# A few recent portraits - it's been awhile!  Here are a few recent favorites.



## keith204 (Dec 12, 2008)

1.






2.





3.





4.





5.





6.





7.





8.





9.





10.





11.





12.


----------



## keith204 (Dec 12, 2008)

[link] Original 21mp Image for #12
Shot with 5D Mark II w/ 100 f/2.8 Macro


----------



## Big Mike (Dec 12, 2008)

Very nice work Keith, you've come a long way.

One thing I see, that I'm not crazy about, is the multiple catch lights in their eyes.  A tip I learned from a pro, is to move your fill light as far back as possible, that way it creates a smaller reflection in the eyes.  
I also take the step to clone out the unwanted catchlights and leave the large main ones.  A small thing maybe, but I think it helps.


----------



## Lyncca (Dec 12, 2008)

Some really great ones here.  I noticed the catch lights first thing too.  It wouldn't have been so noticeable on one print, but in multiple ones together it really stands out.

I absolutely love #5. The lighting is incredible and his expression/pose is priceless.


----------



## keith204 (Dec 12, 2008)

Big Mike said:


> Very nice work Keith, you've come a long way.
> 
> One thing I see, that I'm not crazy about, is the multiple catch lights in their eyes.  A tip I learned from a pro, is to move your fill light as far back as possible, that way it creates a smaller reflection in the eyes.
> I also take the step to clone out the unwanted catchlights and leave the large main ones.  A small thing maybe, but I think it helps.



Excellent idea.  A few days ago I moved the fill to the far back corner of the room, and it helped a whole lot with lighting management, and gave me one less thing to trip over.  Now I need to play with the light size and bounce to help eliminate that extra spot even more.  Great advice, and feel free to keep it coming, it's always good.


----------



## OldClicker (Dec 12, 2008)

keith204 said:


> [link] Original 21mp Image for #12
> Shot with 5D Mark II w/ 100 f/2.8 Macro


 It's more than just catch lights, isn't it?  Do the eyes look too sharp in contrast to the soft facial focus? - TF


----------



## LeSueur24 (Dec 12, 2008)

Would using the clone stamp tool to clone out the lights in their eyes look too unrealistic? It would be a little more work but could be worth the result. I like your shots a lot, #2 is definitely my favorite.


----------



## K_Pugh (Dec 12, 2008)

Good stuff. The eyes in the first pic are just crazy sharp! love it.

Only critique I could give is that some (like #6) could do with a little more separation from the background.


----------



## bikefreax (Dec 12, 2008)

Very nice except for #9. His BIG foot really takes my eye away from the subjects. I know it is the perspective but it really does make him look like he has a huge foot.:lmao:


----------



## pixeldawg (Dec 12, 2008)

There nice, but none of them really has that WOW factor for me. In shots 6, 7, and 8 you really need a hair light. THey're nice enough, but they merge together with the background. Also, on shot number 12, the bright, right side of her face is slightly overexposed while the left side fialls into a very deep shadow, and again, merges with the background. 

I'm one of those people who tend to like to see details in all areas of the image. To me, it shows thought for the subject and professional mastery. I'm NOT saying that EVERY shot needs to be that way, but in the situations you've shot, it should be. Detail, detail, detail when it comes to a portrait.


----------



## dylj (Dec 13, 2008)

I love #9. The foot makes the photo.

The expression in 12 is killer. Great job.


----------



## keith204 (Dec 16, 2008)

K_Pugh said:


> Good stuff. The eyes in the first pic are just crazy sharp! love it.
> 
> Only critique I could give is that some (like #6) could do with a little more separation from the background.






pixeldawg said:


> There nice, but none of them really has that WOW factor for me. In shots 6, 7, and 8 you really need a hair light. THey're nice enough, but they merge together with the background. Also, on shot number 12, the bright, right side of her face is slightly overexposed while the left side fialls into a very deep shadow, and again, merges with the background.
> 
> I'm one of those people who tend to like to see details in all areas of the image. To me, it shows thought for the subject and professional mastery. I'm NOT saying that EVERY shot needs to be that way, but in the situations you've shot, it should be. Detail, detail, detail when it comes to a portrait.



Yep, agreed on the separation.  Actually 2 more bees are on their way as of today - can't wait to have a couple more light sources to play with, along with some grids.  

And you're right - on the details, I should have used a tighter aperture on #12.  For the first part of my portrait phase (the past couple months) I have been using f/11 or smaller.  But, now that I have canvas, I have opened it wider, thus the softness in #12.  But, if I use too small aperture with canvas, the photos will look a little cheap, right?


----------



## atyPICal (Dec 16, 2008)

I commend you on your photography.
I'm sure that your customers are happy with your work and they should be.  The discrepancies in lighting are trounced by the personality you've captured.


----------



## ClarkKent (Dec 16, 2008)

Nice work!


----------



## Shannon Leigh Studios (Dec 16, 2008)

Love #5!! Not crazy about the background on #3. They kind of blend in.


----------



## dtornabene1 (Dec 18, 2008)

keith204 said:


> And you're right - on the details, I should have used a tighter aperture on #12. For the first part of my portrait phase (the past couple months) I have been using f/11 or smaller. But, now that I have canvas, I have opened it wider, thus the softness in #12. But, if I use too small aperture with canvas, the photos will look a little cheap, right?


 
First, I think 1 and 12 are the strongest.  Composition on 1 is perfect, and I rarely use that word.  12, keeps me looking as I "feel" her looking at me.

As far as your cheap concern, not at all with the right lenses.  My 85mm 1.2 L II makes any background look stunning.  It is the perfect portrait lens.

An idea, if using the macro, why not try a ring light and bounce the rest of the fill.  This would give you amazing catch lights.  Just a thought.  Don't you just love the 5D Mark II?  I know you do.

Lastly, glad to see you are leaning away from closing up those lenses, open them wide.  The softness in your photos is not a bad thing.  Of course you are going to get this with F4.  

The trick is to find the right balance.  Maybe opening to F 2.8 or closing down to at least 5.6.  It's kind of an all-or-nothing thing in my book.  

I still think the best portrait lens is the 85, but truthfully, I do not like to use macro lenses, I prefer to use longer focal length for something tight in portraiture.  I leave the macro's for shots other than people.

But really, 1,2,4,7,9,12 are just great. :thumbup:


----------

