# Portrait of my Girlfriend



## birdbonkers84 (Feb 20, 2017)

No.1





No.2




No.3





These shots were taken using a tripod and a Nikon 50mm prime lens.  Only light source was a big window to the right of the camera at around 11 am.

On No.1 you'll notice random strands of hair, especially near the bottom of her chin.  Are there any specific techniques I could use in post to remove these?


----------



## mmaria (Feb 20, 2017)

missed focus in all of them

spot healing brush tool for hair... among else... you tube is your friend for techniques

she's a cutie


----------



## birdbonkers84 (Feb 20, 2017)

mmaria said:


> missed focus in all of them
> 
> spot healing brush tool for hair... among else... you tube is your friend for techniques
> 
> she's a cutie



Thanks for your reply,

I made an attempt to have my focus point on her eyes, is my shutter speed to slow then? I was using a wireless remote.


----------



## mmaria (Feb 20, 2017)

Coull3d said:


> I made an attempt to have my focus point on her eyes, is my shutter speed to slow then?


 well your settings were probably wrong because you don't understand them ...  you need to understand dof and posing, recomposing... just practice and see what happens 



> I was using a wireless remote.


 why?


----------



## loonatic45414 (Feb 20, 2017)

A lot of portraits are traditionally done in soft focus. It's a great collection, lovely shots but a touch too bright since there are some colors washing out. 

I would stop the aperture down to the point where the shutter speed gets around 1/50 or 1/60. That should get everything more or less into focus. At that point you can do any soft focusing in post processing. 

In the old days we'd have a lens with a light coat of oil or even use nose grease on the negative for soft focus, but no need to go there these days.

Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk


----------



## Peeb (Feb 20, 2017)

mmaria said:


> *well your settings were probably wrong because you don't understand them* ...  you need to understand dof and posing, recomposing... just practice and see what happens


OP said he was going for the eyes as a focal point and your immediate assumption is that any miss is the result ignorance?  

Maybe.

Or maybe his camera/lens combination needs to be fine tuned.  Appears to me his rig might be back-focusing a tad. 

Maybe he's right that his shutter speed was too slow (couldn't find any EXIF).  

Lovely subject, btw


----------



## birdbonkers84 (Feb 20, 2017)

loonatic45414 said:


> A lot of portraits are traditionally done in soft focus. It's a great collection, lovely shots but a touch too bright since there are some colors washing out.
> 
> I would stop the aperture down to the point where the shutter speed gets around 1/50 or 1/60. That should get everything more or less into focus. At that point you can do any soft focusing in post processing.
> 
> ...


Hey thanks for your comments,

I think it must be a monitor problem i.e not calibrated properly.  The images on my home monitor appear darker.  Luckily I can see what you mean, I have 2 monitors at work and one shows these images really bright (hence I understand what you mean) and the other shows them how my monitor at home shows it.  So that's one issue I need to sort asap, buy a new calibrated monitor.

I've looked back at the photo details and yes my shutter speed was too slow and not the minimum 1/50 for the length of my lens.  I was also shooting in A mode instead of manual (oops).

I'm here to learn...and that's why I'm not scared of CC when I've made a mistake


----------



## pixmedic (Feb 20, 2017)

i dont think there was any missed focus on #1.  i dont know what the aperture was for these shots, or how far away from the subject you were, but it could be a DOF issue. 
in #2 i think it might be a camera movement issue...too show a shutter speed. could be what happened in #3 as well. 
for these, i would have shot with a faster SS and more DOF. maybe f/5.6 or so. 
i think the white balance is off with all of these... that _*could*_ just be the color of your walls, but her skin looked red tinty in LR. 
i took a stab at these. i didnt want to mess with cloning or healing or anything like that...just a few minor tweaks to suit how I would edit them. 

this shot is fine for a shoulder/head shot. (fly away hairs aside) theres really nothing terribly wrong with this one. 
i think this was probably shot between f/1.8 and f/2.8 and you just needed more DOF since im guessing you were standing pretty close. 





focus issues here. it looks like her knees are in focus. i love the concept, but i would reshoot this one. i straightened this one out a bit as well as WB. 





a little straightening done here too. i really like this shot. its a great horizontal portrait. 
honestly, there arent any glaring focus issues here. this shot is fine as well for web viewing or even prints 11x14 or less. 


 

overall, you have the right idea.  get monitor calibrating tools. I use colormunki display. not terribly expensive. 
there could be backfocusing issues...and if  your shooting at f/1.8 or something like that, it makes focusing more difficult. 
also, even if your using a good tripod, remember that people dont always hold perfectly still so make sure your shutter speed is high enough to compensate for small movements in your subjects. 
i like a decent DOF in my portraits. I dont like portraits where the face is in focus, but you lose focus by the time you get around to the ears....so im always shooting at f/4 or higher, and rarely under a shutter speed of 1/160th. 

in my opinion, #1 and #3 are fine for web viewing and small prints.


----------



## birdbonkers84 (Feb 20, 2017)

pixmedic said:


> i dont think there was any missed focus on #1.  i dont know what the aperture was for these shots, or how far away from the subject you were, but it could be a DOF issue.
> in #2 i think it might be a camera movement issue...too show a shutter speed. could be what happened in #3 as well.
> for these, i would have shot with a faster SS and more DOF. maybe f/5.6 or so.
> i think the white balance is off with all of these... that _*could*_ just be the color of your walls, but her skin looked red tinty in LR.
> ...



Thank you for the feedback Pixmedic,

I guess I need to get used to also posting the exposure settings so the forum yodas can work their magic.  I've linked these via tinypics and I'm guessing it doesn't post the EXIF data.

No.1 - F/8.0 shutter speed 1/10 (too slow I get that now) ISO 100, tripod with wireless remote, 1 source of light in the form of a big ass window for all 3.

No.2 - F/8.0 Shutter speed 1/13, ISO 100.

No.3 - F/8.0 Shutter speed 1/13 ISO 100.

These were all shot on Aperture Priority mode, which I understand now probably wasn't the correct function to use as it controls the SS for me.  I'll remember to use manual mode next time and bump up the ISO or use a lower F stop.

These images have only been edited in Photoshop RAW, it's just a plain white wall that she was sitting in front of and the camera was around 1-2 meters from her (give or take).


----------



## Ysarex (Feb 20, 2017)

About the focus: As pixmedic noted the focus is forward in the seated photos -- her feet and knees. This is classic auto-focus behavior. The auto-focus system in a DSLR is designed to lock focus on the closest thing it finds. If you have more than one focus sensor active then the equation is simple ==> the sensor over the closest object in the scene will lock first and that's your focus point. Go over the camera's AF system controls and make sure your focus point will be her eyes next time.

Don't save your photos as PNG files. Use JPEG. The PNG format is not able to store an ICC color space profile and so it breaks color management leaving the colors in your photo undefined. PNG is an inappropriate format for photography.

I went ahead and did the hair re-touch you asked about in the first photo -- cloning tools. I went further and did a little more re-touch and made some color and tone adjustments -- your skin tone for her was leaning somewhat Mediterranean (olive yellow) and your location says you're from Scotland.

Joe


----------



## goooner (Feb 20, 2017)

You need to use a flash. Bounce it off the ceiling and up your ss to 125-200. I got a cheapish 60€ flash off ebay that works great on my nikon, it makes the world of difference.


----------



## birdbonkers84 (Feb 20, 2017)

Ysarex said:


> About the focus: As pixmedic noted the focus is forward in the seated photos -- her feet and knees. This is classic auto-focus behavior. The auto-focus system in a DSLR is designed to lock focus on the closest thing it finds. If you have more than one focus sensor active then the equation is simple ==> the sensor over the closest object in the scene will lock first and that's your focus point. Go over the camera's AF system controls and make sure your focus point will be her eyes next time.
> 
> Don't save your photos as PNG files. Use JPEG. The PNG format is not able to store an ICC color space profile and so it breaks color management leaving the colors in your photo undefined. PNG is an inappropriate format for photography.
> 
> ...



Thanks Joe,

I'll make sure to start saving in .jpg for photos from now on!

I always have single point focus on, I definitely had it over the subjects eyes for the first photo, maybe I didn't for the other two!? Either way I'll make doubly sure next time!  Your edit is great and I like it the vignette is a really nice touch.  I'll need to research more into retouching as I did the bare minimum on these in PS RAW.

Dunno about the skin tone, didn't think I upped the saturation at all and certainly didn't touch the tint or temp sliders.  I'll go back and have a look over the file and see if I can match it to your edit 

Also my g.f will probably kill me for saying this, but she use a body wash that gives a slight colouring to her skin, coming from Scotland we don't see a lot of sunshine


----------



## pixmedic (Feb 20, 2017)

goooner said:


> You need to use a flash. Bounce it off the ceiling and up your ss to 125-200. I got a cheapish 60€ flash off ebay that works great on my nikon, it makes the world of difference.



^^^ this! ^^^

a bounced flash works wonders for indoor shooting.


----------



## birdbonkers84 (Feb 20, 2017)

goooner said:


> You need to use a flash. Bounce it off the ceiling and up your ss to 125-200. I got a cheapish 60€ flash off ebay that works great on my nikon, it makes the world of difference.



Thanks Goooner,

I have that on my amazon wish list, I was initially going for natural light, but I'll definitely give that a try!


----------



## Ysarex (Feb 20, 2017)

Coull3d said:


> Dunno about the skin tone, didn't think I upped the saturation at all and certainly didn't touch the tint or temp sliders.



How did you set the white balance in the first place?

Joe


----------



## birdbonkers84 (Feb 20, 2017)

Ysarex said:


> Coull3d said:
> 
> 
> > Dunno about the skin tone, didn't think I upped the saturation at all and certainly didn't touch the tint or temp sliders.
> ...



I have a feeling it was on auto. 


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## chuasam (Feb 20, 2017)

I don't know her well enough (obviously) but her smile seemed really forced and fake.
Try to get her to really relax.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 20, 2017)

chuasam said:
			
		

> I don't know her well enough (obviously) but her smile seemed really forced and fake.
> Try to get her to really relax.



She has beautfiul teeth, but the consistency in her smile from frame to frame makes me think that she's still using her "picture face"; the one that she's developed over her early lifetime, and which has become the expression she goes to for every picture. This is a fairly common situation, but it does seem that she was not yet fully, truly relaxed with the picture-taking process that was going on right then. It can be difficult to get a really truly free, open, relaxed expression in a short photo session, and shooting tripod-mounted and at slowish shutter speeds can make many subjects kind of tense up, and the slowish shutter speeds sort of makes the photgrapher nervous too.

The best part of the shoot is how attractive and healty she looks, and how well put-together her wardrobe is, with good jewlery, a smart outfit, and well-manicured fingernails in that very modern white nails style, a pedicure, etc. A lot of times I've seen women show up for photo shoots with quite bad nail polish in this type of one-person photo shoot, and the lack of attention to details can spoil many poses where the nails or hands show.


----------



## Ysarex (Feb 20, 2017)

Coull3d said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > Coull3d said:
> ...



Then you probably should have touched the temp and tint sliders.  Better yet just measure the WB with a reference card. You mentioned using Adobe RAW so I assume you have raw files. Auto WB is a "best guess." Take the guess work out of it and snap a photo of a WB reference either before or after you take the photos.

Auto WB will return varying degrees of success or failure depending on the subject. Here's an especially egregious example of a fail with a very difficult (for the auto WB algorithm) subject.




 

I leave my camera set to auto WB as well, but that little piece of Styrofoam (cut from food tray) in the inset above is in my camera bag at all times. I take the photos I want to take and when I'm finished I just grab a snap of the Styrofoam in the same light as the subject. Processing the raw files I take a WB reading off the Styrofoam and transfer those temp/tint values to my photos. It's simple. It doesn't interfere with your taking the photos. You get accurate WB to start.

Joe


----------



## birdbonkers84 (Feb 20, 2017)

Derrel said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks Derrel for your input, I'll pass on the comment about her teeth, she'll love that one especially!


----------



## birdbonkers84 (Feb 20, 2017)

Ysarex said:


> Coull3d said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...



Thanks again Joe this is great! I'll be sure to get one of those in my photography bag!  

So I'm home now and have looked at the images again and it looks different on my home monitor compared to both my work monitors (both aswell showing different images) Going cross-eyed over this, but I'll get it sorted.

With regards to the WB of the first image, I clicked on the auto WB and it does make a significant difference.  Seems to removed a yellowy/orange tint from the skin.


----------



## dasmith232 (Feb 20, 2017)

In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with using Aperture-Priority mode. You can still open up to a larger aperture and bump up the ISO speed. I think that you don't need to "feel bad" about not using Manual.

Given the field-of-view and the 50mm lens, this looks like a full-frame camera. I'd also guess that it's closer to 2m given how much of her is in the frame. So, on the point of the selected aperture, at 2m and that lens, f/8 will give you about 3/4 meter of DOF. Opening up to f/5.6 still gives you over 1/2m of DOF. (At 2m and f/5.6, DOF is 0.517m.) f/4 is still 0.36m. That gives you 2 stops back.

Because the camera is on a tripod, camera shake is not an issue. The only issue (causing blur) would be subject movement, but this is someone who's sitting pretty still. Those two stops puts your shutter up to 1/40 sec, which is certainly better. You still have the ISO option. Any modern camera (especially full-frame) will let you *easily* go up a couple of stops to ISO 400. Now the shutter is 1/160 sec. And that's plenty fast for this kind of picture. Personally, I wouldn't hesitate to use ISO 800, and this is easily into hand-holdable speeds at 1/320 sec. And hand-holding will be much more comfortable and natural (ditching the tripod and remote release) causing the "forced smile" look.

And this is still using natural light. With flash, you get all kinds of speed back. But because you don't have the flash yet, you still have options in getting to a faster (and hand-holdable) shutter speed.

Regarding a calibrated monitor, there are two very distinct types of calibration: color and brightness. Even without a calibrated monitor, just a simple brightness adjustment might be in order. Certainly cheaper than a new monitor. For "people pictures" getting proper color is pretty important, so I'd still agree that calibration is a good thing. Color Munki comes in a few different configurations. The "lower" packages including the calibration device and the "higher" packages come with a color card that includes "neutral" gray as well as subtle adjustments for cooler or warmer renditions.


----------



## birdbonkers84 (Feb 20, 2017)

dasmith232 said:


> In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with using Aperture-Priority mode. You can still open up to a larger aperture and bump up the ISO speed. I think that you don't need to "feel bad" about not using Manual.
> 
> Given the field-of-view and the 50mm lens, this looks like a full-frame camera. I'd also guess that it's closer to 2m given how much of her is in the frame. So, on the point of the selected aperture, at 2m and that lens, f/8 will give you about 3/4 meter of DOF. Opening up to f/5.6 still gives you over 1/2m of DOF. (At 2m and f/5.6, DOF is 0.517m.) f/4 is still 0.36m. That gives you 2 stops back.
> 
> ...



Now that I'm home I've actually gone and measured the distance the camera was from her.  It was roughly 3.6-4m.  Also I shot this on a Nikon D3300, which I believe is a cropped body.  The 2 sitting poses especially have been cropped.

I think after all these great replies my shutter speed or should I say lack of was the biggest problem.  Next time I'll be a little more patient and less hungover.

Thanks for the helpful info


----------



## dasmith232 (Feb 20, 2017)

Okay, pushing out to 4m (and yeah, that's a crop sensor), f/8 gives you 2m of DOF. Even at f/4 you're still getting almost a full meter of DOF (0.96m).


----------



## Derrel (Feb 20, 2017)

RE: shutter speed. Frames 1 and 2 have very, very slight shutter speed blurring on her face, but her body is rendered crisply. This degree of blurring is very slight, and most people will not see it. It might in some cases, actually ADD to the sense of realism. It's hard to spot this degree of blurring, but if one looks at the eyelashes or brows, or another area with fine, fine details the slight, 3- to 4- pixel-level movement of the subject is there, but hard to see except at large image sizes. On a smaller image, or a small print, or even an 8 x 10 print, that level of ultra-slight blurring might actually _enhance_ the feeling of realism within picture.

Had the shutter speed been slower by a stop or two, her expressions would have been fairly blurry if she was talking, or laughing, or moving her head, etc..

I dunno...I think she looks attractive, super-fit, pleasant, well-groomed, and that these three pictures show off her overall "look" pretty well. Very simple setting, minimal props, very honest, straight-forward portraiture of her. My guess is a second session would be even better, especially if you or her have not done this type of portrait shoot before. My advice on this type of shoot is to reallllllly shoot, and at some point, maybe 200 to even as many as 300 frames into the session, you will get true, genuine, **amazing**, revelatory expressions over a five- to ten-minute or so time frame, where everything will come together: expressions, poses and photographer capturing the amazing essence of the subject. THAT is how a serious portrait session seems to go for me, and for many others: the early stuff is somewhat superficial, and then once the subject loosens up, the pictures become revelatory, not just solid representations of their face, hair,clothes, and environment.

I find that the best photos come about an hour into a session.


----------



## dasmith232 (Feb 20, 2017)

Something else came to my mind earlier and I didn't mention it, but it seems to fit here.

I read somewhere, and I use this myself. Don't say "smile". Smile is a command and the person will respond to a command. Rather, ask/talk about something they're happy about. The smile is then genuine and result of truly being happy about (whatever the thought is).


----------



## birdbonkers84 (Feb 20, 2017)

Ysarex said:


> Coull3d said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...



So i looked over my RAW file in LR and it seems I had the contrast up way too high, which was probably causing discolouring in her skin tone, using your example as a reference I've tried to match it in LR.  Lowering the contrast back to normal levels and using the auto WB option made a massive difference.


----------



## birdbonkers84 (Feb 20, 2017)

Hopefully the skin tone is better? Also removed the hairs around her face.


----------



## chuasam (Feb 20, 2017)

Coull3d said:


> Hopefully the skin tone is better? Also removed the hairs around her face.



Not fond of photos where you see too much sclera. Have her look straight ahead rather than peek into the corners.


----------



## mmaria (Feb 21, 2017)

Peeb said:


> mmaria said:
> 
> 
> > *well your settings were probably wrong because you don't understand them* ...  you need to understand dof and posing, recomposing... just practice and see what happens
> ...


it's not "immediate assumption" because I looked carefully at his images and came to conclusion that he doesn't have enough knowledge to understand the settings he had in camera, I would never use the word "ignorance"
If he had understanding of all settings in the camera he wouldn't make those concrete mistakes and even when he makes those kind of mistakes he wouldn't need to ask about what's wrong, he would knew




> Maybe.
> Or maybe his camera/lens combination needs to be fine tuned.  Appears to me his rig might be back-focusing a tad.


 nice of you to think like that



> Maybe he's right that his shutter speed was too slow (couldn't find any EXIF).


 which confirms that he doesn't understand settings he used


@Coull3d you don't need to buy anything before you get to know your camera. The only correct way of shooting is YOUR way! You'll figure out what's your way after certain experience.
Shoot in S, A or M mode to get to know why, how, what for and then choose what fits to you.
Listen to photographers whose work you like or admire, don't get caught too much in technical stuff. Get to know technical stuff and rules and then play with it the way you want to. Photography is art, not a science. True emotion captured is better than any technical-sterile image.
That's the way I look at things... You need to figure out what you think

eta: You have a lovely model and she seems like she doesn't mind to be in front of your camera... keep shooting and practicing


----------



## birdbonkers84 (Feb 21, 2017)

mmaria said:


> Peeb said:
> 
> 
> > mmaria said:
> ...



Thanks for the input,

I had a feeling I had mistakes hence why I've come here to have them pointed out, if I didn't have the courage to post images here I would then still be taking out of focused images and not saving them as .jpg.

In my line of work we save renders as either tiff or png so its a habit I need to put on hold for photography, I get that now.  I'm not a moron, I've learnt a lot in the last 3-4 months of "taking up photography" as a side hobby.  I'm a quick learner, but I have a habbit of rushing things something I also need to work on.  Sometimes you have to make mistakes to learn from them...I think that concept is lost on a few these days


----------



## birdbonkers84 (Feb 21, 2017)

chuasam said:


> Coull3d said:
> 
> 
> > Hopefully the skin tone is better? Also removed the hairs around her face.
> ...



I'm gonna assume you mean the whites of her eyes!  Thanks I'll take that into consideration


----------



## mmaria (Feb 21, 2017)

Coull3d said:


> Sometimes you have to make mistakes to learn from them...I think that concept is lost on a few these days


it's not "sometimes".... Everyone makes mistakes and no one learns from compliments.
I make my own mistakes everyday and I'm ready for critique every day. 

waiting to see what you'll do next


----------



## birdbonkers84 (Feb 21, 2017)

Thank you to everyone that pitched in with comments, I've learned some valuable lessons and it even got me editing the 3 photographs in Lightroom for the first time.  I'm much happier with the new images.


----------



## birdbonkers84 (Feb 23, 2017)

No.1    f/2.2  50mm SS 1/160 ISO 200.




No.2   f/1.8   SS 1/160 ISO 200.





Wouldn't mind some opinions on these, these were edited in Lightroom, taking into consideration the WB and skin tones.  I also lightened her eyes in both images and saved them as .jpg! and both have been cropped.

I'm also aware that these look different on 3 monitors and 1 phone.


----------



## Peeb (Feb 23, 2017)

#1 seems to have some kind of focus issue.
#2 seems tack sharp to me.


----------



## goooner (Feb 23, 2017)

Good shots, I'm not a portrait photog, so I'm sure the pro's will chime in soon. These are much better than the 1st few, no camera shake that I can see at all. I would have liked a little more DOF in #1, say around F4, to get more of her nose in focus, or back up a little to get more DOF. Also focus on the eye closest to the camera, the models right eye seems to be the focus point. The 2nd shot the horizon is extremely skew, not sure if it is intentional or not. The horizon 'cutting' her head in half is also not ideal.


----------



## birdbonkers84 (Feb 23, 2017)

Peeb said:


> #1 seems to have some kind of focus issue.
> #2 seems tack sharp to me.



Thanks Peeb



goooner said:


> Good shots, I'm not a portrait photog, so I'm sure the pro's will chime in soon. These are much better than the 1st few, no camera shake that I can see at all. I would have liked a little more DOF in #1, say around F4, to get more of her nose in focus, or back up a little to get more DOF. Also focus on the eye closest to the camera, the models right eye seems to be the focus point. The 2nd shot the horizon is extremely skew, not sure if it is intentional or not. The horizon 'cutting' her head in half is also not ideal.



Thanks Goooner,

No.1 has been cropped in quite a bit around her head, but I'll definitely try a f4 next time.  I'm not going to lie I struggle sometimes to see the focus point grid on the D3300, I hope its a lot easier on the D7100 when it arrives next week.  Will make sure I get it right next time.

With regards to the 2nd image, I've actually cropped this in quite a bit and intentionally rotated it, but now you've pointed out the horizon cutting through her head I might have to undo this crop!


----------



## pgriz (Feb 27, 2017)

Your GF is a beautiful lady.  You've gotten good advice from some very capable photographers.  I won't add much except to say that while we live in a three-dimensional world, our photographs are 2-dimensional, and paying attention to the background is really important.  Otherwise, trees growing out of heads, and similar oddities will keep drawing eyes away from the stuff that you want to show.  It's the easiest way to see if the person is an amateur or a professional who knows his/her art - the way the background is managed.


----------



## birdbonkers84 (Feb 28, 2017)

pgriz said:


> Your GF is a beautiful lady.  You've gotten good advice from some very capable photographers.  I won't add much except to say that while we live in a three-dimensional world, our photographs are 2-dimensional, and paying attention to the background is really important.  Otherwise, trees growing out of heads, and similar oddities will keep drawing eyes away from the stuff that you want to show.  It's the easiest way to see if the person is an amateur or a professional who knows his/her art - the way the background is managed.



Thanks, I'll be sure to remember that!


----------

