# People help... (updated 3-27)



## Nwcid (Feb 25, 2018)

Shooting "posed" people is not really my favorite style of shooting.  To my eye, the vast major of posed pictures look "fake", and I like natural.  I have said for years, that I do not shoot people.  The problems is that statement is not true.  I love shooting people doing natural things, catching them going about daily life.  Really outdoor, wildlife, landscapes, ect is my primary shooting.

Like many others, friends and family have start asking me to shoot them.  I recently did 2 shoots for family members and a friend.  Of course one of the days it was snowing, the other one they wanted to shoot at noon.

I am shooting a D7100 in RAW, I had a SB-700 on, to fill if needed.  The "best" lens I have to shoot this style is my 70-300 f4.5-5.6.  I did try a few with my 60mm Macro because it is a f2.8.

Any feedback would be appreciated.


----------



## Nwcid (Feb 25, 2018)




----------



## Nwcid (Feb 25, 2018)




----------



## Nwcid (Feb 25, 2018)




----------



## zombiesniper (Feb 25, 2018)

Having not shot a tonne of people myself the following is  how I approach it.

There are posing techniques that are tried and true. If I have someone that has a natural charm on camera and isn't shy I'll give them the idea of how I see the image and try to work with them to get the pose down. That's how I did the following.


The next person..... not so much.

She is what I would consider a typical client where they aren't really comfortable and surely not confident in front of a camera. She was quite nervous even though we know each other fairly well.
Here I asked her to sit. her daughter was part of the shoot as well so I told jokes with her and her daughter, we discussed how our families were doing etc. All the time I had the camera framed on her lights ready to go and the camera remote in my hand.
When the first shot went off she was a little startled and that was when she gave me her stern "Don't do that again look." Her daughter was chuckling and that was when the more natural smile came across her face. In the raw image she was actually leaning a little to the right which I corrected in post. In a studio this can be done easily but on location it would be something to watch for.


Now I'll step aside and let real portrait photographers help with posing. lol


----------



## tirediron (Feb 25, 2018)

Good points raised by zombiesniper.  There are two main aspects to portrait work; posing and lighting.  Invariably, people who refer to portraits looking "posed" are referring to ones which are not posed properly.  Your first two images have a number of common erorrs:  The subject is posed square to the camera, their expressions appear forced, and they are centered in the frame.  By contrast, the third image is MUCH better.  Why?  First because the subject's body is inclined with respect to the camera (this is particularly important when posing females), also because their expressions appear natural, and because they're not quite so centered in the frame.  

People often ask me if they should smile, or how they should smile for their portraits.  I ask them if they like their smile, if they feel like smiling, or if they want to smile.  If they say 'No' to any of those, then I tell them NOT to smile. A natural expression (in 99% of cases) is always better than a forced smile (your image #1).  The girl in your last two images has a lovely natural smile that you should take maximum advantage of, but if she didn't?  Don't try and "make" her smile.  

As an example, this portrait of a gentleman I did a few months back has no smile; rather he has a natural expression which looks totally appropriate for him.  Notice too that his body is angled and inclined with respect to the camera which eliminates straight lines and creates a more pleasing form:






Posing is a topic about which tens of thousands of pages have been written and which has a great deal of theory behind it.  You should spend some time reading up on posing techniques and gain an understanding of the basics.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 25, 2018)

Feedback? I'd say that you need to frame with a bit more top-space above the people when photographing a seated or standing full-lngth shot in a horizontal camera orientation; your displayed shots of the ladies and the young man in the snow feel a bit cramped, with their heads too close to the top of the frame.

As far as "natural" activities and posed or formal shots...it takes some experience, and you've already gotten in a few shoots, and have done okay. Allowing more space around the people is one option I think I'd immediately consider. As to the natural,genuine expressions you want: those expressions can often take 10 or 15 minutes, or maybe a bit more in terms of actual, real-time shooting, to come out of some people. Often times, people give what I call their "*picture smile,*" for the first 10 to 15 minutes of a photo session. What I mean is tat at the start of a portrait session, many people, probably most people actually, well they project their practiced, life-long, "I am having a good time, this is how I always,always smile in a picture, dangit!" expression. SOME people never,ever get over this habit,and they project the same expression in photos, every single time. As in every, single photo. Teeth bared, smiling-in-name-only, their eyes belying nervousness or some other subtly negative emotion. But most people, after 10 to 15 minutes of showing their "picture-smile", begin to open up, to relax, to vary their expression.

It is the people photographer's job to *elicit the desired expressions*, and then to shoot photos of the expressions, and to help his subjects project the right type of expressions. Eliciting the desired expressions might involve coaching, describing, modeling and showing, and so on, what is desired. I think that pre-shot setup and pre-shot coaching, and describing the desired end photo and expression, and being encouraging, and then shooting plenty of frames and praising the subject's efforts, goes a long way. Do this on every pose, and shoot 15, 20 frames* at least, *of each of the desired, "final" poses. You need to describe the desired expression, and help the subject "play-act" in such a way that they feel FREE and encouraged,m to move away from that awful,awful "picture-smile" type of cheesy expression that most people use. Getting away from the "picture-smile" feeling can take 10,15,20 minutes for many people. Some people take longer.

The really genuine, amazing pictures often come about a half of an hour to 45 minutes into a real photo session. Unless the person is especially outgoing and pliable and malleable in his or her expressions, you're going to have to shoot and shoot and shoot, until the person loosens up. After an hour, or so, almost any non-model type subject is done for. Unless you shoot at least 30 minutes, or have a very developed way of photographing people, and can really,really "work people magic", your best bet would likely to tell people you'll shoot pictures for about one hour, and tell them,literally, "*Not every shot's a winner, so there's no need to worry about every shot being perfect, and we do NOT want you to be smiling with a big and toothy grin in every single shot.*"You must prove that to them, by posing them, coaching them, encouraging them, and snapping plenty of photos, so that they can see for themselves that they do NOT have to project that same-old-same-old "picture smile", that you will snap them in different types of expressions.

Don't,don't,don't shoot ONLY smiley faces! That alone, *shooting less-than-a-smile*, demonstrates to real people that they do NOT have to be smiling, in order for you to shoot a photo! That is a message that needs to be understood, and many people do not think that way.

With nervous or less-than-great subjects, I think that a newcomer to posed people pictures should shoot 300 to 400 frames, at least, in an hour, if he or she wants to have 15 to 20 real,genuine,excellent frames at the end. Many regular,ordinary people are not all that great or all that comfortable in front of a camera. I'm describing a way that's worked for me when photographing nervous, sort of uptight people. To make a pizza, it takes time for the dough to rise.


----------



## Nwcid (Feb 26, 2018)

Thank you for the long, detailed posts. 

I am in the situation most find themselves in.  "Hey, can you take good pictures of me, tomorrow.....", not to make excuses, but that is why I am here trying to learn.  Like any other skill this is not one that can be mastered overnight, and I do plan on learning more.  That is why I am here asking. 

The first two pictures were from my first ever attempt to do this kind of work.  I had the 2 parents involved in "posing" the kids as it is not something I do, and that was the caveat I gave them.  That day was under 20* and we did a couple of 15-20 min shoots at my house. 

For the second 2 pictures I had watched a few videos on "how to", and I think I did a bit better.  The outdoor conditions were a bit better and the model was also more relaxed.  I got some great candid shots, but not ones she would want to use for senior photos.  We spent about 1.5 hours shooting in a few locations in park area.  I took just over 300 shots, and kept 38 main and 23 candid.


----------



## paigew (Feb 27, 2018)

I am a full time "people photographer". I go for the natural looks as well. What works well for me is to talk and really connect with my subjects. I compliment them by telling them the unique ways they are beautiful and I joke and laugh, just like friends


----------



## Vtec44 (Feb 27, 2018)

We all have our preference.  I'm too much of a detailed person to leave anything up to luck on a paid shoots, so I generally prefer posed photos.  Each photographer will pose people differently.  I just tell people to do the things that they always do and observe     Here are some of my posed photos.  I call these posed candids


----------



## Donde (Feb 27, 2018)

I take a lot of pictures of a girl who absolutely will not look anywhere but straight at me when I take her photo. I like  them but I see her in so many other poses that I would love to catch but never get the split second I need before she turns to look at me. In terms of carefully deliberated poses there is a generous helping of that in the above.


----------



## Nwcid (Feb 27, 2018)

Awesome comments and help.  

While this is not primarily the type of photography I want to do, it is a good skill to have.


----------



## pixmedic (Feb 27, 2018)

i never really understood the "fake" -vs- "natural" debate....well, for photos anyway.
a "natural" pose (whatever that means) is only good as far as the clients ability to manage on their own, which is usually quite poor. the minute you direct them in any way, congratulations...you now have a "posed" shot. I totally wouldn't even bother worrying about what is posed, or natural, or whatever you want to call it...just focus on doing whatever is needed to provide the best photo you can.
that being said, your biggest issue with #1 is that the face is not in focus, or is just very soft focus.  either way, its not one i would give a client.
they are all shot landscape, but i don't really see the value in the extra space for most of them and would have personally shot 2 and 3 in portrait orientation. maybe 1 as well, depending on how it looked cropped tall.
the locations are fantastic, but all of them look like they are forcing a smile, and the crossed arms in the third just make her look bored while she is faking a smile. a little direction and *ahem* posing would have gone a long way here. 

which 70-300 lens is that? I had the VRII version and while it was a decent performer for the dog park, i found it to be a little soft.
for portraits, (when i shot Nikon) i really loved my 85mm. I used that lens almost as much as my 70-200 for people shots. 
a great budget portrait lens is the Nikon 85mm f1.8D, which can be had for ~$300 used. a 50mm f1.4D can be had pretty cheaply as well, although the newer 50mm f1.8G might be an overall better performer than its older, albeit faster, counterpart. 

heres a few of my "natural" shots. 




DSCF5230 by pixmedic, on Flickr




DSC_5685 by pixmedic, on Flickr




DSC_1238 by pixmedic, on Flickr




DSC_1248 by pixmedic, on Flickr


----------



## Vtec44 (Feb 27, 2018)

Donde said:


> In terms of carefully deliberated poses there is a generous helping of that in the above.



Pretty much ...


----------



## Nwcid (Mar 3, 2018)

It has been a long week......

Those are good points about "properly posed", and yes that does make them better. 

My 70-300 is a VR, not a VR II.  I purchased it in 2009 with my D90.  Of the lenses I have, it was the most "appropriate".  

I have often heard good things about the 85mm class.  While it is not overly expensive, it can be depending on how much I plan on using it.  Right now I am looking at a 24-70 2.8, likely soon after a 70-200 2.8 and hopefully a full frame body also within the next few months. 

If I was going to get an 85mm it looks like I have 3 main choices (in price order), Nikon 1.8, Tamron VC 1.8 and Nikon 1.4.
Is there any real advantage to going to either of the more expensive ones?  I am a person that if there is something "better" and I can reasonably afford it, I would rather "buy once, cry once".

I have considered a 50mm on and off, but they seem to get such mixed reviews.  I know there are ton of different ones on the market, but they seem to have narrow scope of "great" uses.


----------



## Nwcid (Mar 19, 2018)

Apparently I am really struggling with the people thing of photography.  I have read tons online and watched a ton of Youtube stuff about shooting this kind of content.

In my opinion my people are still coming out soft.  I am using same equipment with same settings and getting good results with anything but people.

Any thoughts, I am here to learn.






 











 






Sorry, this one was shot with the Nikon 50mm 1.8G


----------



## Designer (Mar 19, 2018)

You have probably already done this, but here are some enlarged crops of the two photos you posted:





 

 

I guess I'm not seeing the issue that you are.  Aren't they about the same?


----------



## Designer (Mar 19, 2018)

These two shots are with two different lenses, at different distances, and with different shutter speeds.  So how can you compare them equally?


----------



## Nwcid (Mar 19, 2018)

Designer said:


> These two shots are with two different lenses, at different distances, and with different shutter speeds.  So how can you compare them equally?



I clicked on the wrong pic to upload.  I bought both a 50mm and an 85.  I will fix that right now.


----------



## Nwcid (Mar 19, 2018)

Designer said:


> You have probably already done this, but here are some enlarged crops of the two photos you posted:
> 
> 
> I guess I'm not seeing the issue that you are.  Aren't they about the same?



While the eyes are close, I am mostly looking at skin texture.  Not that Bufford has skin, but I feel like the skin on her face is, grainy, for lack of a better word.

I only used a dog for comparison since it was the same equipment.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 19, 2018)

I looked at the photo of the young woman...you uploaded a 1.2 MB JPEG, which is only average in sharpness...I would expect a higher-quality image from a JPEG of that size. One issue: it was shot at f/1.8, which is wide-open, which is NEVER the best f/stop for sharpness. It was at ISO 100, and at 1/3200 second. The total DOF band is listed at 0.35 meters, or about one foot. I can see that the picture is fairly well-focused, but again, wide-open at f/1.8, I would _NOT_ expect the lens to be performing anywhere near its optimum level. For optimum performance, I think you'd see that at f/4 or so, due to diffraction's effects, and a bit deeper DOF at f/4.5 to f/5.6.

Anyway...I have no idea how the image was sharpened, from the RAW file; that step is critical when making a large JPEG, or a small one, for that matter.

If you have VC (Vibration Control) set to ON, at 1/3200 second, that could easily have affected the overall sharpness in a negative way. At speeds faster than about 1/500, VC should almost certainly be switched to OFF.


----------



## Designer (Mar 19, 2018)

Nwcid said:


> Sorry, this one was shot with the Nikon 50mm 1.8G


Yes, I got that.  Dog photo was with the 50mm, the girl was taken with the Tamron 85mm.  

The difference in lenses and distances, shutter speeds, lighting, and all the rest make for an unreliable test.  

Try the same subject with different lenses, or different subjects with as close to the same equipment as you can get, including lighting and camera settings.


----------



## Nwcid (Mar 20, 2018)

Derrel said:


> I looked at the photo of the young woman...you uploaded a 1.2 MB JPEG, which is only average in sharpness...I would expect a higher-quality image from a JPEG of that size. One issue: it was shot at f/1.8, which is wide-open, which is NEVER the best f/stop for sharpness. It was at ISO 100, and at 1/3200 second. The total DOF band is listed at 0.35 meters, or about one foot. I can see that the picture is fairly well-focused, but again, wide-open at f/1.8, I would _NOT_ expect the lens to be performing anywhere near its optimum level. For optimum performance, I think you'd see that at f/4 or so, due to diffraction's effects, and a bit deeper DOF at f/4.5 to f/5.6.
> 
> Anyway...I have no idea how the image was sharpened, from the RAW file; that step is critical when making a large JPEG, or a small one, for that matter.
> 
> If you have VC (Vibration Control) set to ON, at 1/3200 second, that could easily have affected the overall sharpness in a negative way. At speeds faster than about 1/500, VC should almost certainly be switched to OFF.



Anytime I try and upload a file over 1.5 MB I get a warning box that says the file is too large.  I have been exporting to this site in the "limit file size to 1,500 K.  

DOF with people is where I think part of my struggle comes in.  I thought the point of having faster lenses was to shoot with wider apertures so you can get more bokeh.  If I am moving to higher f stops, won't more of my background be coming into focus?

I will keep that in mind about the VC.


----------



## Nwcid (Mar 20, 2018)

Designer said:


> Nwcid said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, this one was shot with the Nikon 50mm 1.8G
> ...



I did upload the original pic shot with the same lens and same f stop.  The shutter speed and lighting was different for sure.  

I will have another chance to shoot this weekend and I will try some of that.  This style of shooting is new to me.


----------



## Designer (Mar 20, 2018)

Nwcid said:


> DOF with people is where I think part of my struggle comes in.  I thought the point of having faster lenses was to shoot with wider apertures so you can get more bokeh.  If I am moving to higher f stops, won't more of my background be coming into focus?


Well, yes, but there are other factors in play as well.  

For maximum background (and foreground) blur, you need to optimize one or more of these factors:

Lens focal length
Aperture
distance to subject
distance behind subject
area of your sensor

If you optimize all of them, you will optimize your OOF blur.



Nwcid said:


> I will have another chance to shoot this weekend and I will try some of that.  This style of shooting is new to me.



I had not thought of portraiture as a "style".  

As you try this exercise again, use the same lens for both subjects.  It won't matter which lens you choose to evaluate, just use the same one for both.  Also try to use the same settings for both.  Same distance, same aperture, same shutter speed, same light, same everything.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 20, 2018)

I would suggest closing down the f-stop from 1.8 to f/2.2 or f/2.5 if you want to shoot close to wide open, and improve the image quality.


----------



## Braineack (Mar 20, 2018)

Vtec44 said:


> We all have our preference.  I'm too much of a detailed person to leave anything up to luck on a paid shoots, so I generally prefer posed photos.  Each photographer will pose people differently.  I just tell people to do the things that they always do and observe     Here are some of my posed photos.  I call these posed candids



these are so bad I may need to write in my LiveJournal.


----------



## Vtec44 (Mar 20, 2018)

Braineack said:


> these are so bad I may need to write in my LiveJournal.



Well crap... I'm all butt hurt now


----------



## Nwcid (Mar 27, 2018)

I have been following this thread, but been too busy to respond.  I only worked 76hr last week, plus taking a class and working on my website.

Sunday I got out for a re-shoot and think I did much better this time.  I am much happier with the results.

Still looking for any input.


----------



## birdbonkers84 (Apr 4, 2018)

Nwcid said:


> I have been following this thread, but been too busy to respond.  I only worked 76hr last week, plus taking a class and working on my website.
> 
> Sunday I got out for a re-shoot and think I did much better this time.  I am much happier with the results.
> 
> ...


I don't really photograph people, but I do enjoy reading threads on this site and learning about it.  Couple of things I picked up were backgrounds.  Pick your backgrounds wisely.  i.e no horizontal lines going through the head or vertical lines  coming out of the head.  While the first image is quite nice, those bars popping out of her head are quite distracting


----------



## Nwcid (Apr 4, 2018)

birdbonkers84 said:


> I don't really photograph people, but I do enjoy reading threads on this site and learning about it.  Couple of things I picked up were backgrounds.  Pick your backgrounds wisely.  i.e no horizontal lines going through the head or vertical lines  coming out of the head.  While the first image is quite nice, those bars popping out of her head are quite distracting



Good points.  I have been working on paying more attention to the background, in all of my images.  It is not second nature yet, thank you for pointing it out.


----------

