject. And in this kind of work, everything within the final shot is _a choice_. This type of portraiture is designed to emphasize REAL-ness of the subject, but the execution of the shot is marred by a shallow depth of field that screams, "Look! I shot this almost wide-open! Look what I can do with a camera!"
> 
> ...



Your reply doesn't sound harsh, I come here to post things wanting good honest feedback/critique about what I have been doing. I appreciate that you went deeper into replying and explaining so I can further research rather than just giving a short cocky answer. Thanks!


----------



## Derrel (Jan 24, 2018)

Thanks Chris. I appreciate your reply. There's plenty of stuff of this style on the web to look at, some good, some not good, some great.


----------



## bulldurham (Jan 25, 2018)

I have to agree 100% with Derrel. Eyes not sharp on a portrait, regardless of intent immediately kill the shot. Everything else is pretty much a negotiable artistic choice.


----------



## Designer (Jan 25, 2018)

ChrisedwardsHT said:


> .. rather than just giving a short cocky answer.


I will have you know that I put just as much careful thought and consideration into my short cocky answer as you did in determining your DOF in this portrait.


----------



## ChrisedwardsHT (Jan 25, 2018)

Designer said:


> ChrisedwardsHT said:
> 
> 
> > .. rather than just giving a short cocky answer.
> ...



Careful thought and consideration? Okay.  Have you ever thought that maybe not everyone that comes on here is a professional photographer and just wants good honest feedback that provides them with information to go out and research more. I have shot on and off for the past few years, nothing more than a hobby. I forget that the “know it alls” are out on these pages and that’s probably why I stopped posting on here before. 


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## JonA_CT (Jan 25, 2018)

ChrisedwardsHT said:


> Careful thought and consideration? Okay.  Have you ever thought that maybe not everyone that comes on here is a professional photographer and just wants good honest feedback that provides them with information to go out and research more. I have shot on and off for the past few years, nothing more than a hobby. I forget that the “know it alls” are out on these pages and that’s probably why I stopped posting on here before.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app









While his advice wasn't terrible, tact is important when someone is trying to learn (and I have lots and lots of research-based evidence if anyone would like to differ).  You got the answers you needed from other members -- don't be discouraged from posting because of a single voice. There's a lot to be learned and shared here.


----------



## Designer (Jan 25, 2018)

Most people who are genuinely interested in learning something will read the comments and take that information into consideration for the next time.  They weigh the pros and cons, try to understand the concepts, have another critical look at their own work, and decide how to use the new information.  

When I mentioned that your subject's hair, ears, neck, and shoulders were out of focus, you did not acknowledge that fact, but instead questioned why I would expect them to be in focus.  That does not seem like a thoughtful and considered response on your part, but more argumentative in tone.  

If your preferred response is to argue every comment, maybe you aren't really looking for a critique after all.  If that is the case, and you really don't want any comments, just post "no C&C, please" along with your photograph, and we will oblige.


----------



## ChrisedwardsHT (Jan 25, 2018)

Designer said:


> Most people who are genuinely interested in learning something will read the comments and take that information into consideration for the next time.  They weigh the pros and cons, try to understand the concepts, have another critical look at their own work, and decide how to use the new information.
> 
> When I mentioned that your subject's hair, ears, neck, and shoulders were out of focus, you did not acknowledge that fact, but instead questioned why I would expect them to be in focus.  That does not seem like a thoughtful and considered response on your part, but more argumentative in tone.
> 
> If your preferred response is to argue every comment, maybe you aren't really looking for a critique after all.  If that is the case, and you really don't want any comments, just post "no C&C, please" along with your photograph, and we will oblige.



I asked "why" and someone else had to come in and explain. I'm not here to battle you over the internet, thanks for replying.


----------



## Christie Photo (Jan 25, 2018)

Actually...  I like the shallow focus.  I think the essential elements are in "acceptable" focus.

It's a bit artsy.  Certainly not the first to do it, but a bit off the _recently _beaten path.  I suppose a bit deeper (one stop, or moving back a foot) would bring a bit more into sharp focus without loosing the overall "shallow" feeling.  It harkens back to the days of large format portraiture, when it was tough to get really deep depth of field.

A little departure... not so bad.  Otherwise, all of our work might look as if it was done by the same maker.

-Pete


----------



## OldManJim (Jan 27, 2018)

Photography is a lot like pancakes. Not everyone likes ketchup flavored pancakes, but I'm sure some do! The value comes in making an image YOU like - no matter if no one else does. However, if you're not satisfied with the image, then asking for critique and suggestions is a good idea.

Enjoy - and keep making images.  Keep an open mind on comments and pick what you like from them. It's the only way to improve.


----------



## Cortian (Jan 27, 2018)

I'm just a n00b, and certainly wouldn't presume to know the art better than Derrel, or just about anybody else here, but I agree with CP: I like it the way it is, other than I agree a little off the top might be an improvement.


----------



## bulldurham (Feb 8, 2018)

The bottom line is you can't learn from only eating honey...ever so often, either through the critique of others or serious self-reflection, you have to suck up a little vinegar. Serious self reflection is much like masturbation: you get what you want out of it but it's a far cry from being with another person, per your personal proclivities. Learning is not easy, not by a long shot and I have found that learning through other's opinions is as good as it gets, even if I disagree. Sometimes I'll argue, but most times I'll either rework the image or redo the shot until I at least have an understanding of what "they" saw even if I still disagree. When you come on a forum and ask for critique, leave your think skin on the doorstep, else stay outside.


----------



## jcdeboever (Feb 8, 2018)

I think the image is well done but also understand some of the points made. This is the type of thread that has forced me to spend less time on here. I get discouraged by some of the comments. However, guys like Derrel keep me checking in because he offers a great deal of thoughtful direction.


----------



## Cortian (Feb 8, 2018)

jcdeboever said:


> I think the image is well done but also understand some of the points made. This is the type of thread that has forced me to spend less time on here. I get discouraged by some of the comments.


If there are users that you find, on balance, to be more an annoyance than a help, just put 'em on ignore.  Otherwise...



jcdeboever said:


> However, guys like Derrel keep me checking in because he offers a great deal of thoughtful direction.


This ^^^^^

IOW: Don't let the turkeys get you down 

(_My_ problem is not one of feeling let down, discouraged, offended, what-have-you by Certain Comments, but more one of resisting the impulse to engage Internet Warrior Mode.  I've been on-line since before there _was_ an Internet.  I've spent time in some pretty rough on-line venues.  I do not wish to get even cautioned, much less banned, here .)


----------



## jcdeboever (Feb 8, 2018)

Cortian said:


> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> > I think the image is well done but also understand some of the points made. This is the type of thread that has forced me to spend less time on here. I get discouraged by some of the comments.
> ...


I remember the BBS days and getting yelled at by my dad for outrageous phone bills.


----------



## Pomo (Feb 8, 2018)

He reminds me Gordon Freeman from Half-Life


----------



## ronlane (Feb 8, 2018)

Derrel said:


> _Why a deeper depth of field?
> _
> Because this is a type of photographic portraiture called neorealism, or hyperrealism. It shows him down to the pore level, the whisker level, in unflinching, direct eye contact with the camera. But, instead of the man, the person, the personage being sharply shown, it's a shot that focuses on his eyeglasses. The shot has lost a tremendous amount of impact because the depth of field is so shallow, Instead of the portrait truly featuring or emphasizing   _him_, it shows us that you made an unwise f/stop choice; it shows off YOU, not the subject. And in this kind of work, everything within the final shot is _a choice_. This type of portraiture is designed to emphasize REAL-ness of the subject, but the execution of the shot is marred by a shallow depth of field that screams, "Look! I shot this almost wide-open! Look what I can do with a camera!"
> 
> ...



Derrel has a really good explanation here about why more DOF. But for me the why is much more simple. When I look at the image and notice the background, it's studio portraits. And to me the background is just going to be grey, black or white (or any color you want) and isn't really going to be any more or less in focus by using a greater DOF. So why not use f/8 and get the face and ears in focus. Now if it were an environmental portrait and there were trees or buildings or waterfalls (train tracks for you outlaws) then I could see using that shallower DOF in order to blur out some of the busy-ness.


----------

