# Family Headshots; CC?



## beccaf91 (Mar 13, 2017)

So went to Georgia this week to take care of some "bizness" and along the way stopped to shoot a few more family members. I like the way the headshots turned out. I can see the right eye is a lil' fuzzy, and a little of her hair is out of frame (I was standing on the back of a park bench for this angle so I was trying to maintain my balance and shoot). When I was checking the shots, I didn't notice the boy's ears were out of focus, now it's bugging me. But overall, I think the lighting was ok, no stark shadows and the subject was brighter than the background. I feel like I hit some points and I'm aware of what I missed, (I think). CC?


----------



## JonA_CT (Mar 13, 2017)

I sometimes like the from above angle, but i think it depends on the person and situation. I think for family shots like this, a more traditional height might have looked better.

One of the harder things to do when you have a nice lens like that 85mm is to forget that it has F1.8 as an option sometimes. For all of these photos,  you probably could have shot at F4 or F5.6 pretty easily and still had nice background separation and a good shutter speed. You'd still have the shallow DOF, but you wouldn't have the issue where half of the face isn't in focus.


----------



## beccaf91 (Mar 13, 2017)

Yeah, I can't resist  but I do forgot with the longer focal lengths I can stop it down and still get a nice DOF. I also wanted it wide open bc it was starting to get really dark. But I will make a mental note to stop it down next time. I like the angle on people with "rounder" faces. I think it gives a nice outline and keeps their chin from blending in with their neck. Also, I am really short, 5'2. If I'm not standing on something, its hard for me to get shots that aren't looking up your nose.


----------



## jcdeboever (Mar 13, 2017)

These are nice images, very flattering renders. I am not experienced enough to offer any tips. You can see they love you, which IMO is what makes these stand out.


----------



## nickgillespie (Mar 13, 2017)

I'd have a look at some photographers that are really good at these types of portraits. The first one that comes to mind is Jon Canlas. He generally shoot either straight on or just slightly above, not too much. 

He also shoots MF and always wide open with portraits. I think if it's done right it works. This image was done with a Contax 645, with the 80f2. He doens't use that camera anymore, but uses that lens on a Pentax 645 now. He also uses the Pentax 67 with the 105. All of that would translate roughly into 55mm-60mm on full frame @ f1.2 (roughly). 

I'd work on your angles, cropping, body language, and genuine emotion.


----------



## mmaria (Mar 13, 2017)

it's ok for ears to be oof
it's difficult to get both eyes in focus with this kind of posing 

love the younger boy... don't shoot that shallow or shot, just practice a lot 

anyway, nice


----------



## mmaria (Mar 13, 2017)

nickgillespie said:


> I'd work on your angles, cropping, body language, and genuine emotion.


 agree on this


----------



## JonA_CT (Mar 13, 2017)

nickgillespie said:


> I'd have a look at some photographers that are really good at these types of portraits. The first one that comes to mind is Jon Canlas. He generally shoot either straight on or just slightly above, not too much.
> 
> He also shoots MF and always wide open with portraits. I think if it's done right it works. This image was done with a Contax 645, with the 80f2. He doens't use that camera anymore, but uses that lens on a Pentax 645 now. He also uses the Pentax 67 with the 105. All of that would translate roughly into 55mm-60mm on full frame @ f1.2 (roughly).
> 
> I'd work on your angles, cropping, body language, and genuine emotion.



Lots of good information here -- a couple things to point out in this photo that might help you with yours (at least IMO). Her face is square to the camera, which helps reduce the OOF portions, the angle is not quite as high, and the model is leaning her head towards the camera. This helps the chin/neck problem you were mentioning.

Another thing that you can do is to take a few steps back. I ran a quick DOF calculation for your lens and camera, and the in focus part is about 4 inches deep at 10 feet. at 15 feet, it's 8 inches. That difference is enough to get the entire face in focus, probably, and then you can just crop tighter later.


----------



## Designer (Mar 13, 2017)

beccaf91 said:


> I feel like I hit some points and I'm aware of what I missed, (I think).


Hi, Beccaf91!  I think these shots are very well composed and framed, and as you said, the light is very good as well.  They all show a thin DOF though, which tends to be a distraction.  I have a DOF calculator on my phone so I can get the specs anywhere I have my phone.  My choice was free.


----------



## beccaf91 (Mar 13, 2017)

JonA_CT said:


> Another thing that you can do is to take a few steps back.



I realized that after the first shot or 2. But since I was so intent on getting that ridiculous angle, I was literally on the back of the bench and they were sitting on the opposite end furthest from me. I was trying to lean back as I shot but kept losing my balance. I'm sure it was comical to passersby.


----------



## beccaf91 (Mar 13, 2017)

Designer said:


> beccaf91 said:
> 
> 
> > I feel like I hit some points and I'm aware of what I missed, (I think).
> ...


There's an app for that!??! And OMG thank you. I might cry... I was braced for the worst. I'm not getting a big head or anything but I'm glad you think I'm improving somewhat.


----------



## beccaf91 (Mar 13, 2017)

jcdeboever said:


> These are nice images, very flattering renders. I am not experienced enough to offer any tips. You can see they love you, which IMO is what makes these stand out.


Thanks, I'm glad you can tell. They all get on my nerves.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 13, 2017)

Shot#2 is the best of the group. I would watch the backgrounds closely for hard-edged objects, like the pole that attaches to the head in a couple of these. The last shot has an unusual head tilt and camera angle of view.


----------



## beccaf91 (Mar 13, 2017)

Derrel said:


> Shot#2 is the best of the group. I would watch the backgrounds closely for hard-edged objects, like the pole that attaches to the head in a couple of these. The last shot has an unusual head tilt and camera angle of view.


I knew you would see the tree. It's been glaring at me since I posted these.


----------



## Designer (Mar 13, 2017)

beccaf91 said:


> There's an app for that!??! And OMG thank you. I might cry... I was braced for the worst. I'm not getting a big head or anything but I'm glad you think I'm improving somewhat.


Yes, I can see a definite improvement!

First, go here and try it out online to see how it works and how it looks.

Online Depth of Field Calculator

It's pretty self-explanatory, just plug in your camera and your lens, and the distance and aperture.  Read the DOF and estimate how deep it needs to be to keep everything in focus.  A person's head is (x) inches, front to back, a group of three is (x) inches front to back, and so on.

After you get a feel for how it works, start looking around for a mobile app.  Some are pay, some are free, some are goofy-looking, etc.  Pick one, and practice with it.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Mar 13, 2017)

Not a bad start!

I'd agree with the others about the DOF. Whenever I do headshots, I usually start around f/5.6 and work from there. The main thing is to have the eyes in focus. 

As for the angle thing, you said you're too short to take photos at eye level, so my advice would be to bring a portable step stool! I got one from Lowe's for like $10, and always keep it in my car in case I need it. Gives you an extra foot or so to work with.


----------



## beccaf91 (Mar 13, 2017)

DGMPhotography said:


> Not a bad start!
> 
> I'd agree with the others about the DOF. Whenever I do headshots, I usually start around f/5.6 and work from there. The main thing is to have the eyes in focus.
> 
> As for the angle thing, you said you're too short to take photos at eye level, so my advice would be to bring a portable step stool! I got one from Lowe's for like $10, and always keep it in my car in case I need it. Gives you an extra foot or so to work with.



I had one in my trunk; but I broke it when I was opening it up. Lol. -_- I'm just so obsessed with bokeh but with an 85mm lens at that distance, even if I have a smaller aperture I should still get that effect, right?


----------



## Gary A. (Mar 13, 2017)

Thank you for sharing and accepting the critiques in stride.  Two remarks:
1) I echo all the above critiques both negative and positive; and
2) I recognized that much of your description of the difficulties was setting the stage for the images.  But I also sensed that you may have been making a few excuses.  I learned early in my pro career that nobody, (with the exception of Mom), cared about the difficulties.  They ... (I had editors not clients) ... They only cared about the photos, the end results.


----------



## josh817 (Mar 14, 2017)

Go

Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk


----------



## DGMPhotography (Mar 14, 2017)

beccaf91 said:


> DGMPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Not a bad start!
> ...



Yes, it's a balancing act. You can still have the background blurry, while keeping the subject in focus.


----------



## beccaf91 (Mar 14, 2017)

Gary A. said:


> Thank you for sharing and accepting the critiques in stride.  Two remarks:
> 1) I echo all the above critiques both negative and positive; and
> 2) I recognized that much of your description of the difficulties was setting the stage for the images.  But I also sensed that you may have been making a few excuses.  I learned early in my pro career that nobody, (with the exception of Mom), cared about the difficulties.  They ... (I had editors not clients) ... They only cared about the photos, the end results.


Trust me, I'm not whining to my clients and in general they are happy with what they get. But I want to be happy with what I'm producing. I like to be the best (or at least competitive) in everything I endeavor to do. I apologize if that's how they come off. I'm not here to be pitied or have my work judged with a handicap (lack of gear, experience, vertical challenges). I am simply stating the issues I encounter, as I encounter them, in the hopes that someone here will relate and relay to me how they overcame those challenges themselves. I am aware of my limitations and 99% of those limitations will only be overcome with my own hard work. But the 1% could be overcome with excellent advice from seasoned artists that I admire. That's all.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 14, 2017)

This is a neat DOF, AOV, and Equivalent Lens calculator page! Depth of Field, Angle & Field of View, & Equivalent Lens Calculator - Points in Focus Photography

it shows the depth of field, angular fields of view, and physical picture heights and widths AND as a bonus also has some word descriptions like Closeup of Face, Head & Shoulders,


 Half Body, and so on, which take into account the format used, and the focal length, and how far away the camera must be to show the desired framing! Pretty cool. This used to be done by charts, back in the Speed Graphic days. Now, with modern software, one can plug in a camera and a lens length,and hit the desired framing, and the height and width the camera will capture can be shown in seconds, and the DOF varies as the lens f/stop chosen is entered.

This type of Angle of View calculation is very helpful when you need to know what real-world physical dimensions a camera will capture with a given lens, at various distances, such as when you might have to photograph a certain-sized item in a confined location, etc..

In the screen cap I made, I selected Canon APS-C camera, 85mm lens, and clicked Head & Shoulders as my desired framing, and it spat out Distance of 8.793 feet; I selected my favored f/stop for this, f/8, and I got back a DOF of from 8'4" to 9'3", or about 11 and one-half inches total DOF band.


----------



## Designer (Mar 14, 2017)

beccaf91 said:


> I'm just so obsessed with bokeh but with an 85mm lens at that distance, even if I have a smaller aperture I should still get that effect, right?


As you see from Derrel's post, multiple factors affect the DOF and the blur.  Use either the one Derrel used or the one I posted, and start plugging in some numbers. 

Things that matter:

Bokeh - The quality and design of the lens.  Nothing more.  I am more familiar with Nikon lenses, but presuming the Canon 85mm produces "Bokeh", then you should be able to get the effect you want.  Please note: the blur, depending on the lens, can be smooth and creamy i.e.: "Bokeh", or it can be jittery, angular, or otherwise misshapen in some way, which doesn't actually qualify as "Bokeh".  There are many types of blur, identified with their own names.  In  case you don't get the smooth creamy dreamy OOF that you are looking for, you need to buy a better lens.  Do your research before buying an expensive lens that doesn't give you "Bokeh".

Aperture; Go toward the wide end, but depending on all factors, maybe not the widest.

Focal Length; Medium long (85mm - 200mm) works best.

Distance; Distance from lens to subject, AND distance behind subject as well.  Note: blur can be had in front of your subject as well as behind.  Both at once, if you have the right foreground/background.

Sensor; You're kind of stuck with the one you have, unless you have multiple cameras from which to choose.

So I would say that just offhand, you are probably not going to use the 85mm at exactly the same distance anyway, but as I have been saying, run the numbers so you actually know what your DOF is.  Carry a tape measure with you out in the field with you before you learn to estimate distances.


----------



## Designer (Mar 14, 2017)

beccaf91 said:


> I am simply stating the issues I encounter, as I encounter them, in the hopes that someone here will relate ..


I relate.  Issues of my own.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 14, 2017)

Designer said:
			
		

> beccaf91 said:
> 
> 
> > I am simply stating the issues I encounter, as I encounter them, in the hopes that someone here will relate ..
> ...



It's good to hear some of the back story behind a set of photos; knowing how/what/why can give us insight. You're short, and so you got up onto an elevated shooting platform, and found it was precarious, and also lead to the shooting down on subjects POV, which shows up the most in #4 of the older boy, and I'd say that there was a valuable lesson learned there. But as you said, you got light subjects in front of a darker backdrop, so you got subject *Pop!* and separation. The lighting is smooth and not awful, nor squinty,etc.,etc..

So...I wondered to myself, what could be improved,quickly and withiout much effort, with these? What would *I do* with these shots? I pulled them into LR, and frankly, there was not a lot wrong with your initial JPEGs. ANY photo can retouched for an hour, or two hours, but that's not the point.


cropped a bit, minor adjustments, I am not super fond of this cross-body eye glance,and its sort of the odd shot out from this set, lighter, and different than the others.





Minor WB adjust, Vignette #1 from Lightroom. A strong shot! Pleasing rendering! She looks great!


Cropped this more tightly. White T-shirt might have UV brighteners in the fabric itself, which is common, and makes it photograph a bit blue-tinted but that makes the shirt look super-white to human eyes in the real world. Whites of the eyes look good, but the shirt is in evening light, so a little bit of blue tint is somewhat expected by many people. Maybe could use a little bit of WB warming.


Cropped into this quite a bit, and gave it a slight rotate CW.

One thought, I like to look at, crop, and judge shots like this as small images on-screen, so I get a sense of the overall gestalt of the image. If I like the shot as a thumbnail-sized picture, I will most usually like it as a large image. I hope you don't mind me showing these minor reworks, Becca. I think you can see they are for the most part much better than they are bad!


----------



## chuasam (Mar 21, 2017)

Image #1
might have tried from other side of the face.
Quite often the side with the parting is the better half of the face (not sure why).


----------



## beccaf91 (Mar 21, 2017)

chuasam said:


> Image #1
> might have tried from other side of the face.
> Quite often the side with the parting is the better half of the face (not sure why).



That's interesting.... I will try that this weekend.


----------

