# Senior portrait shoot C&C welcome



## KAikens318 (Nov 24, 2009)

This was my first actual photo shoot, she loved the pics


----------



## Inst!nct (Nov 24, 2009)

Good pictures, just random questions and comments that you probably shouldnt really take into FULL consideration, but maybe a little 

Just me or is it a bit desaturated as in colors are bland?
Those slippers in last pictures have got 2 go...


----------



## NateWagner (Nov 24, 2009)

Beautiful Girl.

That being said... I think a number of them are underexposed

Also I would suggest getting away from the tree, it's a bit cliche (though I do cliche shots as well). Which isn't necessarily bad, but when that's I'm shown I long for a bit more. 

oh, and 5 ftw.


----------



## KAikens318 (Nov 24, 2009)

Inst!nct said:


> Good pictures, just random questions and comments that you probably shouldnt really take into FULL consideration, but maybe a little
> 
> Just me or is it a bit desaturated as in colors are bland?
> Those slippers in last pictures have got 2 go...




The scenery was really bland but we are at that point where the grass is dead and so are the leaves. 

I asked her if she wanted to cut out the shoes and she said no because they are part of an inside joke with her and some of her classmates


----------



## KAikens318 (Nov 24, 2009)

NateWagner said:


> Beautiful Girl.
> 
> That being said... I think a number of them are underexposed
> 
> ...




ftw?


----------



## CWN (Nov 24, 2009)

For The Win


----------



## KAikens318 (Nov 24, 2009)

CWN said:


> For The Win




Oh Lol, thanks.

She picked number 3 for the yearbook photo.


----------



## Pugs (Nov 24, 2009)

They were all underexposed, some of them by several stops.  The last one would have been so wonderful with a horizontal frame and composition that captured her legs as well.


----------



## jnm (Nov 24, 2009)

i agree, they all need quite a bit more exposure.


----------



## Andrew Sun (Nov 25, 2009)

More exposure needed, like everyone else already said, and they are currently much too soft so adding some sharpness will make these images a lot better too


----------



## Moni (Nov 25, 2009)

Loved the last one most......all others seems very cool....but could be better if it's bit more exposed.


----------



## Kegger (Nov 25, 2009)

#'s 1 and 4 are way too soft. The focal point is on the tree.

And overall, they are underexposed, by at least one stop, some by two.

And #1 looks like you fired the on board flash, try to stay away from the on board flash as it gives a very unflattering flatness to the lighting.


----------



## _rebecca_ (Nov 25, 2009)

Your profile says you don't mind edits so I picked a favourite of these and played with it. I hope you don't mind. If there's any problem just let me know and I'll remove it.

To illustrate that the underexposure and sharpness are the main problems, I took this photo to PS and adjusted curves only slightly and added an unsharp mask. The catchlights in her eyes have been dodged a bit, and I recropped as best I could to get her eyes out of the dead centre of the frame. That's it. It's a nice photo that only needed a few minor improvements.


----------



## KAikens318 (Nov 25, 2009)

_rebecca_ said:


> Your profile says you don't mind edits so I picked a favourite of these and played with it. I hope you don't mind. If there's any problem just let me know and I'll remove it.
> 
> To illustrate that the underexposure and sharpness are the main problems, I took this photo to PS and adjusted curves only slightly and added an unsharp mask. The catchlights in her eyes have been dodged a bit, and I recropped as best I could to get her eyes out of the dead centre of the frame. That's it. It's a nice photo that only needed a few minor improvements.




I don't mind the edit at all. I was playing with them in PS but when I bumped up the exposure it seemed like her skin was washing out so I didn't want to bump it too much, even her arm in this looks overexposed a tad to me, maybe it's just my monitor though.


----------



## bwlergh (Nov 25, 2009)

They are all underexposed and soft, you need to be careful where you place your focus point especially when using large apertures.


----------



## AnotherNewGuy (Nov 25, 2009)

I don't think her arm is underexposed.  Compare it to face. She probably has makeup on her face which gives it a slightly different tone.


----------



## lmchelaru (Nov 25, 2009)

What ISO are you using? They look a little bit noisy.


----------



## KAikens318 (Nov 25, 2009)

lmchelaru said:


> What ISO are you using? They look a little bit noisy.




I used a low ISO, I think it was around 400


----------



## Pugs (Nov 25, 2009)

KAikens318 said:


> lmchelaru said:
> 
> 
> > What ISO are you using? They look a little bit noisy.
> ...


Oh... Portraits, as a rule of thumb, need to be shot at 100 or lower.


----------



## KAikens318 (Nov 26, 2009)

Pugs said:


> KAikens318 said:
> 
> 
> > lmchelaru said:
> ...




But isn't ISO 100 on some cameras worse than a high ISO, more grainy with more noise? That is what I was told by a photography teacher so I never use 100 anymore. I know at the portrait studio that I work at they have it set at 100 ISO, like F14-20 depending on the room, and shutter speed at about 80 (which when you have moving children suuuuuuuuuuuuucks) Lol.


----------



## Katelyn.Rose (Nov 27, 2009)

I like them, but I think you should have challenged the creativity in yourself a little more. She is a very beautiful girl, and you could have done a lot of great poses & fabulous styles with her!


----------



## KAikens318 (Nov 28, 2009)

Katelyn.Rose said:


> I like them, but I think you should have challenged the creativity in yourself a little more. She is a very beautiful girl, and you could have done a lot of great poses & fabulous styles with her!




I would have loved to shoot all day with her as she does make a great model! We only had a limited amount of time as it got dark very quickly. I tried a few at night with the cityscape behind us, but they just weren't coming out right. Anyone have tips on night portraiture?


----------



## GeneralBenson (Nov 28, 2009)

Pugs said:


> KAikens318 said:
> 
> 
> > lmchelaru said:
> ...



That's a stupid rule.  It's rules like that that encourage people to not actually learn to understand and make their own decisions.  Shoot portraits at whatever ISO is right for the shot.  That's the only rule.  

As for the shots, some are pretty underexposed, other are massively underexposed.  The posing looks pretty stiff and a lot of the crop are awkward.  Also, the lighting is really flat and the focus seems to be off in a few.  Good effort, keep practicing!


----------



## Pugs (Nov 28, 2009)

GeneralBenson said:


> Pugs said:
> 
> 
> > KAikens318 said:
> ...


Every photography rule is meant to be broken.  The point is to know that you're breaking the "rule" and having a specific reason for doing so.  In music, going flat or sharp on a note once is a mistake; going flat or sharp on the same note in the same place every time is jazz.  

Generally speaking the rule of thumb for portraits is that you want as little noise/grain as possible to give the most flattering image of the subject.  If you choose to break that rule, it should be a CHOICE, not an accident, not based on bad advice, but a choice that you as the photographic artist are making to achieve an effect, fit a scenario, adapt to your environment, etc...

Just my two-bits... your mileage may vary...


----------



## NateWagner (Nov 28, 2009)

well, it seems like an odd rule, especially considering with many cameras you can't go below 100 even if you wanted to. I do agree that using a lower ISO is preferable in general, but with most DSLR's today I would think pretty much anything 400 and below is pretty safe.


----------



## NateWagner (Nov 28, 2009)

by the way, I agree that I think her arm is fine in the edited image. There is still detail through the whole image and it seems to be about right for me.

One other thought I have about these images is that she looks cold in each of them. I mean physically cold, maybe it's the stiffness or the clothing or something, but that's the feeling I get. brr.


----------



## ANDS! (Nov 28, 2009)

Really more of a contrast issue than anything else.  I don't find the images soft at all.  No need for any more aggressive sharpening.


----------



## Shockey (Dec 3, 2009)

Compositions are weak, exposures are very dark, color practically nonexistant.
Spend some time looking at a lot of photos by people who really know what they are doing when it comes to taking portraits, it will be time well spent.
Keep working at it you will get there.


----------



## Nikkor (Dec 17, 2009)

Just a little too dark. And I agree that those slippers need to go! Granted, she dressed herself, but still.


----------

