# Outdoor Senior Girl Portrait II



## Tally Ho (Jul 15, 2005)

Natalie again, and again I used the natural things that I find in the woods and incorporate them into the pose. In this case, a boulder under a tree.  Actually I put the boulder under this tree years ago, after I discovered how good the lighting was under the tree.  I also use this same pose in the studio, but I use one of several white Formica covered blocks under the arm.  I have several round ones, one stop sign shaped one and one square one, all about 12 inches thick.  Original on Kodak Portra 400NC film Bronica GS 1 with a 150mm lens, F 5.6 @ 1/30th second.

Tally Ho


----------



## elsaspet (Jul 15, 2005)

I'm not crazy about the harsh shadows on the face but I do like the pose and the background you used is very natural and pretty.


----------



## thebeginning (Jul 15, 2005)

the lighting seems fine to me, if a little harsh (but not really).  the pose seems a little forced though...like uncomfortable.  almost as if she is just twisting her back. might just be me though.  nice job with the composition and the setting!


----------



## Christie Photo (Jul 15, 2005)

I know what's being said about the lighting raito, but sometimes ya gotta just do it when everything else is working.  Nice work!


----------



## JonMikal (Jul 15, 2005)

Christie Photo said:
			
		

> I know what's being said about the lighting raito, but sometimes ya gotta just do it when everything else is working. Nice work!


 
what else is working besides the composition and setting?  her pose is awkward and very unnatural, thus ruining the shot for me.  additionally, the dark shadow underneath her is distracting...looks like she's sitting on a truckers seat cushion.


----------



## Tally Ho (Jul 15, 2005)

(Cut and paste) "looks like she's sitting on a truckers seat cushion." Actually it is a piece of black carpet. It keeps the butt from getting wet. 

A poorly posed subject will look static and boring in a photograph.  Things like the head not tipped, shoulders straight to the camera, sitting square on the buttocks, both knees at the same height, both feet at the same height, both hands at the same height, flat lighting, expressionless face, hands stacked on top of one another, hands stacked on top of knees and cropping at the joints.  As one can see I broke NONE of these rules when I took this image. 

I see it is time to post "The 25 Rules For Better Portraits" for those who would like to learn portraiture from a master photographer.  I will dig them up and post them for all to see.

 Tally Ho


----------



## Christie Photo (Jul 15, 2005)

JonMikal said:
			
		

> what else is working besides the composition and setting?  her pose is awkward and very unnatural...



Well...  like you say...  the setting is OK, providing enough depth for a portrait with enough elements of the outdoors to satisfy an "outdoor session."  And the composition too is OK.  I would like to see a bit more room on the left of the frame.  Also, the clothing could have been better.  A long-sleeved, deeper toned shirt would have been a big improvement.

The posing isn't so far off that it fails.  I would like to see her shift her weight a bit to her right hip and not so flat on her bottom.  Bring her left elbow up, closer to her knee.  I feel the head it turned a bit too far with the nose pointing past the the camera.  Sadly, the rock is too tall.  Rocks can't be adjusted... easily.  The hands are not posed well.  This would be a good time for a prop to hold, such as a blade of grass, flower, etc., otherwise close them a bit, but leaving the index fingers relaxed.  The bare feet are fun.

Finally, a diffuser in front of the lens would help a bit with the strong lighting ratio, decreasing contrast.  I would finish with a vignette aroud the whole thing.

Whew!  I guess I was a bit lazy with this critique.  Thanks, Jon, for the nudge.  But I gotta tell ya, this one is not a catastrophic failure.  They'll come back for more of this.


----------



## JonMikal (Jul 15, 2005)

Tally Ho said:
			
		

> I see it is time to post "The 25 Rules For Better Portraits" for those who would like to learn portraiture from a master photographer. I will dig them up and post them for all to see.
> 
> Tally Ho


 
which 'master photographer' did you have in mind?


----------



## Big Mike (Jul 15, 2005)

I think it's how the hands are hanging...that caught mt attention right away...somehow they just don't look right.

The lighting is very nice though.


----------



## Christie Photo (Jul 15, 2005)

Tally Ho said:
			
		

> I see it is time to post "The 25 Rules For Better Portraits" for those who would like to learn portraiture from a master photographer...



Easy now.... this one wouldn't "hang."

-Pete


----------



## JonMikal (Jul 15, 2005)

Christie Photo said:
			
		

> The posing isn't so far off that it fails.


 
maybe not, but you must agree it looks like she's halfway into the 'exorsist spin'


----------



## Christie Photo (Jul 15, 2005)

JonMikal said:
			
		

> maybe not, but you must agree it looks like she's halfway into the 'exorsist spin'



 :lmao:


----------



## photogoddess (Jul 15, 2005)

I too would like to see a tad bit more room on the left. While the shadowing on her face is less than ideal, it seems to be working ok here. Overall, I would call this portrait a good one although the one thing that really gets my attention is the expression on this young woman's face. She looks downright uncomfortable.


----------



## Tally Ho (Jul 15, 2005)

JonMikal said:
			
		

> which 'master photographer' did you have in mind?


  Don Peterson Master Photographer, Photographic Craftsman.  I already posted them above in the 'Tips" area.

Tally Ho


----------



## elsaspet (Jul 15, 2005)

JonMikal said:
			
		

> what else is working besides the composition and setting? her pose is awkward and very unnatural, thus ruining the shot for me. additionally, the dark shadow underneath her is distracting...looks like she's sitting on a truckers seat cushion.


 
Dang, I didn't see that at first. (The seat, carpet, whatever the heck it is.) Now it bugs the heck out of me.  I just assumed it was more of those shadows that seem to affect that side of her body.


----------



## Christie Photo (Jul 15, 2005)

BTW...  I keep several Hefty brand trash bags in my case.  They're black and come folded.  I use when posing people seated on the ground to prevent dirt and grass stains.  I do a lot of "tucking" just before I shoot.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Jul 16, 2005)

_The_ Don Peterson? Why didn't you say so to begin with?
Don Peterson, Master Photographer. That guy is a legend!  :hail:


----------



## Tally Ho (Jul 16, 2005)

Christie Photo said:
			
		

> BTW... I keep several Hefty brand trash bags in my case. They're black and come folded. I use when posing people seated on the ground to prevent dirt and grass stains. I do a lot of "tucking" just before I shoot.


 
I used to use trash bags, but this little piece of carpet wiorks really well and isn't glossy.  If it shows up too much I simply Photoshop it out, I didn't in this shot however because I didn't even notice it!

Tally Ho


----------



## Mike Jordan (Jul 16, 2005)

There are a lot of rules, tips, suggestions, etc., in photography... but it's how they are interpretertated and implemented that counts. 

You might not have broken any rules (at least the ones you go by), but how you interpreted them, unfortunately, does not flatter this girl. As others have pointed out, she just doesn't look comfortable. You have her body facing to far away from the camera, which causes her to have to turn her head too much. In portriture you want the subject to look comfortable and natural. This is not a natural position for the human body. On another list of rules, there is one about which leg should be down and which one up... it's usually perferable (and more polite) to have the closes leg to the camera up. 

The lighting isn't as bad as some of the others pointed out... I think shadow detail was probably lost in the compression of the image for display. The image does seem to need rotating clock wise a tad bit though. 

Keep in mind that other photographers (even if they go by different rules) are going to see things in an image that non-photographers won't see. If they, the senior and the mom (who probably has the check book) like it and buy lots of copies, who cares what the rest of us think. But even non-photographers can look at an image and know something isn't right... they might not know what or why they don't like it, but they do. So they don't buy or they buy the minimum and never have you do their portraits again and don't pass the word around about you. 

You have had some others that looked pretty good. To me (and it appeares to some others) this one doesn't work as well as it could. But then, not all of what we shoot does. That's why we keep working at it. 

I'll lay odds that in 6 months, those rules you mentioned will read different to you than they do now and 6 mohths after that they will be different still. Things just take on a whole different light the more we practice and learn. 

Mike


----------

